Lloyd Oliver Hunt and Deborah Hunt v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company
145 So. 3d 210
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In October 2005 Hurricane Wilma damaged the Hunts’ home, which was insured by State Farm.
- The policy required immediate notice and a signed, sworn proof of loss within 60 days of the loss.
- The Hunts did not submit a sworn proof of loss until almost five years later, just days before filing suit for breach of contract.
- State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing the untimely sworn proof of loss was a material breach of the condition precedent to coverage.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm, finding the Hunts failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice from their untimely submission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an insured’s untimely submission of a sworn proof of loss bars recovery | Hunts: late sworn proof should not preclude recovery when submitted before suit | State Farm: timely proof is a condition precedent; untimely submission is a material breach relieving insurer unless insured rebuts presumed prejudice | Court: untimely submission is a breach of a condition precedent; Hunts failed to rebut presumed prejudice, so insurer entitled to judgment |
| Whether prejudice to insurer must be proven when proof of loss is submitted before suit | Hunts: prejudice must be shown, not presumed | State Farm: prejudice is presumed when proof of loss is untimely but submitted before suit; insured bears burden to rebut | Court: follows precedent that prejudice is presumed and insured must rebut; Hunts offered no rebuttal |
| Whether State Farm v. Curran affects this case | Hunts: argued Curran supports their position | State Farm: Curran is inapposite | Court: Curran concerns conditions subsequent, not precedent, so it's inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Kramer v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (untimely proof of loss submitted before suit: prejudice to insurer is presumed and insured must rebut)
- Soronson v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 96 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (sworn proof of loss is a condition precedent to coverage when required by policy)
- Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (failure to comply with condition precedent before suit is a material breach relieving insurer)
- Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (same principles regarding condition precedent and material breach)
- State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Curran, 135 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (distinguishing conditions subsequent from conditions precedent; not controlling here)