Summary
holding insured's failure to provide sworn proof of loss does not alleviate insurer's burden to establish prejudice
Summary of this case from Castro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.Opinion
No. 4D21-901
04-13-2022
Sharon GODFREY, Appellant, v. PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Jose P. Font and Christopher Herrera of Font & Nelson, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Patrick M. Chidnese and Frieda C. Lindroth of Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, Tampa, for appellee.
Jose P. Font and Christopher Herrera of Font & Nelson, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Patrick M. Chidnese and Frieda C. Lindroth of Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, Tampa, for appellee.
Gross, J.
Sharon Godfrey appeals a final summary judgment in favor of appellee People's Trust Insurance Company based on her failure to provide the insurer with an executed sworn proof of loss before filing a lawsuit against it. We reverse, concluding that a factual issue remains as to whether the insurer was prejudiced by the insured's failure to comply with a material provision of the policy.
In 2017, Godfrey purchased an all-risk homeowners insurance policy from People's Trust to protect her home.
A condition of the policy provided that People's Trust had "no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us." One of those duties was to send to People's Trust, "within sixty (60) days after our request, your signed, sworn proof of loss" containing certain details specified by the policy.
Godfrey suffered a water loss on July 21, 2017, and she reported the loss to People's Trust on May 10, 2018. On May 11, the insurer wrote to Godfrey and requested a sworn proof of loss in compliance with the policy. People's Trust followed up four times by requesting the sworn proof of loss—on June 11, June 25, July 11, and July 24, 2018.
Without executing a sworn proof of loss, Godfrey filed suit against People's Trust in October 2018.
People's Trust moved for summary judgment, arguing no coverage existed because Godfrey's failure to provide the insurer with a sworn proof of loss was a material breach of the policy. The circuit court granted the motion for summary final judgment, concluding that Godfrey had materially breached the policy.
We conclude that the policy required Godfrey to file a sworn proof of loss, and that the insurer did not waive this requirement. We write to address the insurer's argument that an insurer need not show prejudice when the insured breaches a condition precedent to suit. See Edwards v. SafePoint Ins. Co. , 318 So. 3d 13, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) ; Rodrigo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co ., 144 So. 3d 690, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co ., 660 So. 2d 300, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The Edwards /Rodrigo /Goldman line of cases has no application here on the issue of whether the insurer must show prejudice to secure a final judgment when the insured breaches a material policy condition. The People's Trust's policy expressly requires a showing of prejudice by stating that the insurer had "no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us." (Emphasis supplied).
In a case construing the identical policy language in a People's Trust policy, we wrote that an insured's "failure to comply with policy conditions requires prejudice to insurer in order for that failure to constitute a material breach and permit an insurer to deny coverage for a claim. Whether insurer is prejudiced is a question of fact." Arguello v. People's Trust Tr. Ins. Co. , 315 So. 3d 35, 41–42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).
An issue of fact remains as to whether Godfrey's failure to file a sworn proof of loss was "prejudicial" to People's Trust within the meaning of the policy.
We reverse the summary final judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
May and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
People's Trust moves for rehearing, arguing that we have overlooked the "Suit Against Us" provision that distinguishes this case from Arguello v. People's Trust Insurance Co. , 315 So. 3d 35, 41–42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). We disagree and deny the motion for rehearing.
The "Suit Against Us" provision must be read together with the policy's own language. Otherwise, an insured would be in the Catch-22 position of being unable to seek relief from the court when an insurer fails to provide benefits even where her noncompliance was not prejudicial to the insurer as required by the policy.
"[T]he ‘[Suit Against Us]’ language in the policy applies to every term of the policy, regardless of whether the insured's duties are capable of being performed prior to filing an action against the insurer." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran , 135 So. 3d 1071, 1078 (Fla. 2014). To allow the "Suit Against Us" provision to trump the policy's own requirement of prejudice before the insured can seek judicial relief would deny access to the court. This we will not do.
GROSS, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.