Opinion ID: 2387713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was plaintiff entitled to recover on the breach-of-contract claim as a matter of law?

Text: Clearly the facts of this case indicate that the breach-of-contract claim was at least fairly debatable. The policy of insurance required in this case, as in all such homeowner policies, that in the event of loss: The insured shall give immediate written notice to this Company of any loss,    furnish a complete inventory of the    property, showing in detail quantities, costs, actual cash value and amount of loss claimed; and within sixty days after the loss, unless such time is extended in writing by this Company, the insured shall render to this Company a proof of loss, signed and sworn to by the insured   . The insured, as often as may be reasonably required, shall exhibit to any person designated by this Company all that remains of any property herein described, and submit to examinations under oath by any person named by this Company   . No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with. It is undisputed in the case at bar that plaintiff did not submit to a sworn deposition as requested by the company. It is further undisputed that the proof of loss submitted by plaintiff filed more than sixty days after the loss did not show in detail quantities, costs, [or] actual cash value at the time of the loss. Indeed, in Daniel v. Pawtucket Mutual Insurance Co., 506 A.2d 1032 (R.I. 1986), we affirmed a directed verdict in favor of the insurer on the ground that the insured had filed a proof of loss that did not contain complete information (her descriptions regarding where she purchased many of the items were vague and certain items were simply designated as gifts), and on the further ground that the insured failed to appear and give a sworn statement under oath. The circumstances of this case that so closely parallel the facts in Daniel make it abundantly clear that plaintiff was not entitled to recover as a matter of law and that her claim was at least debatable. It shall later be pointed out in this opinion that the amount of her loss claimed in the proof of loss was significantly greater than the amount supportable by her own expert's testimony. Consequently we are of the opinion that plaintiff did not establish that her claim was not fairly debatable and that she was entitled to judgment on the breach-of-contract count as a matter of law. Therefore, Fitchburg was entitled to a directed verdict on the bad-faith claim. The trial justice erred in failing to grant Fitchburg's motion for directed verdict in respect to count 2.