Court Opinion

ID: 9761232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:35:07.593124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:21.296694
License: Public Domain

Shea, J.
(concurring and dissenting). I agree fully with Parts I, III and IV of the court’s opinion. My disagreement is only with Part II of the opinion, which concludes that the oath upon the proof of loss form was “required by law” within the meaning of General Statutes § 53-368. I fail to comprehend how an oath on a proof of loss under a fire policy can be said to be “required by law” when General Statutes § 38-99 (b) provides that policies without a provision for an oath on a proof of loss are permissible if they contain the three essentials specified: (1) fire coverage equivalent to the standard fire policy; (2) the standard form provisions in relation to mortgagee interests and obligations; and (3) completeness as to all terms without *621reference to other documents. The fourth condition, that the commissioner be satisfied that the policy “complies with the provisions hereof,” confines the discretion of the commissioner to ascertaining whether the prior three conditions have been met by the proposed policy. The commissioner would not be authorized to insist upon a provision for oaths upon proofs of loss, because such a provision could not reasonably be deemed necessary to implement fulfillment, of the three essential requirements specified by § 38-99 (b), none of which pertains to proofs of loss.
Since it is optional for an insurance company to include a provision for an oath on a proof of loss in a policy after obtaining commissioner approval, which cannot be withheld merely because of the absence of an oath, such an oath is not “required by law.” It cannot be contended that oaths which are called for only by the terms of an agreement are “required by law.” The legislature obviously did not intend to include all oaths within the ambit of § 53-368, but imposed the “required by law” limitation so that it would apply only in those situations deemed sufficiently important to have induced the legislators to specify an oath as essential. Presumably those would involve circumstances where some strong public policy would be implemented by the requirement of an oath and would not include those where the requirement of an oath was thought desirable merely by the parties involved. By giving the insurer the right to omit the oath on a proof of loss and to sell fire policies with or without it, § 38-99 (b) has left the decision of whether to include such a provision in a policy entirely to the parties. Since the provision is no longer an essential ingredient of a fire policy, I do not see how it can be said to be “required by law,” and would remand the case with direction to render judgment dismissing the information with prejudice.