SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS v. FLEURIMOND BARTHELEMY
20-1045
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- Insured (Barthelemy) was asked for a post-accident statement and to submit to an examination under oath (EUO) after insurer (Safeco) discovered a suspicious prior bodily-injury claims history; Barthelemy refused multiple EUOs.
- Safeco denied coverage and refused defense, citing Barthelemy’s failure to comply with policy post-loss obligations.
- First trial: jury found failure to comply and actual prejudice but found no fraud; this court reversed because the jury instructions omitted "material failure" and "substantial prejudice."
- On remand, trial court granted an in limine motion barring any mention or implication of fraud or wrongdoing; witnesses could only use generic terms like "concerns."
- Second trial: jury found material breach but no substantial prejudice; judgment for Barthelemy. Safeco appealed, arguing exclusion of fraud evidence prevented it from proving substantial prejudice.
- Fourth District reversed, holding the exclusion of fraud-related evidence was erroneous because evidence that the insurer sought an EUO to investigate fraud was highly probative of substantial prejudice and the law of the case did not bar its admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barthelemy) | Defendant's Argument (Safeco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of fraud-related evidence | Prior verdict for Barthelemy on fraud and no cross-appeal bar any retrial or mention of fraud; such evidence is unfairly prejudicial | Fraud-related evidence was necessary and relevant to show the insurer’s inability to conduct a meaningful fraud investigation (substantial prejudice) after Barthelemy refused EUOs | Exclusion was error; fraud evidence and the insurer’s reasons for requesting an EUO were highly probative of substantial prejudice and should have been admissible |
| Applicability of law-of-the-case doctrine | Trial 1 verdict on fraud prevents relitigation or reference to fraud in retrial | Law of the case is limited to issues actually decided on the prior appeal; the prior opinion addressed jury instructions, not fraud evidence admissibility | Law of the case did not bar evidence; prior appeal did not resolve admissibility of fraud evidence |
| Entitlement to judgment as a matter of law after material breach finding | N/A (Barthelemy opposed judgment for insurer) | Once the jury finds a material failure to cooperate, insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Not entitled to JMOL here; remand from prior opinion required Safeco to prove resulting substantial prejudice, so JMOL was improper |
| 90.403 balancing (probative value vs. unfair prejudice) | Any implication of fraud would be unduly prejudicial and should be excluded | Probative value of showing insurer sought EUO to investigate fraud outweighed any unfair prejudice because it explained why EUO was critical and how refusal caused prejudice | Trial court misweighed the balance; probative value outweighed danger of unfair prejudice given centrality to the insurer’s ability to investigate and defend |
Key Cases Cited
- Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 257 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (earlier appeal reversing for incorrect jury instructions concerning "material failure" and "substantial prejudice")
- Goldman v. State Farm Fire & Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (explains purpose of EUO and differences from depositions)
- Drdek v. Drdek, 79 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (describes scope of law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1884) (historic explanation of EUO purpose)
- State v. Sills, 279 So. 3d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (probative value can outweigh unfair prejudice when exclusion would significantly impair a party’s ability to present its case)
- Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (exclusion that prevents a party from addressing a central issue can significantly handicap the case)
- Izquierdo v. Gyroscope, Inc., 946 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (standard of review for new trial denials)
- Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)