Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

August 29, 2014 by admin

Property Insurance — Insureds failed to rebut presumption of prejudice arising from their breach of condition precedent to coverage

39 Fla. L. Weekly D1762b


Insurance — Homeowners — Trial court did not err in entering summary
judgment for insurer in insured’s action against insurer on ground that insureds
breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to submit a timely proof
of loss — Insureds failed to present any evidence to rebut presumption that
insurer was prejudiced by delay of almost five years in submitting sworn proof
of loss

LLOYD OLIVER HUNT and DEBORAH HUNT, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D13-272. August 20, 2014.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward
County; David Krathen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-42215 (09). Counsel: Gregory C.
Ward of The Ward Law Group, P.L., Miami, for appellants. Elizabeth K. Russo of
Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Miami, and Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig,
LLP, Tampa, for appellee.
(Damoorgian, C.J.) Lloyd and Deborah Hunt appeal the circuit court’s final
summary judgment in favor of their insurer, State Farm Florida Insurance
Company. The Hunts primarily argue that their untimely pre-suit submission of a
sworn proof of loss did not preclude them from recovery under the policy. We
disagree and affirm.
By way of background, in October of 2005, the Hunts’ home was damaged by
Hurricane Wilma. At the time Hurricane Wilma hit, the Hunts’ home was insured by
State Farm. Under their policy, the Hunts were required to provide State Farm
with immediate notice of any loss, and to submit a signed, sworn proof of loss
“within [sixty] days after the loss.” Despite this requirement, the Hunts did
not provide State Farm with a signed, sworn proof of loss until almost five
years later, mere days before they filed suit against State Farm for breach of
contract. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Hunts
materially breached their duties under the policy by not timely submitting a
sworn proof of loss. The trial court agreed, finding that the Hunts breached a
condition precedent to coverage and failed to introduce any record evidence to
rebut that State Farm was prejudiced by their breach. Accordingly, it entered
final summary judgment in State Farm’s favor.
We agree with the circuit court’s ruling, which we review de novo. Kramer
v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.
, 95 So. 3d 303, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). It is
well settled in Florida that submission of a sworn proof of loss when required
by an insurance policy is a condition precedent to coverage. Id.;
Soronson v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 96 So. 3d 949, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA
2012). If the insured fails to comply with a condition precedent before filing
suit, its breach is deemed material, and thus the insurer is relieved of its
duties under the policy. Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660
So. 2d 300, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See also Starling v. Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co.
, 956 So. 2d 511, 513-14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). However, if
the insured complies with the policy’s conditions precedent before filing suit,
albeit in an untimely manner, the insurer is only relieved of its duties under
the policy if it was prejudiced by the insured’s breach. Kramer, 95 So.
3d 306. In such a scenario, prejudice to the insurer is presumed and the insured
bears the burden of rebutting the presumption. Id. Here, the record
reflects that the Hunts did not come forward with any evidence rebutting the
presumed prejudice State Farm suffered as a result of their tardily submitted
proof of loss. Thus, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in State
Farm’s favor. Id.
Additionally, we note that we are aware of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent
decision in State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Curran, 135 So. 3d
1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). We have considered Curran, and do not find it
instructive as there, the court clarified the standards applicable to an
insured’s breach of a condition subsequent to coverage — not a condition
precedent as is at issue in the instant case. Id. at 1079.

Affirmed. (Gross and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

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

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982