Judy Rodrigo v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company
144 So. 3d 690
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Judy Rodrigo claimed damage to her condominium, personal property, and living expenses caused by leakage from a neighbor’s decomposing body discovered after the neighbor’s death.
- The policy required a signed, sworn proof of loss within 60 days after loss and provided loss payment would be payable 60 days after receipt of proof of loss and either agreement, final judgment, or filing of an appraisal award.
- Rodrigo submitted invoices, estimates and lists but never filed a signed, sworn proof of loss; she sued after insurer declined personal property coverage and tendered (but she did not accept) payment based on an appraisal inspection.
- Insurer moved for summary judgment arguing Rodrigo materially breached the sworn-proof-of-loss condition and that personal property coverage applied only to named perils, which did not include a decomposing body (insurer conceded the policy names “explosion” as a peril).
- Rodrigo argued the insurer waived the sworn-proof-of-loss requirement by tendering payment and that the damage resulted from an "explosion" because a physician opined the body’s internal contents "explosively expanded and leaked."
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer; the Fourth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insurer waived sworn proof of loss requirement | Rodrigo: insurer waived by investigating and tendering payment so sworn proof not required | State Farm: investigating or tendering payment does not waive statutory/policy sworn-proof requirement | Held: No waiver; insured breached condition precedent and insurer need not show prejudice |
| Whether decomposing body damage constitutes a named-peril “explosion” covering personal property | Rodrigo: physician affidavit says internal contents "explosively expanded," so qualifies as explosion | State Farm: ordinary meaning of "explosion" excludes cellular/biological decomposition leaking fluids | Held: Not an "explosion" under plain meaning; personal property not covered |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Geico Indem. Co., 78 So. 3d 1293 (Fla. 2011) (summary judgment review and insurance policy interpretation standard)
- Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (insurer need not show prejudice when insured breaches condition precedent)
- Soronson v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 96 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (proof of loss is condition precedent to suit)
- Kramer v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Drummond, 970 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (failure to file sworn proof of loss relieves insurer of obligation)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran, 135 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 2014) (CME requirement in UM context is a condition subsequent; distinguished here)
- Harrington v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 54 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (policy language construed by plain meaning)
- Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005) (contracts construed by plain policy language)