Staged Slip-and-Fall: Late Notice, EUO Refusal, and SIU Referral
Sunrise Plaza LLC owns a strip center and carries a commercial general liability policy with a $1,000,000 occurrence limit, a $10,000 medical payments limit, a $5,000 deductible, and a condition prohibiting voluntary payments. On March 3, shopper Tanya R. alleges she slipped on a wet floor near the entrance at 7:40 a.m., injuring her back and knee. No employee witnessed the fall, and the incident log has no entry for that date. Sunrise's manager learned of the incident on March 5 but did not notify the carrier until March 26, after Tanya's attorney sent a $75,000 demand letter. Tanya has filed three prior slip-and-fall claims in 18 months, all represented by the same firm and treated by the same pain-management clinic, which holds a lien. Her public social media shows a hiking trip two weeks after the alleged injury. The carrier sends a reservation of rights citing late notice and the cooperation clause and requests an examination under oath and medical authorizations. Tanya's counsel refuses both and files suit.
1. Does the 23-day delay in reporting bar coverage? Explain how the carrier should analyze notice and issue its reservation of rights.
Read the worked answer
Notice conditions are enforced differently across states, so the first step is to identify the governing rule. Many jurisdictions apply a notice-prejudice rule to liability policies: the carrier must show that the delay materially prejudiced its ability to investigate, defend, or settle before it can deny coverage. Others enforce prompt-notice clauses strictly, particularly for claims-made policies, and a late report can defeat coverage without proof of prejudice. The policy language also matters: notice must be prompt, and the insured must forward suit papers immediately.
Here the delay is 23 days after the manager learned of the fall, during which the floor may have been mopped, cameras may have overwritten footage, and the condition may have changed. That is a plausible prejudice argument, but the carrier should not deny yet. It should issue a reservation of rights that identifies the specific policy provisions, states that coverage is being investigated, confirms that a defense is being provided subject to the reservation, and preserves the right to deny or seek reimbursement of defense costs if coverage is later found lacking. The reservation letter should not threaten the insured or accuse anyone of fraud; it should request the incident log, maintenance and mopping schedules, camera footage, and any statements.
A denial based on late notice alone, before the prejudice investigation is complete, is the kind of decision that supports a bad-faith claim.
2. Can the carrier compel Tanya to sit for an examination under oath and sign medical authorizations? What should it do instead?
Read the worked answer
An examination under oath is a policy condition owed by the insured, not by a third-party claimant. Tanya is not a party to the contract and owes no contractual duty to cooperate or to submit to an EUO before suit. The carrier can compel Sunrise's manager and employees to sit for examinations under oath, produce records, and testify about maintenance procedures, staffing, and the absence of any incident log entry. Refusal by an insured to cooperate can support a coverage defense after the carrier documents prejudice.
Medical authorizations require the claimant's consent. Tanya's counsel can refuse pre-suit, and the carrier cannot obtain protected health information without authorization or legal process. Once suit is filed, the carrier has litigation tools: written discovery, requests for medical records, depositions, independent medical examination under the rules of civil procedure, and subpoenas to the pain clinic. The lien held by the clinic is relevant to damages and to the credibility of the treatment, and it should be explored in discovery.
The carrier should not treat the refusal as evidence of fraud. It should document the refusal, proceed with the insured's EUO and records, and use the litigation process to obtain the information it could not get voluntarily.
3. What fraud indicators exist, how should the SIU referral be handled, and what fair-claims and legal risks must the carrier manage?
Read the worked answer
The indicators include: no witness and no incident log entry; a 23-day gap before the demand letter; three prior claims in 18 months; the same law firm and the same lien-holding pain clinic across claims; a demand amount that matches soft-tissue treatment patterns; and social media showing physical activity inconsistent with the alleged back and knee injury. None of these is proof. Repetitive claims, provider concentration, and inconsistent activity are screening tools that justify a documented, objective investigation.
The referral should go to the special investigation unit with the specific facts, dates, and documents, a statement of what is suspected and what is not yet known, and a request for a defined investigation plan: recorded statement of the insured's employees, maintenance records, surveillance within legal limits, social media preservation, and a check for prior claims databases. The claim file should record the referral and the reasoning.
Fair-claims practice obligations continue throughout. The carrier must acknowledge and respond to communications promptly, conduct a reasonable investigation, not deny without a factual basis, and not accuse the claimant of fraud in correspondence without support. Fraud reporting in good faith to an insurer or law enforcement generally carries a qualified privilege, but publishing accusations beyond those channels can support a defamation claim, and delaying payment of a clearly covered portion to pressure the claimant can support a bad-faith claim. The right posture is to defend under a reservation, investigate diligently, pay what is owed, and let the evidence drive the outcome.