Insurance — Homeowners — Affirmative defenses — Post-loss obligations — In insured’s breach of contract action against insurer, trial court abused discretion by striking insurer’s affirmative defense of insurance fraud where insured’s ore tenus motion was not properly noticed for hearing — After striking affirmative defense, court should have allowed insurer leave to amend defense to allege insurance fraud with requisite specificity — For insurer to successfully establish a coverage defense based upon insured’s failure to comply with post-loss obligations, insurer must plead and prove that insured has materially breached a post-loss policy provision — If insurer establishes such a material breach by insured, burden then shifts to insured to prove that any breach did not prejudice insurer — Insurer must be prejudiced by insured’s non-compliance with post-loss obligation in order for insured to forfeit coverage — Conflict certified — When insurer has alleged and established, as an affirmative defense to coverage, that insured has failed to substantially comply with a post-loss obligation, prejudice to insurer is presumed, and burden shifts to insured to show absence of prejudice
44 Fla. L. Weekly D1639a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index