Edwards v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.
64 So. 3d 730
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Edwards sustained roof damage from Hurricane Frances (Sept. 4, 2004) and a State Farm claim was paid only if loss exceeded deductible.
- State Farm admitted coverage but paid nothing due to the deductible; Edwards did not object to repairs or roof replacement.
- In 2008 Edwards filed a supplemental claim; State Farm demanded loss documentation and an examination under oath, which Edwards ignored.
- A public adjuster sent a 2008 letter with a complete roof replacement estimate tied to Hurricane Wilma (Oct. 24, 2005), not Frances, and Edwards did not submit Wilma-related loss claims.
- State Farm repeatedly sought documentation, scheduling an examination under oath; Edwards retained counsel and canceled the EEo.
- State Farm sued in 2009; trial court granted summary judgment finding Edwards failed to comply with conditions precedent to payment; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Edwards comply with the examination under oath condition? | Edwards contends substantial compliance justified payment. | State Farm argues no compliance with a clear condition precedent. | No genuine issue; failure to attend EEo supports judgment for insurer. |
| Did Edwards provide sufficient documentation reflecting the loss amount? | Edwards asserts documentation was provided or excused. | State Farm contends requests for specific loss documents were unmet. | No genuine issue; lack of required documentation supports insurer's summary judgment. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate on Edwards' claim for breach of contract? | Edwards challenges the grant of summary judgment based on alleged compliance. | State Farm asserts compliance failures entitle insurer to nonpayment as a matter of law. | Yes; undisputed failure to comply defeats the claim as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (failure to comply with policy condition precedent supports summary judgment)
- Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (documentation deficiencies can support insurer's nonpayment)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Drummond, 970 So.2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (condition precedent to payment governs insurer's duty to pay)
- Reflex N.V. v. UMET Trust, 336 So.2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (summary judgment standard and lack of genuine issues of material fact)