Columns

When your home or business suffers direct physical damage—whether from fire, water, or another covered event—you expect your insurance company to evaluate your claim fairly and promptly pay what is owed. But many policyholders are caught off guard when the insurer requests an Examination Under Oath as part of the claim's process.

By Rabih Hamawi

When your home or business suffers direct physical damage—whether from fire, water, or another covered event—you expect your insurance company to evaluate your claim fairly and promptly pay what is owed. But many policyholders are caught off guard when the insurer requests an Examination Under Oath as part of the claim's process.

What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO)? 

An EUO is a formal proceeding where the insurance company questions you about your claim while you are under oath. 

Think of it as similar to a deposition—but it happens during the claim's process, not a lawsuit.

What to Expect:

You are placed under oath (sworn to tell the truth).

The insurer’s attorney asks detailed questions.

A court reporter records everything.

Your answers can be used to approve or deny your claim.
 
Why do insurance companies request an EUO? 

Insurance companies request an EUO as part of their investigation process, particularly when a claim involves complex facts or raises questions that require clarification. 

The primary goal is to verify the details of the loss, assess the accuracy and consistency of the policyholder’s statements, obtain information about damages sought, and evaluate overall credibility. In many cases, insurers also use the EUO to gather information that could justify limiting or denying coverage under the policy.

An EUO is more likely to be requested in situations involving large or high-value claims, where the financial exposure is significant. 

It may also be triggered by inconsistencies in prior statements, gaps or missing documentation, or circumstances that the insurer believes warrant closer scrutiny. 

In some cases, even without clear evidence, insurers may suspect potential fraud and use the EUO to explore that possibility. Claims involving business interruption or loss of income are also commonly subject to EUOs, as they often require detailed financial review and supporting documentation.
 
What to do if an EUO is requested after a property insurance claim

Take these steps immediately:

Do not ignore the request.

Timely submit a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss.

Ask what documents are required.

Request clarification on topics to be covered.

Prepare thoroughly before attending.

Consider legal guidance early.

What happens during an EUO?

Understanding the EUO process can help reduce stress and ensure proper preparation. During an EUO, you are placed under oath and questioned by the insurance company’s attorney about your claim, while a court reporter records everything in a transcript.

The questions typically cover the cause of the loss, the specific property that was damaged, your financial situation, and any prior claims history. 

You may also be asked to provide supporting documents, such as receipts, repair estimates, or photos of the damaged property. Preparing in advance and knowing what to expect can help you answer clearly and consistently, protecting your claim from unnecessary challenges or delays.
 
Practical mistakes to avoid during an EUO 

Even small missteps during an Examination Under Oath can put your claim at risk. 

Common mistakes include:

Guessing answers instead of saying “I don’t know.”

Volunteering extra information not asked by the insurer.

Appearing unprepared or without supporting documents.

Being defensive or argumentative during questioning.

Failing to review prior statements before attending.

Attending an EUO without an experienced insurance attorney by your side.

 Avoiding these mistakes helps ensure your testimony is accurate, consistent, and protects your claim from unnecessary challenges.
 
Why you need an attorney for your insurance claim

An EUO can be complicated, and small mistakes can lead to reduced or denied claims. An experienced insurance attorney helps you understand your policy, prepare documents, and answer questions accurately to protect your rights.

Attorney Rabih Hamawi is an experienced insurance-coverage attorney who has successfully handled hundreds of claims and recovered millions for policyholders. The Law Office of Rabih Hamawi can be reached at (248) 905-1133.

I recently had a client send me a document relating to a partnership dispute. The agreement looked fine at first glance and purported to release the client from further liability to the business. It had professional formatting, familiar boilerplate, all the right headings. As I continued reading, the indemnification clause flatly contradicted the limitation of liability two pages later.

By Zana Tomich
Dalton & Tomich PLC

I recently had a client send me a document relating to a partnership dispute. The agreement looked fine at first glance and purported to release the client from further liability to the business. It had professional formatting, familiar boilerplate, all the right headings. As I continued reading, the indemnification clause flatly contradicted the limitation of liability two pages later. The dispute resolution section listed mediation, arbitration, and litigation as concurrent remedies with no sequencing. No governing law provision anywhere. I asked where the contract came from. The answer: ChatGPT.

That story is not unique to my practice. I have been hearing versions of it from colleagues in every area of law. 

These AI-drafted agreements are showing up more often, and they are becoming a real source of business disputes. 

If contract work is not your focus, you may not catch every issue. But knowing what to look for and when to pick up the phone and refer the client, can save them a world of trouble down the road.

Why AI-generated contracts fail

Here is the core problem: these tools predict what a contract should sound like based on patterns. They are not doing legal reasoning. The output reads well and mimics the tone and cadence of professional drafting, but there is no judgment behind it. The tool does not account for your client’s risk tolerance is, what regulations govern the transaction, or how a judge in Wayne County would read a particular clause.

Internal contradictions are the biggest failure I am seeing. The tool will generate competing payment terms or conflicting termination rights in different sections of the same agreement without catching the inconsistency. Missing provisions are just as common. I regularly see agreements with no governing law clause, no definition of material breach, nothing resembling a workable dispute resolution process. Then there is what I call jurisdiction blindness: the tool pulls language rooted in another state or country’s law and drops it into a Michigan contract where it means nothing. And finally, there is the problem of false precision. The language sounds dense and authoritative, but when you slow down and parse it, it does not actually say anything enforceable.

What makes this worse is that the finished product looks good. A business owner sees clean formatting, legal terminology, and section headings and assumes the document is solid. Nobody discovers the problems until the relationship goes sideways and one party tries to enforce the agreement, or the other tries to get out of it.

What to watch for across practice areas

This is not just a business litigation problem, either. These contracts are turning up everywhere: in real estate deals, employment arrangements, vendor agreements, partnership formations. 
A colleague in estate planning told me about an LLC operating agreement a client had generated to hold rental property. No buyout provisions. Nothing addressing member dissociation under Michigan’s LLC Act. The management structure described in the document bore no resemblance to how the parties actually ran the company. I have heard similar stories from real estate attorneys dealing with purchase agreements full of ambiguous contingency language, and from employment lawyers finding independent contractor agreements that describe what any court would recognize as an employment relationship. That is a misclassification lawsuit waiting to happen.

Every one of these situations has the same thing in common. The client asked a tool to do something that requires professional judgment, and the tool delivered a document that looks competent but is not. Worse, by the time you are seeing it, the contract has often been signed and performed on for months.

Getting Ahead of the Problem

If you spot one of these or even suspect you are looking at one, do your client a favor and get them in front of contract counsel before the document becomes a lawsuit. A review on the front end might run a client a few thousand dollars. Litigating an ambiguous or unenforceable agreement on the back end will cost multiples of that, plus the relationship it destroys along the way.

What to Look For

You do not need to be a contract specialist to spot the warning signs. Look for provisions that repeat or contradict each other in different sections of the same document. Check whether there is a governing law or venue clause, and if there is, whether the jurisdiction it names has any connection to the parties. Watch for indemnification language that is so broad it shifts all the risk onto one side without that party seeming to realize it. See if key terms like “material breach,” “confidential information,” or “work product” are actually defined, or just used and never explained. And pay attention to the dispute resolution clause. If it references mediation, arbitration, and litigation all at once without specifying an order or which one controls, that is a problem. Any one of these is a good reason to pick up the phone and connect your client with someone who does this work every day.

These tools are not going away and for certain tasks they can be useful. But drafting a contract that will hold up when things go wrong requires judgment, context, and years of watching deals fall apart. A piece of software does not have that. 

The best thing we can do is help our clients understand the difference before they learn it the hard way. 

And when the document is already on the table, making the right referral might be the most valuable ten minutes you spend on that client all year.

Financial reforms adopted in the wake of the 2007–2008 global financial crisis have not prevented continuing bailouts, Professor Jeffery Zhang points out in a new paper. 

By Bob Needham
Michigan Law

Financial reforms adopted in the wake of the 2007–2008 global financial crisis have not prevented continuing bailouts, Professor Jeffery Zhang points out in a new paper. 

Zhang refers to the problem as “the Mike Tyson theory of financial regulation,” after the boxer’s famous saying, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” In this case, the Dodd-Frank reforms that looked good on paper have proven to be “too narrow in design and too daunting in practice,” Zhang writes.

His new paper, forthcoming in the Iowa Law Review, explores the reasons that Dodd-Frank has not performed as hoped and considers an alternative. He recently answered five questions on the issue:

1. How common are bank failures these days?

Individual bank failures happen all the time. As I try to highlight in the paper, this is nothing new. In fact, we have a well-oiled system for dealing with these failures. 

Supervisors are good at coming in and saying, “Hey, time to close up shop.” Then the FDIC comes in and makes sure all the deposits are good. There are no hiccups for individuals and minimal hiccups for the economy.

However, the worry coming out of the global financial crisis was that the system was on fire, not just one individual bank. Moreover, it was these really large banks and other financial institutions that were wobbly. So the idea was that maybe we should do more to prevent that from happening without resorting to bailouts.

2. You discuss two particular provisions in Dodd-Frank designed to prevent taxpayer bailouts. What are they?

Dodd-Frank in general was a response to the ad-hoc bailouts in 2007 and 2008. The whole idea was to improve the safety and soundness of the entire system and of these individual institutions so that we don’t have these ad-hoc bailouts in the future. 

Title I of Dodd-Frank requires the largest institutions to write “living wills”—a plan to resolve a bad situation without asking for government intervention. Title II is a complementary measure that says if Title I proves insufficient, then the FDIC can step in.

In practice, though, these remedies have never been used. It was a worthwhile experiment. I’m all in favor of regulatory experimentation, but if we’ve tried something, after a while we should honestly reassess the weak points and the strong points.

3. What went wrong?

A fear of the unknown. We established these tools, but we’ve never used them. If a house is on fire, and you have no experience with putting out fires, your knee-jerk reaction is to run away. 

You’re not going to use a new tool during a panic. 

That’s where Mike Tyson comes in: Everyone has an elaborate plan for a crisis—but if you don’t practice, you get a little scared. You abandon the plan and fall back on the familiar. In financial crises, that means resorting to more bailouts. 

We saw this in 2023 with the bailouts of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse. Regulators spent 12 and a half years creating a regulatory framework to not make the same mistakes again. Then you get the stress test you’re looking for in both the US and in Switzerland, and the plan got thrown out the window. 

If you ever want this resolution framework to be credible in the eyes of the market, to use it successfully, you’ve got to put it into practice somehow. Otherwise, every time a crisis comes up, we’re going to get that knee-jerk reaction.

4. Your paper suggests that part of the solution is to “practice” on smaller institutions?

Yes—institutions that are still large but not massive. If regulators could use the tools on smaller institutions, they could build confidence but also demonstrate that the tools can work. 

Right now, this won’t happen because the thresholds for invoking the tools are so high. We have to lower the thresholds—I’m suggesting institutions of somewhere between $10 billion and $50 billion. Those are big enough to matter, but not “too big to fail.” 

5. So if the threshold was lowered, would that be enough, or do we need further changes?

If we really want to make the system safer, that by itself is not enough. If we can lower the threshold, that at least gets us in the right direction. 

One other change that might help is if we direct the regulators to actually use the tools. 

Congress might have to revise the regulation to make it an automatic process—requiring that unless otherwise determined, you must use the resolution regime. Changing that structure could 
help.

The word “niche” carries several meanings, from describing a small recess in a wall to referring to a specialized segment of the market. The most powerful meaning, however, is the one that speaks to a sense of purpose, being “best fitted” for something. In this sense, a niche is not just a comer carved out but a place where a person’s skills, passions, and values align in a way that feels natural and sustaining.

By Sarah E. Kuchon
Hohauser Kuchon

The word “niche” carries several meanings, from describing a small recess in a wall to referring to a specialized segment of the market. The most powerful meaning, however, is the one that speaks to a sense of purpose, being “best fitted” for something. In this sense, a niche is not just a comer carved out but a place where a person’s skills, passions, and values align in a way that feels natural and sustaining. We often speak of”finding our niche” as if each of us has a single destination waiting to be discovered. However, a life of meaning is not about narrowing toward one fixed point. It is about finding a space that allows us to grow, to give, and to remain true to who we are. Whatever direction we choose, the goal is the same: to bring the best version of ourselves forward and to be “best fitted” for what we take on. 

What It Means to Be “Best Fitted”

Being “best fitted” goes beyond ability. Skills can be learned and refined, but a true niche is about alignment between one’s inner self and outer work. Being “best fitted” is not about landing a perfect job. It is about identifying where what we do is both meaningful to us and valuable to others. It is about making intentional choices about how we spend our time and energy. It is also about aligning our work, commitments, and relationships with our strengths, passions, and values rather than drifting into roles or paths by default. When we are best fitted, we thrive. 

The Cost of Being Misfitted 

Too often, professionals stumble into careers without pausing to ask whether they have found their real fit. They may achieve outward success yet still feel restless or unfulfilled. The cost of being misfitted is subtle but profound. When our work does not align with who we are, it often shows up as restlessness, fatigue, or a nagging sense that something is missing. Success achieved without alignment can feel hollow, leaving us wondering why the milestone we chased did not bring the fulfillment we imagined. Over time, the strain of forcing ourselves into roles that do not fit can erode not only our energy but also our confidence, creativity, and joy.

Discovering Where You Are Best Fitted 

Finding a role, a path, or even a way of living that aligns with our strengths, passions, and values is rarely accidental. It is not a matter of luck or waiting for the perfect opportunity but a process of discovery that unfolds through curiosity, reflection, and experimentation. Often, small, intentional steps are needed to illuminate the path. The following strategies can provide a framework for discovery, turning what might feel like aimless wandering into thoughtful exploration. 

—Reflect on Your Strengths and Passions 

Begin by taking stock of the activities and roles that energize you. Ask yourself: “What do I do well? What comes naturally to me?” These are your strengths. Then ask: “What do I enjoy doing so much that time seems to fly by when doing it? What projects leave me feeling creative and engaged?” These are your passions. The place where your strengths and passions overlap is often the first clue toward a niche that feels authentic and meaningful. 

—Notice Patterns in Feedback 

Next, pay attention to how others respond to your contributions. Colleagues, friends, and clients often notice our gifts before we do. 

Ask yourself: “Which of my skills or qualities are consistently recognized or appreciated?” External perspectives and feedback can shine a light on strengths we might overlook, helping us see where our natural abilities meet the needs of the world around us. 

—Experiment and Explore 

Finding our niche is rarely a one-step decision or a single choice. It is something we discover through trial, reflection, and adjustment. Be willing to step outside your comfort zone and try new roles, projects, or experiences. Each experience gives you data. Ask yourself: “What energizes me? What drains me? What feels aligned? What feels mismatched?” Each experiment is a chance to test and explore what feels aligned and what does not. 

—Align with Values and Market Needs 

A true niche honors our values and meets real needs. You may have passion and skill in an area, but if there is no demand, it will be difficult to build a career around it. On the other hand, working in an area of high demand that does not align with your values will leave you burned out and unfulfilled. The sweet spot lies where authenticity meets opportunity, when your work reflects who you are and contributes something meaningful. To identify your values, start by considering what matters most to you. If the gap between your values and work is too wide, it might be time to seek a new role, organization, or field that offers a better fit. This can feel risky, but long-term fulfillment often requires the courage to step away, explore, and adjust. 

Finding My Niche 

For years, I felt like I was just moving through life. As a personal injury attorney, I had honed my abilities and achieved success, yet something felt incomplete. I wanted to serve my clients in a deeper, more holistic way, one that went beyond the confines of law. In pursuing that purpose, I explored counseling and yoga, developing new skills and discovering unexpected ways to connect with and serve my clients. 

While some thought I was taking a risky or unconventional path, to me it felt like the only one. In following my passions, I began to understand what it truly meant to be “best fitted.” At first glance, being an attorney, a counselor, and a yoga instructor seem like three very different paths, but for me they share deeper, meaningful connections. In essence, all three roles center on service, guidance, and human connection, using specialized knowledge to help people navigate challenges, grow, and find alignment in their lives. What once felt like separate callings have woven together into a life of purpose, where I discovered my niche of serving others with both skill and heart. 

Be Patient with the Process 

The search for a niche is really the search for ourselves. It is less about finding a fixed destination and more about cultivating awareness of where we are best suited to contribute, grow, and thrive. Whether we wander and explore or hone a particular path, the journey itself teaches us who we are and what matters most. In this way, the pursuit of a niche becomes not just a search for alignment but a practice of presence, reflection, and authenticity. 

Through small reflections, experiments, and observations, we can gain a clearer understanding of where we are “best fitted,” thereby finding our niche. 
————————
Sarah E. Kuchon, of Hohauser Kuchon, is the 93rd president of the Oakland County Bar Association.

In today’s digital world, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are everywhere. Many homeowners, business owners, and policyholders turn to AI chatbots for quick answers about insurance coverage, insurance claims, or legal questions about insurance law. While AI can provide helpful general information in limited circumstances, it is not a substitute for legal advice from an experienced insurance attorney. 

By Rabih Hamawi

In today’s digital world, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are everywhere. Many homeowners, business owners, and policyholders turn to AI chatbots for quick answers about insurance coverage, insurance claims, or legal questions about insurance law. While AI can provide helpful general information in limited circumstances, it is not a substitute for legal advice from an experienced insurance attorney. 

Mistaking AI guidance for professional counsel can lead to costly mistakes when filing insurance claims or dealing with insurers.

Why AI Cannot Give Legal Advice

AI tools, including ChatGPT, Bing AI, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Claude (Anthropic), Perplexity AI, and Grok (xAI), can generate responses based on patterns in data, but they cannot:

• Analyze your personal or commercial insurance policy in detail

• Interpret complex legal language specific to your jurisdiction

• Provide advice tailored to your unique situation

• Represent you in disputes with insurance companies

• Represent you in court when suing an insurance company

Only an experienced insurance attorney can review your policy, evaluate coverage, and guide you on your legal options. Using AI as a sole source of guidance can create misunderstandings or lead to denied claims.

Common AI Misunderstandings About Insurance Coverage 

Many policyholders assume AI can fully explain insurance coverage, but it often provides only general information. AI cannot review your specific policy, identify exclusions, or confirm whether a particular loss is covered.

Relying solely on AI can lead to mistakes, such as misunderstanding coverage or missing critical claim requirements. This often causes confusion, such as:
Coverage assumptions – AI may generalize insurance terms, but cannot confirm if your policy includes specific protections.

Policy exclusions – AI might not detect subtle exclusions in your policy, which insurers can use to limit or deny claims.

Claim procedures – Filing a claim incorrectly can reduce your reimbursement or void coverage. AI can suggest steps, but these may not match your insurer’s requirements.  

Example: A homeowner asks AI if flood damage is covered. AI responds based on general knowledge: “Some homeowners insurance includes flood coverage.” In reality, most standard policies exclude flood damage, and only a flood policy or endorsement provides coverage.

How Insurance Coverage Appears in Your Policy

Insurance coverage is typically structured as:

Declarations Page – Summarizes your coverages, limits, and deductibles

Insuring Agreement – Explains what your insurer promises to cover

Exclusions – Lists perils not covered

Conditions – Details requirements to maintain coverage (e.g., notice deadlines, documentations, submitting to an examination under oath, etc.)

AI can explain these sections generally, but its explanation should not be construed as legal advice. AI cannot tell you whether your specific incident is covered or whether you have complied with the policy conditions. 

How Insurers Often Limit or Deny Coverage

Insurance companies often deny or reduce claims based on:

Policy exclusions – Damage or events not covered in the policy

Late notice or improper filing – Missing deadlines or submitting incomplete forms

Documentation gaps – Lack of evidence proving loss or damage

Policy misinterpretation – Insurers may argue your claim falls outside coverage 

Relying solely on AI increases the risk of common AI misunderstandings about insurance coverage, which can lead to denied claims.
 
Practical Mistakes to Avoid When Using AI for Legal Questions

Here are the most common mistakes policyholders make when relying on AI:

Assuming AI is a licensed attorney – AI cannot represent you or provide legal advice.

Skipping policy review – Blindly following AI guidance without reading your policy can lead to coverage mistakes and claim denials.

Ignoring deadlines – AI might not highlight critical timelines in your claim process.

Overlooking exclusions – AI cannot detect nuanced exclusions that insurers exploit.

Sharing sensitive information – Inputting policy numbers or personal details into AI tools may compromise privacy.

Do not use AI except for basic explanations, and always verify coverage details with an experienced insurance attorney.

Attorney & Counselor Rabih Hamawi has extensive expertise in insurance coverage, business negotiations, and commercial litigation. He focuses his practice on representing businessowners, homeowners, property owners, and other insurance policyholders in fire, property damage, and insurance-coverage disputes with insurance companies and in errors-and-omissions cases against insurance agents. Reach Law Office of Rabih Hamawi at (248) 905-1133.

Many policyholders who have disputes with their insurers, and decide to sue them, often find themselves asking the same pressing question: “How long will this lawsuit take and what can I expect?” It’s a natural concern, as insurance claims—especially those involving significant property damage, fire losses, or denied insurance coverage—can have a major impact on an insured-plaintiff's finances, daily life, and peace of mind.

By Rabih Hamawi
Law Office of Rabih Hamawi P.C.

Many policyholders who have disputes with their insurers, and decide to sue them, often find themselves asking the same pressing question: “How long will this lawsuit take and what can I expect?” It’s a natural concern, as insurance claims—especially those involving significant property damage, fire losses, or denied insurance coverage—can have a major impact on an insured-plaintiff's finances, daily life, and peace of mind.

While every lawsuit is unique and timelines can vary depending on the complexity of the case, insurance lawsuits typically take at least one to two years, not including appeals. 

This is due to the multiple stages involved in litigation, including filing the complaint, exchanging evidence, engaging in discovery, participating in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution, and potentially going to trial. By understanding these stages and what to expect at each step, plaintiffs can set realistic expectations, plan accordingly, and remain proactive throughout the legal process.

Preparing for a Successful Insurance Lawsuit

Success in an insurance lawsuit doesn’t start in the courtroom—it starts long before you file. It starts when you report a claim for the very first time. Preparation is everything. This means that as a start, you must carefully review your policy, organize all correspondence with your insurer, gather photos and videos, repair estimates, invoices, and any expert reports that support your claim.

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your case allows you to anticipate challenges and respond effectively. Being thorough at this stage not only strengthens your position but also sets the tone for the entire litigation process, giving you confidence and control as you move forward. The more prepared you are, the more likely your case will proceed smoothly and increase your chances of a favorable outcome.

Filing the Lawsuit 

The process begins when your attorney formally files a complaint with the court. In an insurance lawsuit, this usually involves claims for property damage, fire loss, or denied insurance coverage. Once filed, the insurance company is then officially notified and served, and it is required to respond, by answering the complaint.

The Answer and Preliminary Motions

After serving your complaint on you insurer, it typically has a set period of time to file an answer. When it answers, the insurer admits or denies your claims and may raise defenses. At this stage, either party may also file preliminary motions, such as motions to dismiss, which can slightly extend the timeline.

Discovery Phase

The discovery phase is one of the most time-intensive parts of litigation. During discovery, both sides exchange evidence, documents, and witness information. Depositions, interrogatories, and requests for production help build each party’s case. In insurance disputes, this phase can take several months or even over a year, especially if experts are involved, such as engineers or fire investigators.

Pre-Trial Mediation and Motions

Even before a trial, there are often opportunities to resolve the case. Settlement negotiations or mediation can sometimes resolve disputes faster. But if negotiations fail, parties may file pre-trial motions to clarify issues, exclude evidence, or request summary disposition or judgment. Each motion can add weeks or months to the process.

Trial

If the case proceeds to trial, the court schedules hearings and trial dates, which can be influenced by the court’s docket. A typical trial may last several days to weeks, depending on the complexity of the case.

Post-Trial and Appeals

After the trial, either party may file appeals, which can extend the resolution timeline by additional months or even years. But even without appeals, most insurance disputes take at least two years from filing to resolution, and sometimes more.

Key Takeaways 

Insurance lawsuits are often complex and involve detailed evidence and expert testimony.

The process typically lasts one to two years, or more.

Understanding each stage—filing, discovery, pre-trial motions, trial, and possible appeals—helps policyholders stay prepared and avoid surprises.

If you are dealing with a denied insurance claim or ongoing insurance dispute, working with an experienced insurance attorney can streamline the process, ensure your rights are protected, and help you pursue the compensation you deserve.
 –––
Attorney & Counselor Rabih Hamawi has extensive expertise in insurance coverage, business negotiations, and commercial litigation. He focuses his practice on representing businessowners, homeowners, property owners, and other insurance policyholders in fire, property damage, and insurance-coverage disputes with insurance companies and in errors-and-omissions cases against insurance agents. Law Office of Rabih Hamawi can be reached at (248) 905-1133.