347 So.3d 479
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- Security First insured Gracia's Orlando home (May 2016–May 2017). Gracia claimed roof damage from an April 2017 storm and submitted a sworn proof of loss after receiving a partial payment.
- A 2015 pre-purchase home inspection report (obtained by Security First) showed roof leaks and interior ceiling/water damage in the same areas claimed in 2017; photographs accompanied the report.
- In deposition, Gracia stated the 2015 inspection results were "Everything was good" and the "roof was in good condition." Security First amended defenses to assert the policy's concealment or fraud clause.
- The trial court granted final summary judgment for Security First, finding Gracia’s deposition statements false and concluding forfeiture of coverage; the court weighed credibility under the new Rule 1.510 standard.
- The Fifth District reversed, holding that for post-loss misstatements the insurer must prove intent to mislead and that intent and materiality are generally jury questions; Security First failed to prove intent at summary judgment.
- Judge Eisnaugle concurred only in the result, concluding summary judgment also improper because Gracia’s generalized deposition responses were too vague to be conclusively false on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insurer must prove intent to mislead for post-loss "false statements" under the policy's concealment or fraud clause | Gracia: post-loss false statements require proof of intent and materiality; insurer did not prove intent | Security First: subsection (3) voids policy without intent; alternatively, possession of the 2015 report proves intent | Reversed: Courts require intent for post-loss misstatements; insurer failed to prove intent at summary judgment; factual issues remain for jury |
| Whether trial court could weigh credibility under new Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 when facts conflict | Gracia: credibility and state-of-mind are jury questions; summary judgment improper | Security First: under the new standard, judge may weigh evidence and credibility to decide summary judgment | Held: General rule remains that credibility and intent are for the jury; only in rare cases where record blatantly contradicts a version may judge reject it — not present here |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Geico Indem. Co., 78 So. 3d 1293 (Fla. 2011) (de novo review when summary judgment turns on insurance contract interpretation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (credibility determinations and weighing evidence are generally jury functions on summary judgment)
- Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Trif, 322 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (post-loss "false statement" construed to include intent to mislead; materiality and intent for jury)
- Vargas v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 333 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (reinforces intent requirement for post-loss false statements under concealment or fraud clause)
- Mezadieu v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 315 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (summary judgment permissible where insured effectively conceded falsity and knowledge of inapplicability to claimed loss)
- Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch. v. Clark, 174 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (distinguishes application-stage misrepresentations, which can void policy without proof of intent)
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Dickerson, 90 So. 613 (Fla. 1921) (historical precedent reading an intent element into post-loss misrepresentation doctrine)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (a court may reject a party's version of facts on summary judgment when the record blatantly contradicts it)