FLEURIMOND BARTHELEMY v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
257 So. 3d 1029
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Appellant (Fleurimond Barthelemy) was in a 2011 auto accident; Safeco requested he submit to an Examination Under Oath (EUO) three times and he refused each time.
- Safeco denied coverage and refused to defend Barthelemy; third parties obtained judgments against him.
- Barthelemy sued for declaratory relief seeking coverage up to policy limits.
- At trial the court instructed the jury that Safeco needed to prove only (1) that Barthelemy “did not comply” with post-loss obligations and (2) that Safeco was “actually prejudiced.”
- Barthelemy objected and requested instructions requiring findings of “material failure to cooperate” and “substantial prejudice.” The jury found for Safeco; the trial court entered final judgment for the insurer.
- On appeal the Fourth District held the jury instruction misstated the law and reversed for a new trial (and reversed the costs award).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for insurer’s "failure to cooperate" defense | Macias controls: insurer must prove a material failure to cooperate and that the failure substantially prejudiced the insurer | Curran changed the standard: insurer need only show failure to cooperate and actual prejudice | Court held Macias remains controlling: insurer must show material failure and substantial prejudice |
| Whether Curran implicitly overruled Macias | Macias governs; Curran did not overrule Macias and its references to "actual prejudice" are dicta | Curran supplants Macias and lowers the required showing of prejudice | Court found no express overruling in Curran and applied the express holding of Macias |
| Whether the trial court’s jury instruction was erroneous | Instruction omitted "material" and "substantial" elements, so it misstated law and could mislead the jury | Instruction requiring only failure to comply and actual prejudice was sufficient | Court concluded instruction misstated law and warranted reversal and new trial |
| Whether costs award should stand | Costs tied to judgment reversed | Costs should stand even if judgment reversed | Court reversed the costs order along with final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1985) (insurer must show material failure to cooperate and substantial prejudice)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran, 135 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 2014) (addressed insurer prejudice requirement in compulsory medical exam context; references to "actual prejudice" treated as dicta here)
- American Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Vliet, 4 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1941) (origin of rule that lack of cooperation must be material and must substantially prejudice insurer)
- Puryear v. State, 810 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002) (court will not sub silentio overrule prior express holdings)