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 8, 2014 by admin

UM Policy — Breach of policy obligation to appear for post-suit IME — finding of material breach or prejudice required to support forfeiture of coverage

39 Fla. L. Weekly D1575b


Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Compulsory medical
examination — Failure to attend — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of
insurer after insured failed to appear for medical examination without finding
of material breach by insured or finding of prejudice to insurer because of
insured’s noncompliance with a policy provision

RENEE BUSH, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D13-1853. Opinion filed July 30, 2014. Appeal
from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; James M. Barton, II, Judge.
Counsel: Stephen A. Barnes and Courtney A. Umberger of Barnes Trial Group,
Tampa, for Appellant. Allison G. Mawhinney and David J. Abbey of Abbey, Adams,
Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
(KELLY, Judge.) Renee Bush appeals from the final summary judgment rendered
in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State
Farm).1 In light of the supreme court’s
recent decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Curran,
135 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 2014), we reverse and remand for further consideration.
Ms. Bush was involved in a traffic accident in which her minivan was
rear-ended by another vehicle. When State Farm denied her claim for
uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) benefits under her policy, she filed a
complaint against State Farm seeking payment for expenses resulting from
orthopedic injuries that she attributed to the accident. Thereafter, State Farm
served a Notice of Examination by an orthopedic surgeon. The Notice explained
that the medical examination would be conducted pursuant to both the policy and
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 and stated the location, time, and date of
the exam.2 Ms. Bush objected to State
Farm’s Notice and demanded various protections. State Farm notified Ms. Bush
that it did not agree to her demands. When the time came for the examination,
Ms. Bush did not appear. Based on Ms. Bush’s failure to appear, State Farm added
a defense of “no coverage” to its pleadings. State Farm then served its motion
for summary judgment and argued that because Ms. Bush breached a policy term,
she forfeited coverage. Ms. Bush argued in opposition that summary judgment was
improper because her failure to submit to the examination did not prejudice
State Farm or warrant a denial of coverage. Ms. Bush filed a motion to amend and
various other motions, which the trial court denied. Following a hearing and
additional briefing, the court entered final summary judgment in favor of State
Farm.
On appeal, Ms. Bush contends that she had a right to object to State Farm’s
Notice of Examination under rule 1.360 and that it was the “discovering party’s”
burden to seek a hearing and an order to compel the examination under rule
1.380(a)(2). She contends that State Farm was not justified in denying coverage
because it was not prejudiced by any delay caused by her objections. State Farm
alleges that even if a showing of prejudice was required to warrant the denial
of benefits, Ms. Bush’s refusal to submit to an examination was a breach of the
policy terms and that breach was inherently prejudicial to State Farm’s
contractual right to examine Bush upon reasonable request without litigation or
conflict.
While this case was pending on appeal, the supreme court decided
Curran, in which the court held that an insured’s failure to comply with
an insurance policy’s compulsory medical examination clause did not result in
automatic forfeiture of coverage. 135 So. 3d at 1079. The court concluded that
“a [compulsory medical examination] provision in the UM context is a post-loss
obligation of the insured and is not a condition precedent to coverage.”
Id. at 1078. Rather, when an insured breaches a compulsory medical
examination provision, the prejudice caused by the breach is an element of the
affirmative defense that an insurer has the burden of pleading and proving.
Id. at 1079.
In the present case, the trial court’s order does not state grounds for
granting State Farm’s motion for final summary judgment. No finding of a
material breach by the insured was made, nor was there a finding of prejudice to
State Farm because of the noncompliance with a policy provision. Because the
trial court did not have the benefit of Curran, which requires that a
finding of prejudice be made before coverage can be denied, we reverse and
remand to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Curran.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (LaROSE and MORRIS, JJ.,
Concur.)

__________________

1Ms. Bush also appeals from the “Order
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Deny Application of Summary Judgment by
Defendant, State Farm, Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Hearing, and Motion
to Compel Deposition” and the “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Complaint.”

2In requiring Ms. Bush to submit to an
exam, State Farm relied on the policy provision that states, as follows: “Any
person making claim: a. under the no-fault, medical payments, uninsured
motor vehicle and death, dismemberment and loss of sight coverages shall: . . .
(2) be examined by physicians chosen and paid by us as often as we reasonably
may require.”

* * *

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