In Brizuela v. CalFarm Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 578, the insured owner of business property made a claim for fire damage. He sued for breach of contract and bad faith when the insurer denied the claim based on his failure to submit to EUO. The undisputed evidence showed that the insurer requested such an examination; the insured requested a copy of his recorded statements and the insurer refused. The appellate court held that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment. "Brizuela's failure, six months after CalFarm's initial request for the examination, to propose any dates for an examination, to respond in a timely manner to CalFarm's proposed dates, and to submit to an examination constituted a refusal to submit to examination under oath." (Id. at p. 589.) In that case, the court rejected Brizuela's argument that dismissal of his action was improper because his failure to appear for examination was not willful. It noted that "under New York law, summary judgment dismissing an insured's complaint because of the insured's failure to submit to examination under oath has been held to be inappropriate without affording the insured a last opportunity to comply, unless the insured's failure to appear was willful. There is no California authority allowing such an opportunity. Even if the standard prescribed by New York law were applicable, Brizuela's conduct here could properly be deemed willful. When the insured's failure to fulfill his obligations under an insurance policy '"is indicative of a pattern of non-co-operation for which no reasonable excuse for noncompliance has been proffered," his conduct is properly deemed willful.' Brizuela's persistent failure to provide CalFarm with available dates for the examination under oath evidences a pattern of noncooperation." (Brizuela, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p 595.)