Soronson v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12100
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- In Oct. 2005 Hurricane Wilma allegedly damaged the insureds' roof; the policy requires immediate notice and a sworn proof of loss within 60 days.
- The insureds did not give immediate notice or submit a sworn proof of loss within 60 days after the loss.
- In Feb. 2009 the insureds filed a claim, stating an inspection that month revealed roof damage from Wilma.
- In May 2009 the insurer advised that damage could not be attributed to Wilma and cited prejudicial conduct (untimely notice, missing records).
- In Dec. 2009 the insureds submitted a sworn proof of loss, and later that month sued for breach of the policy.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the insurer; the insureds appealed, arguing no prejudice or applicability of discovery/coop rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are untimely notice and proof of loss prejudicial per policy? | Insureds contend prejudice can be rebutted; discovery rule/cooperation issues apply | Insurer argues they are prejudicial as a condition precedent not satisfied | Prejudice presumed; insureds failed to rebut |
| Do discovery or cooperation rules defeat prejudice analysis? | Delayed discovery should allow nonprejudicial outcome | Delays do not rewrite policy terms; prejudice controls | No; prejudice controls; discovery rule not applied |
| Are notice and proof-of-loss clauses conditions precedent or cooperation clauses? | Clauses may be cooperation; jury question on material breach | Clauses are conditions precedent to suit; prejudice not required to show | Conditions precedent; not cooperations; prejudice analysis applicable |
| Was any material issue of fact shown to negate insurer prejudice? | Insureds' affidavit creates no material breach | Insurer's prejudice evidenced by delay; affidavit insufficient | No genuine issue; insurer prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankers Indemnity Co. v. Macias, 475 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1985) (notice to claim is a condition precedent; prejudice analysis applies)
- Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (notice/proof of loss within 60 days is a condition precedent to suit)
- Schnagel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 843 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (cooperation clause; inquiry hinges on material breach for jury)
- Goldman v. State Farm, Fire & Casualty Co., 660 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (insurer need not show prejudice for a condition precedent; contrast with cooperation clause)
- Kroener v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 63 So.3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (affirmed prejudice-based analysis; clarifies Bankers approach)
- Stark v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So.3d 285 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (investigator communications can affect prejudice assessment)