A Florida appellate court held that a trial court erred in entering summary judgment where genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the insureds' compliance with post-loss conditions. Huertas v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 4D21-953, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 522, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D277a (Fla. 4th DCA, Jan. 26, 2022).
The insureds filed a claim following a plumbing leak that caused damage to the insured property. The insurer required the insureds to submit a sworn proof of loss, to allow inspection of the property, and to submit to an examination under oath. The insurer denied the insureds' claim on the basis that the insureds violated post-loss conditions by failing to answer all questions at the examination under oath and to submit a sufficient sworn proof of loss.
The insureds then filed this breach of contract action, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The insureds attached the deposition transcript of the insurer's field adjuster and an affidavit of their expert witness, while the insurer supported its motion with an affidavit of its corporate representative. The trial court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding that the insureds did not sufficiently oppose the insurer's motion.
On appeal, the court first determined that the insureds did present sufficient factual support to raise genuine issues of material fact and that whether the insureds sufficiently complied with the sworn proof of loss and examination under oath requirements were questions for the jury to decide. The appellate court continued that the insurer's factual support—a corporate representative affidavit and four unsworn, unauthenticated documents—was legally insufficient to support the entry of summary judgment. The appellate court reversed entry of summary judgment.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
