## Facts

- Rachael Siravo’s home was completely destroyed by fire.
- The loss was covered by two fire insurance policies issued by Great American Insurance Company and another insurer.
- Siravo sought payment of policy proceeds for the fire loss.
- The insurers asserted defenses including: (1) arson attributable to Siravo, (2) misrepresentation of the extent of the loss, and (3) failure to file a sworn proof of loss within the time required by the policies and Rhode Island’s statutory standard fire policy, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-5-3.
- In federal district court, a jury returned a general verdict for the insurers, and judgment entered for the defendants.
- On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that a determinative issue depended on unsettled Rhode Island law regarding the effect of a late sworn proof of loss.
- The First Circuit certified to the Rhode Island Supreme Court the question whether an insured’s late filing of the sworn proof of loss required within 60 days bars recovery absent proof that the insurer was prejudiced by the delay.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed only the certified question and did not decide the ultimate merits of coverage or other defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Rhode Island’s statutory standard fire policy (R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-5-3), an insured’s failure to submit a sworn proof of loss within 60 days automatically bars recovery.
2. Whether the insurer must prove actual prejudice from the insured’s late proof of loss to rely on the delay as a forfeiture defense.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court answered the certified question in favor of the insured.
- Late filing of the sworn proof of loss required by the standard fire policy does not, by itself, bar recovery.
- An insurer may invoke late proof of loss as a defense only if it proves actual prejudice caused by the delay.

## Legal Principles

- Proof-of-loss requirements in insurance policies function as “notice” provisions for purposes of forfeiture analysis.
- An insurer cannot avoid liability for noncompliance with notice-type provisions (including proofs of loss) unless it demonstrates actual prejudice resulting from the delay.
- The prejudice requirement applies even when the proof-of-loss requirement is mandated by statute as part of the standard fire policy form.
- Forfeiture-based defenses grounded solely in technical noncompliance are disfavored when the insurer’s interests (such as investigation or adjustment of the claim) were not harmed.

## Conclusion

Rhode Island law requires an insurer to prove actual prejudice to bar recovery based on an insured’s late sworn proof of loss under the standard fire policy; mere lateness, without prejudice, is not a complete defense.


Siravo v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 410 A.2d 116 (R.I. 1980)