STATE OF FLORIDA v. MICHAEL DELPRETE
20-1680
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- Michael Delprete was charged under Fla. Stat. §817.234(1)(a) for presenting a false insurance claim arising from a July 2016 vehicle accident.
- Delprete twice told his insurer the vehicle had been stolen and that he was not driving; a police report indicated he had been driving.
- The insurer processed and paid the claim under Delprete’s collision coverage; a claims manager testified the insurer would have handled the loss the same way even if Delprete’s uncle had been driving.
- Delprete was earlier tried (and acquitted) on a leaving-the-scene charge after testifying his uncle was driving; the State then filed the insurance fraud charge based on his statements.
- Delprete moved to dismiss under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4), arguing §817.234 requires justifiable reliance by the insurer and no such reliance occurred; the trial court granted dismissal for that reason.
- The State appealed, arguing reliance is not an element of §817.234 and that its traverse sufficiently disputed material facts to preclude dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §817.234 requires insurer reliance (e.g., justifiable reliance) as an element | §817.234’s plain language does not include a reliance element; reliance is not required | A misrepresentation must be material and must have induced justifiable reliance leading to payment; insurer did not rely, so dismissal required | Court held the statute contains no reliance element; trial court erred by reading one in |
| Whether the State’s traverse was legally sufficient to defeat a 3.190(c)(4) dismissal | Traverse specifically disputed material facts and added facts sufficient for a prima facie case | Traverse insufficient because insurer didn’t rely and thus no disputed material fact on an essential element | Court held the traverse was sufficient; disputed material facts existed and dismissal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. State, 443 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (approving prosecution under the insurance-fraud statute despite insurer never paying on the claim)
- State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2000) (traverse must specifically dispute material facts to defeat a 3.190(c)(4) motion)
- State v. Benjamin, 187 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (standard of review for 3.190(c)(4) motions is de novo)
- State v. Book, 523 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (intent/state of mind not resolved on a 3.190(c)(4) motion)