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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
* * *