Solano v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.
2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7105
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Solanos owned insured residential property damaged by Hurricane Wilma (2005).
- Policy required post-loss duties: EUO, sworn proofs of loss, timely notice, and damage exhibit on request.
- State Farm paid some amounts in 2006; public adjuster engaged in 2009 seeking reopening and additional loss amount.
- Adjuster submitted multiple sworn proofs; after third, EUO requested for Solanos and adjuster’s knowledge; fifth proof of loss accepted by State Farm.
- Dr. Solano appeared for EUO, testified partially, deferred most information to the adjuster and wife; Mrs. Solano and the adjuster did not complete EUOs as requested; various documents remained outstanding.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm as failure to comply with post-loss conditions; appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact about adequacy of cooperation and whether noncompliance was total or partial and thus whether benefits forfeiture was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EUO requirement is a condition precedent to recovery. | Solanos argue partial cooperation; total failure not shown. | State Farm contends EUO is a condition precedent and noncompliance bars recovery. | Material factual questions preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether the Solanos’ cooperation breached policy terms to the extent that recovery is forfeited. | Some compliance shown; substantial documentation provided. | Any cooperation deficiency warrants preclusion under no-action clause. | Factual disputes remain about extent of compliance and its effect on recovery. |
| Whether the trial court correctly applied Goldman, Haiman, and Curran to determine if the EUO/pre-suit cooperation breached the policy. | Authorities support that partial cooperation may not bar recovery. | Total or substantial noncompliance should bar recovery. | Case law conflict exists; not dispositive; triable facts remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co., 660 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (EUO as a condition precedent; total noncompliance can bar recovery)
- Haiman v. Federal Insurance Co., 798 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (Partial cooperation may present jury questions on material breach)
- Edwards v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 64 So.3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Affirms summary judgment where insured failed to provide requested documents or EUO)
- Makryllos v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 103 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (EUO cooperation issues discussed on appeal)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So.3d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (EUO/claims cooperation considerations in policy analysis)
- Schnagel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 843 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (No-action clause and cooperation obligations discussed)