Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. v. Farmer
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 22157
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Allstate Floridian insured Farmers’ home and Allstate Insurance Company insured their truck; both claims arose from a lightning-damaged home and a subsequent vehicle theft in Oct 2006.
- Farmers submitted handwritten inventories for both sets of losses; Allstate required separate claims and additional proof of loss documentation.
- Allstate’s SIU investigated claims, obtained a second recorded statement, and requested notarized proofs of loss and other documents.
- Farmers submitted appraisals and EUOs were conducted; by early 2007 Allstate had not rendered a coverage decision despite having information to process the property claims.
- Farmers sued in Oct 2007 for breach of contract; jury found no substantial noncompliance and no prejudice; court denied directed-verdict, entered judgment for Farmers, and later amended post-judgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether noncompliance with the proof of loss is a material breach precluding recovery. | Farmer not required to fully comply; substantial compliance suffices. | Starling controls; failure to submit signed, sworn proof of loss bars recovery. | Not barred; substantial compliance and lack of prejudice preclude automatic forfeiture. |
| Whether the trial court correctly allowed jury to decide prejudice and substantial compliance. | Prejudice issue should be determined by the court. | Jury should determine prejudice given disputed facts. | Correct to permit jury findings on substantial compliance and prejudice. |
| Whether Macias prejudice rule applies to proof-of-loss breaches. | Macias prejudice presumption applies; insurer must show prejudice. | Rule does not apply or extend to proof-of-loss; no prejudice shown. | Macias prejudice presumption applies; jury found no prejudice, sustaining result. |
| Whether there was error in post-judgment interest rate | 11% interest was incorrect; should be statutory rate in 2012. | Error; rate can be amended post-judgment. | Amend judgment to reflect proper post-judgment interest rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (precedes rule for proof-of-loss as condition precedent; substantial compliance/ prejudice analysis)
- Soronson v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 96 So.3d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (prejudice/preclusion analysis in proof of loss cases)
- Macias v. Bankers Ins. Co., 475 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1985) (presumption of prejudice for notice; cooperative breach requires prejudice to insurer)
- Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (EUO as a condition precedent; material breach analysis)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran, 83 So.3d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (prejudice analysis for breaches of CME/notice-like provisions; material breach requires prejudice)