Category Archives: Florida Homeowners Insurance Coverage Issues

Listen Up First Party Property Insurance Blog Community

ID-100296488

I hope you have been enjoying some of the recent posts about insurance claims litigation innovation. In response to these articles, I know that a lot of you have reached out to me, so this article is for you – the First Party Property Insurance Blog Community.

I have such an impressive list of subscribers to this Blog, including executives and adjusters from virtually all of the top insurance companies in Florida; executives and adjusters from many large national insurers; leaders at many of the law firms handling insurance claims; executives at impressive insurance company consulting partners; and dozens of public adjusters.

I know a lot of you like to stay anonymous. For some of you, I understand why. But for others – people whose income depends on the business they generate at their company – I have no idea why you wouldn’t have already reached out to me and offered your analysis on the Blog. Why wouldn’t you want you message to reach our hundreds of influential subscribers and thousands of viewers per month?

Whatever the reason, I’m calling on you to respond to this post.

Here are some article ideas that I would love to see some of the Community write. If you would be interested in writing any of these articles, I will post them to the Blog and give you full credit:

  • new ways law firms are innovating to provide their clients with better outcomes
  • new ways law firms are innovating to provide their clients with less expensive services
  • new ways to practice preventitive law – suggestions to avoid disputed claims and cases before they happen
  • litigation solutions to the assignment of benefits issue
  • nonlitigation solutions to the assignment of benefits issue
  • outlining the use of “loss consultants” in Florida homeowners insurance claims and their legal boundaries, if any
  • new ways for law firms representing to collaborate to jointly serve their clients (especially insurance defense law firms)
  • emerging trends in homeowners insurance claims and cases
  • new technology tools law firms are using in their practices
  • recommendations for handling the currently debated issue of what are conditions precedent  in a Florida insurance policy, and what aren’t
  • recent success stories and resulting recommendations (my last post about a successful case for CSK was shared with nearly 1,000 people)
  • recommendations for enhancing a proposal for settlement’s validity in insurance claims litigation

Insurance company executives: if I left out anything you would like to see in an article, please message me privately and let me know. I will keep your request confidential and make sure to address your suggested topic.

If you don’t want to contribute, then I will eventually get around to writing on all of these and get all of the credit. If you can contribute, though, I highly recommend doing so. I am even okay with you sharing a link to your website or your company’s website so your bosses are okay with the promotion. I can’t promise you any results or new business if you write one of these articles, but my own experience indicates that it will wind up being an extremely valuable decision.

I’m extremely excited about what this post could stir up. If you have any questions, please let me know!

 

Image courtesy of jesadaphorn at FreeDigitalPhotos.net.


Webinar - Click


Getting Started Link


E-Book 1 Cover


Subscribe to Receive E-Book

Florida’s Fourth DCA in Donovan v. Florida Peninsula Finds 2011 Statute of Limitations for Homeowners’ Insurance Claims is Not Retroactive

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Overview:

In Donovan v. Florida Peninsula, Florida’s Fourth DCA just issued a very important opinion for anyone unsure of the Florida statute of limitations for homeowners insurance claims.

If you have not seen them yet, you need to check out the two best pages on the site: the Florida Homeowners Insurance Statutes and the Property Insurance Blog Working Index.  Combine them, and they are a guide to handling any Florida homeowners insurance claim.


In Donovan v. Florida Peninsula, Florida’s Fourth DCA recently issued a short but informative decision clarifying the statute of limitations for Florida homeowners insurance claims.  Donovan’s case involved a 2005 insurance claim for hurricane damage.

The question was whether the 2011 version of Fla. Stat. 95.11(2)(e) applied to Donovan’s claim.  The claim occurred and was reported to Florida Peninsula before the statute of limitations was amended. Florida Peninsula asked the Court to retroactively apply the 2011 statute of limitations to Donovan’s lawsuit.  Donovan claimed that the statute was not retroactive and, as a result, she was only required to file the lawsuit within 5 years of Florida Peninsula denying the claim (which would have given her until basically the date of this article to file the lawsuit).

In 2011, Florida’s legislature changed the statute of limitations (or statute of repose) to require the homeowner to file a homeowners insurance-related lawsuit within 5 years of the date of loss.  Prior to this amendment, Florida courts would give the homeowner five years from the date that he alleged the breach of the contract occurred.  In other words, according to the old statute of limitations, the homeowner could presumably wait 10 years to report a claim and it would not be limited because he actually had 5 years from the date the claim was allegedly denied or underpaid (of course, the prompt notice provision would prohibit that claim).

The Fourth DCA determined Fla. Stat. 95.11(2)(e)‘s 2011 statutory amendments did not apply to Donovan’s claim.  Thus, Donovan did not breach the statute of limitations because she did not have to file her lawsuit within 5 years of the date of loss.  Donovan had 5 years from the date Florida Peninsula breached the contract to file the lawsuit.

In addition, the Fourth DCA determined that a trial court should not dismiss a lawsuit for breach of the prompt notice provision.  As you know if you read First Party Property Insurance Blog, the question of late notice cannot be determined at the pleadings stage.

If you want to see my other articles on hurricane claims and homeowners insurance, make sure to check out:

What You Need to Know About Handling a Florida Homeowners Hurricane Insurance Claim

What Hurricane Wilma Insurance Claims Taught Us for the 2014 Hurricane Season

Remembering the 2004 Hurricane Season and Looking Ahead to 2014

Here is a copy of the Donovan v. Florida Peninsula opinion here:

Download (PDF, 191KB)

Takeaway:

This is not rocket science.  If you are going to pay attorneys millions of dollars to litigate for you, take 5% of the time expended to build simple systems to help you achieve better outcomes while spending the least. There is no reason that every attorney handling a case for a carrier should have to analyze the statute of limitations issue “from scratch.” This is a simple question requiring a simple “check the box” answer for each case.

If you want a copy of a guide that streamlines all routine questions like these, please message me.


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, please contact us.

Florida’s Second DCA Enforces Residence Premises Defense in Homeowners Insurance Claim

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Overview:

We are all about getting results.  Read this article to find out about our one-of-a-kind successes with the “residence premises” defense.

Make sure to read all the way to the end to receive our free offer for a Litigation Report.


In a case where I was the attorney at the trial court level, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals determined the insureds did not have homeowners insurance coverage for a sinkhole claim under an HO-3 policy because they did not reside at the property.

photo from http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/03/28/real_estate/us_housing_vacancy_rates/vacant_house.gi.top.jpg

If you are not familiar with the HO-3’s coverage requirement that the homeowners reside at the property, please review my analysis of the “residence premises” defense in this post.

Here is the Second DCA’s per curiam affirmed order:

Download (PDF, 273KB)

Although the decision is a PCA rather than a written order, I am excited to learn that this lengthy battle is (probably) over and that my client was able to enforce its policy’s requirements.  Insurers, insureds and their attorneys have been ignoring this “residence premises” issue for years.  Many thought that insurers lost the right to enforce the occupancy requirement when Florida courts construed the vacancy exclusion in the insureds’ favor.  By refocusing the attention to the definition of “residence premises,” the courts understood and appreciated that my client only agreed to insure this home if and when the insureds occupied it.

If you have any questions and want further information or documents, please contact us.

Takeaway:

I can bet you at least half of your attorneys have never heard of this defense, and another 25% aren’t checking for it because you aren’t asking them for it.

If you want guides, checklists, and templates for winning this “residence premises” defense, please message me.


Did this answer your Florida homeowners insurance claim question?

If not, please contact us.

The Death of the Concurrent Cause Doctrine in Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims under Sebo v. American Home Assurance

cover3

In a monumental September 18, 2013 holding, Florida’s Second DCA in Sebo v. American Home Assurance ruled that there should have never been a concurrent cause doctrine in Florida, and that the other DCAs have been mistaken for years.  Here is the full opinion:

Download (PDF, 58KB)

As background, many cases involve damage being caused by a combination of excluded and covered perils.  For years, when this occurred, courts would look at the facts and the policy to determine if the combination was dependent or independent of each other and whether the policy terms disposed of the concurrent cause doctrine.  If courts determined that the causes were independent and the policy did not “write out” the concurrent cause doctrine, then it wouldn’t matter if the excluded peril caused 99% of the damage, the damage was still covered so long as the covered peril caused at least 1%.  If the causes were dependent or if the policy had an anti-concurrent cause clause, then the question would be which peril was the efficient proximate cause of the damage – the excluded peril or the covered peril.  (I think I got that right … ).

This gave lawyers and drafters a lot to think about, but the Second DCA says that those exercises were a waste of time.  In any cases involving an excluded and covered peril causing damage together, the efficient proximate cause doctrine should apply.  This not only marks a major swing in the law; it is also at least a major swing in this case. The jury awarded Sebo roughly $7.7M.

Here is the verdict form from the trial court:

Download (PDF, 109KB)

Here is a photograph of this unbelievably amazing house:

 photo from http://www.naplesnews.com/photos/2007/jul/01/38552/

There’s something to think about this weekend.  I am going to think about what this means for sinkhole claims.  Feel free to email me your thoughts.  I hope you have a good weekend.

Takeaway:

This is such an important issue; however, I don’t think most insurers have implemented processes and procedures to take advantage of their rights under this holding.

The Sebo case calls for a whole new set of checklists and guides for handling cases in the Second DCA, and maybe even in Florida.  If you want to know more, please message me.


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, then contact us.

 

Florida Homeowners Insurance Questions, the Loss Settlement Provision, and When is Alleged Underpayment Not a Breach of the Policy?

cover3

Overview

The Loss Settlement provision is, without a doubt, the most overlooked homeowners insurance policy provision.  There are tens of thousands of lawsuits filed every year where the parties dispute what the homeowners insurer owes to the homeowner.

Do you want to know what neither side probably looked at?  The Loss Settlement provision – the provision that actually describes the homeowners insurer’s obligation to pay a claim.  Read this article to learn more about how this provision could decide your case.

Make sure to read until the end because we offer you a free Litigation Report analyzing the ways to improve your case outcomes while paying the least amount possible.


Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook and Litigation Data Reports:

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

If you are in the Florida homeowners insurance claims industry and are looking for a guide with the key cases, strategies, laws, attorneys, and adjusters, or if you’re looking for Florida litigation data reports, please visit this page to learn more about our Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.

Questions?

Have any questions about Florida’s homeowners insurers, policies, and claims, please feel free to contact us.


One of the most important questions in property insurance litigation is whether an insurer can obtain a summary judgment in a damages dispute. Stated otherwise, can an insurer prevail on a summary judgment motion when the insured alleges the insurer underpaid the claim? You might ask, “how is that possible?” How can an insurer and the Judge agree that even if the insurer allegedly underpaid the insured, the insurer did not breach the contract? If you can answer these questions, then you understand the difference between underpayment and breach.

ins c

To understand the answers to these questions, you must examine the Florida cases discussing loss settlement provisions. Following are some examples:

 

1. Slayton v. Universal

Download (PDF, 13KB)

Slayton holds that even if an insured allegedly underpaid pursuant to the policy, the insurer could have simultaneously complied with its policy obligations as a matter of law. While Slayton is limited to the facts and statutes at issue in the case, its rationale may be applied to any insurance dispute.

Rather than promote litigation, judges should do what Slayton did and allow the insurer to rely on the insured to present a genuine policy dispute before bringing a lawsuit. In Slayton, the Court held that the insured should have used the benefits the insurer paid to the insurer to repair the home and then submit a supplemental claim to the insurer if the original payment was insufficient. Instead, the insured sued the insurer without attempting to conduct the repairs with the payments provided by the insurer. Ultimately, in Slayton, the Fifth DCA upheld the trial court’s finding that the insurer, by providing the payment to the insured, complied with the policy as a matter of law.

By enforcing the loss settlement provision’s requirements, the Fifth DCA in Slayton held that the insurer did not breach the contract, even if it arguably underpaid the claim.

 

2. Ceballo v. Citizens

Download (PDF, 46KB)

In Ceballo, the insureds alleged that they proved a total loss of Ordinance and Law coverage pursuant to the Valued Policy Law statute and argued the insurer should have paid the coverage. The insureds further claimed that the insurer’s failure to pay the coverage constituted a breach of the contract. The insurer responded that before the insureds could be entitled to this coverage, the policy required the insureds to incur Ordinance and Law damages. To put this into context, the policy and statute at issue in Ceballo provides that the insureds were not entitled to replacement cost coverage until they incurred the damages. Like the Fifth DCA in Slayton, Florida’s Supreme Court in Ceballo determined that the insurer did not breach the contract despite the insureds’ allegations that the insurer underpaid. Thus, the insureds could not present a damages dispute to the jury, and the insurer was therefore entitled to judgment in its favor on that issue.

 

3. Buckley Towers v. Citizens

Download (PDF, 96KB)

Likewise, the Eleventh Circuit in Buckley Towers considered the lower court’s finding that the insured was excused from incurring damages under the policy. Similar to the policy at issue in Ceballo, the policy at issue in Buckley Towers provided that if in insured wants replacement cost coverage, it must incur the damages. If the insured does not incur the damages, the insured can only obtain actual cash value. Despite this policy requirement, the lower court held that the insurer’s alleged underpayment excused the insured’s performance in that regard.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, determining that the insured could not use the prevention of performance doctrine to avoid a requirement that the damages be incurred. Unlike the lower court, the Eleventh Circuit refused to “rewrite the policy.” The Eleventh Circuit held that the insured was required to make the repairs before he or she would be entitled to the replacement cost coverage. In other words, until the repairs were complete, the insurer was correct in issuing only the coverage for actual cash value. The court found that by using the prevention of performance doctrine, the lower court impermissibly rewrote the policy that was freely negotiated between the parties. Even when facing allegations of underpayment, the Eleventh Circuit determined the insurer did not breach as a matter of law. In short, Buckley Towers, like Ceballo and Slayton, shows that courts must adhere to the loss settlement provisions in a policy.

So what do these cases tell you?

First and foremost, beware when relying heavily on the black letter law in these cases because the statutes and policy forms have changed. Instead of focusing on the holdings of these cases, focus on the courts’ interpretations of the loss settlement provisions. In each case, the court determined that the insureds were not entitled to a trial on damages until they demonstrated compliance with the loss settlement provisions. Second, you must scrutinize your loss settlement provisions, whether you are dealing with a sinkhole claim, water claim, or tile claim, before accepting the opposing party’s allegations as fact. Ultimately, the loss settlement provision may make alleged underpayment a question for the judge and not the jury.

 Takeaway:

You shouldn’t allow your attorneys to overlook this provision, and you should have systems in place to make sure it isn’t overlooked.  Your provision is the same in every case, but it needs to be read in light of the case law.

Don’t trust this type of issue to junior associates.  Get your best management and best attorneys together, create a system for ensuring compliance, and never think about it again.

If you want checklists, guides, and legal document templates on the Loss Settlement provision, please message me.


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, contact us.

Did the Florida Supreme Court’s Decision in Geico v. Nunez Affect A Homeowners Insurer’s Right to an Examination Under Oath?

cover3


Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook and Litigation Data Reports:

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

If you are in the Florida homeowners insurance claims industry and are looking for a guide with the key cases, strategies, laws, attorneys, and adjusters, or if you’re looking for Florida litigation data reports, please visit this page to learn more about our Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.

Questions?

Have any questions about Florida’s homeowners insurers, policies, and claims, please feel free to contact us.


On June 27, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in Geico v. Nunez that appears to limit an insurer’s right to deny a claim based on an insured’s failure to comply with the examination under oath (“EUO”) provision.A more accurate interpretation, however, is that the Court opined that personal injury protection coverage (“PIP”) insurers cannot deny an insured’s claim based on a failure to submit to an EUO.

Download (PDF, 102KB)

In Geico, the insured was allegedly injured in a car accident on September 17, 2008.On October 26, 2009, Geico filed a declaratory action in a Florida trial court which was subsequently removed to federal court.Geico asked the court to determine whether the insured could obtain PIP benefits despite failing to submit to Geico’s requested EUO.Nunez argued in response that Geico’s position conflicted with Florida’s PIP statute, Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2008).The federal district court, finding no cases supporting Nunez’s position, held Geico was entitled to dismissal because Nunez failed to submit to the EUO. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit “punted” the decision to the Florida Supreme Court.

from http://wklawyers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/florida_pip.gif

The Florida Supreme Court held in favor of Nunez, finding that Florida’s No-Fault statute was mandatory and the EUO provision was inconsistent with the statute’s purpose of promptly providing “virtually automatic” coverage for PIP claims.The Court further found the EUO provision was “unreasonable and unnecessary under Florida law.”The Court also determined the EUO provision was “invalid.”Accordingly, it appears that EUOs are no longer a condition precedent to PIP coverage.

Does this harsh language against insurers’ policy rights apply to property insurance claims?While the Court does not promise that property insurers are exempt from this holding, the Court does not disturb any property cases upholding an insurer’s right to demand an EUO.The Court also makes clear that this holding should be distinguished from cases that do not involve PIP claims.In other words, although the Court went to great lengths to say that its holding does not apply to any other type of claim at this time, the Court does not guarantee anything to property insurers.

The opinion seems to say that property insurers are exempt from its holding, however, expect insureds and their attorneys in property claims to make arguments similar to the one made by Nunez. Property insurance is not mandatory like PIP insurance, so the Court’s plain language should shield property insurers from its holding. Furthermore, because the Court limited its application to the PIP statutes, Florida law still holds that EUOs are still conditions precedent in property claims (depending on the jurisdiction).

In short, given that the Court did not disturb the holdings in all of the property cases cited in its opinion, I believe the Court has held that Nunez’s arguments will not suffice in the context of the property insurance claim.

 


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, please contact us.

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims for Water Leaks and Damage, and the Constant or Repeated Seepage Exclusion

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Overview:

What happens when a homeowners insurance company denies a claim for constant or repeated seepage or leakage?

Generally, homeowners insurers’ personnel will look at the damage and, based on (1) experience or (2) an expert opinion, the insurer will determine that it is long term damage that is not covered.

If a person has a roof leak, pipe break, supply line burst, or something else that she thought happened quickly, then she might think the constant or repeated seepage exclusion is unfair.  Depending on (1) the way that the exclusion is written in the policy and (2) the investigation the homeowners insurer conducted, the homeowner might be right.

In this article, you will see what homeowners insurers need to prove that a water leak and its damage are excluded using the constant or repeated seepage exclusion for long term water damage.

So don’t forget to read all the way to the end, contact me, and subscribe.


Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook and Litigation Data Reports:

Before we go on, if you are in the Florida homeowners insurance claims industry and are looking for a guide with the key cases, strategies, laws, attorneys, and adjusters, or if you’re looking for Florida litigation data reports, please visit this page to learn more about our Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.


Do you think you need to understand this subject? I’d say you should be an expert on it.  

The most common dispute in the Florida homeowners insurance industry is whether water damage is covered or excluded by homeowners insurance.  Florida is a rainy and humid place, so there is plenty of water damage.  The question is whether the damage is sudden or long-term.  You better know the difference.

How do you find out the difference? Read this article to find out how homeowners insurers must prove that damage was excluded by the constant or repeated seepage exclusion.

The Policy

The exclusion has many variations; however, in general, it excludes long term water damage. With respect to the variations, some of these exclusions expressly provide that the seepage must come from within a plumbing, heating, or air system. Others contain language that excludes the leakage “whether hidden or not.” In addition, some describe the exclude time period as “weeks” or “months” whereas others specifically exclude damage that occurs over a period of more than 14 days.

Hoey v. State Farm

The main case on the issue is the Fourth DCA’s 2008 decision in Hoey v. State Farm, 988 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In Hoey, the Fourth DCA determined that the evidence in the record was enough to show that the insurer was entitled to a judgment that the damage was long term and, therefore, excluded from insurance coverage. By analyzing the steady increase in the water bills for roughly three months, the insurer was able to show that there was a failure in the nylon of the toilet supply line. Contrary to many of the litigated cases on this provision, this case had enough evidence in the insurer’s favor to allow the trial court to determine the insurance company clearly did not cover the damage.

Key Evidence

In cases where summary judgment is not appropriate, juries must decide whether the evidence shows that the leakage occurred for an excluded time period. Naturally, insureds’ and insurers’ attorneys should pay attention to the following factors to assess what the jury will think of the damage:

1. The Photographs

The photographs tell the story and are typically the most important evidence. Do they show staining and warping? For an insurer, it is going to be hard to convince a jury that the water loss was long term if there is no staining or warping of particle board cabinets. For an insured, if the particle board has rings and rings of deep brown stains and appears to be falling apart, then how can he or she convince a jury that the damage happened from a single leak?

The most important photographs will come from the field adjuster and, if the insurer promptly hired an engineer who quickly visited the property, then the engineer should have good photographs. Because these losses often occur in obscure areas of the property (kitchen cabinets, wall space), an insured generally does not have prior photographs of the damaged areas. Ultimately, the photographs will be the most critical evidence in the case.

2. The Water Bills

The water bills also can help guide the parties’ understanding of what happened. If there was a sudden and extreme toilet leak or pipe burst, then, depending on where the burst was, there may be a huge surge in the water bills. If the bills constantly crept up for a few months, however, that might suggest there was a pinhole leak that allowed water to seep out over a long period of time. According to the Fourth DCA, the water bills in Hoey were sufficient to allow the trial court’s finding that the damage was excluded.

3. The Experts

The experts in this field are very skilled and can provide the parties with highly detailed evaluations of an infinite amount of different types of water losses. Many of the experts I deal with rely on the studies done by Dr. Ralph Moon from HSA Engineers.I have worked with Dr. Moon a great deal. He has published volumes of studies showing what each housing material looks like after it has been exposed to water for days or months. The studies are very intricate and detailed, and, in some cases, can even tell you what temperature the water was in your case. There are several other outstanding experts that rely on Mr. Moon’s studies. I find that a lot of these experts are very good at explaining why a particular type of damage had to have been caused by long term seepage.

Despite having handled well over 100 of these types of cases, I have not had the chance to meet any experts in this area that are hired by insureds and their attorneys. I would like to hear their counterarguments to the very well reasoned theories laid out in the water duration studies I mentioned above.

If you would like a copy of any of Dr. Moon’s articles or the names of any of the other highly qualified experts, please feel free to email me. If you handle these types of cases, I highly recommend reading Dr. Moon’s articles and sharing them with your team as soon as possible. As you know, the experts will be responsible for explaining the issue to the jury.

4. The Nature of the Source

To determine whether the damage was long term, the parties have to understand the nature of the event. Was the leak coming from the roof? If so (and so long as there was not a wind event), the only seepage that could have entered must have been rain and other moisture over a period of time. If a slight “leak” caused a substantial amount of damage, that is a strong example of a long term water loss. Was the leak coming from a deficiency in the shower stall or tub surround? One might logically expect that the damage occurred each time the person showered or took a bath. Understanding the exact source of each portion of the loss is crucial to determining whether the source, by its nature, is something that would happen over time or all at once.

5. The Policy

To evaluate the claim, insurers and insureds must also go to the heart of the issue – the insurance policy. Interestingly, and as mentioned above, these policies have many variations. Not only are the excluded durations different, but the sources of the loss can often be different. For example, some policies’ constant or repeated seepage exclusions may exclude long term seepage coming only from within a plumbing, heating, or air conditioning system. If the loss was long term but not from one of those systems (for example, through the roof), then insureds and insurers might need to reevaluate whether the loss was “sudden” or not, which is also required by virtually every homeowners insurance policy. As also noted above, some policies contain language that excludes the damage “whether hidden or not.” This is arguably the first place to look when evaluating one of these claims.

If you are an insured, a claims handler, or an attorney in this field, then you certainly need to understand the significance of these issues. This exclusion is as litigated as any other exclusion in any type of insurance policy. Although this was not meant to be an exhaustive review of the issues, I hope that it helped you in some way. As noted above, if you want any of the materials from Dr. Moon or you want to discuss any of the other experts in the field, please email me.

Takeaway:

At least 60% of your claims and lawsuits are probably water damage claims. It’s time to approach these on a more global level.

  • What if I told you that you could use a system to search your old claims and cases to determine how much the next case will settle for?
  • What if I told you that you could pay for the legal documents for these claims only once?

Well, its no longer 2001, and these systems are freely available.  If you want to know more about the systems we use, or you want free checklists and guides for handling water damage claims, please message me.


Questions?

If you have any questions about this article or anything else Florida homeowners insurance-related, please contact us.

Does a Defense Based on an Insured’s Failure to Submit to an Examination Under Oath Require the Insurer to Show Prejudice?

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

fire 3

*April 30, 2014 Update: I want you to read this article because it has the best explanation of the hotly debated condition precedent vs. condition subsequent issue on this site; however, when you are finished, you need to read this article to learn about the latest developments from courts evaluating what type of condition the EUO provision is.*

If an EUO does not happen, can the insurer move for summary judgment and get an order by simply showing that the insurer requested the EUO and it did not happen? In other words, can an insurer obtain a summary judgment on that issue without pleading and proving prejudice? Yes and no, depending on where in Florida you live.

picture from http://www.florida-lawblog.com/2010/05/examination-under-oath-euo.html

The Fifth DCA is the DCA making some waves. While old news, the Fifth DCA in State Farm Ins. Co. v. Curran held that a failure to appear at a compulsory medical examination was a breach, but maybe not a material breach because the insurer did not plead and prove prejudice. 83 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Following that decision, the Fifth DCA issued another opinion denying an insurer summary judgment based on an insured’s alleged failure to submit to an EUO. Whistler’s Park, Inc. v. FIGA, 90 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). In Whistler’s Park, Inc., the Fifth DCA considered the insured’s arguments that it responded to the insurer’s EUO request by naming a corporate representative to testify at the EUO and promising to produce the documents. The insurer had previously asked the insured to call the insurer to schedule the EUO. Leading up to the summary judgment hearing, the insured continued to offer to submit to the EUO, but did not call to schedule. The Fifth DCA once again held that the insurer’s failure to plead and prove prejudice thwarted its ability to obtain summary judgment on the EUO provision, which they called a condition subsequent. The Fifth DCA said that to show a breach of a condition subsequent was material, the insurer needs to plead and prove prejudice. So we know where the Fifth DCA stands: an insurer must plead and prove prejudice.

No other DCA has expressly taken this position. The Third DCA, however, has denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the issue when counsel for the insurer asked improper questions to an insured that the insured refused to answer. De Leon v. Great American Assur. Co., 78 So. 3d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

The Fourth, Fifth, and Second DCAs all have opinions suggesting there is no need to plead and prove prejudice. The Fourth DCA’s decision in Goldman v. State Farm suggests that an insurer does not need to plead prejudice to obtain summary judgment in that jurisdiction. 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). However, the Fifth DCA in Curran suggested that a portion of the Goldman decision considered the prejudice issue when it discussed how remanding the case to proceed with the EUO would be fruitless because two years had passed since commencement of the suit. Insurers often point to two other decisions suggesting that prejudice does not need to be pled and proven to obtain summary judgment in the Second and Fifth DCAs. See Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Drummond, 970 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

So the answer to the question posed is, once again, that it appears to depend on the jurisdiction. In November of 2012, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Curran. I am not sure when to expect the Florida Supreme Court to issue the order but hopefully it will shed some light on whether the Fifth DCA is right, or whether the issue will return to a bright line rule. Until the Supreme Court issues its opinion, it might be best to plead and prove prejudice just to be safe.

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook and Litigation Data Reports:

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

If you are in the Florida homeowners insurance claims industry and are looking for a guide with the key cases, strategies, laws, attorneys, and adjusters, or if you’re looking for Florida litigation data reports, please visit this page to learn more about our Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.

Questions?

Have any questions about Florida’s homeowners insurers, policies, and claims, please feel free to contact us.

Another New Florida Homeowners Insurance Late Notice Case: Hope and Cunningham v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation


First Party Property Insurance Blog is Proud to Announce our New E-Book: the Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.

You know I am always here to provide tons of value to businesses in the insurance claims industry. We spent years collecting and analyzing leading industry data, strategies, action steps, and cases to know for our clients. We decided to make this available exclusively to the First Party Property Insurance Blog Community.

In this 99 page book, we provide our readers with:

  • the 16 Strategies You Need to Know to Master Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims, including pages of Action Steps and Cases to Know for evaluating each strategy
  • the 6 Key Statutes You Need to Know to Master Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims, including Practice Tips and Cases to Know for handling each statute
  • The 3 Tools You Need in Your Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims Toolbox, including our Resources, Legal Document Library, and Affirmative Defenses analysis, and
  • our CaseGlide Florida Homeowners Insurance Databases with insurer data, attorneys, and public adjusters

We’ve been conducting Webinars and Training Sessions on this material for years, and they have always helped our clients’ businesses. The Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook has everything you need to help your colleagues, staff, and partners master our claims industry. Our clients have used the material in this E-Book to revolutionize how they handle claims and litigation.

We’re so confident in this E-Book that we offer you a money-back guarantee if it does not have the information you and your insurance claims business needed to improve. Click the image of the E-Book now to buy it for your friends and clients today.


Add to CartView Cart


*April 30, 2014: There are some other late notice cases that can help you prepare your case.  Check this link to make sure you review all of the late notice cases that have recently came out.*

LATE NOTICE CASE: HOPE & CUNNINGHAM V. CITIZENS

The Third DCA just issued the latest opinion on the late notice defense:

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/opinions/3D11-3147.pdf

As discussed in Florida Courts on the Prompt Notice Provision and New Late Notice Case, the Florida DCAs have been giving insureds and insurers a lot to work with in terms of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a late notice defense.

The Third DCA’s opinion in Hope & Cunningham v. Citizens changes nothing in the current late notice law, but helps to maintain the status quo. The case involved a October, 2005 Hurricane Wilma claim reported to Citizens in 2009.

The Third DCA used the “tipsy coachmen doctrine,”which allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court’s order even if the trial court made the decision for the wrong reason. The trial court granted summary judgment pursuant to the Fourth DCA’s finding in Kroener v. FIGA that the passage of two years alone was sufficient for summary judgment on the defense, without consideration of the facts that might have overcome the presumption of prejudice.

The Third DCA said the trial court should have reviewed the plaintiff’s affidavit, the public adjuster’s report, and the roofer’s estimate to assess whether those could be sufficient to create a question of fact as to whether the plaintiffs could overcome the presumption of prejudice. The Third DCA took up that task and said that, because the evidence was merely conclusory, it did nothing to create a question of fact as to the prejudice. Accordingly, the Third DCA found that the trial court was right for the wrong reasons and Citizens was entitled to summary judgment.

This fits right in the prior analysis. Insureds must produce sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of prejudice and the people presenting that evidence must stick to their stories. If an insured does not present evidence with specific (not conclusory), unwavering reasons as to why the insurer was not prejudiced, then summary judgment is proper.


Getting Started

New to the First Party Property Insurance Blog? Take five minutes to find the answers to your insurance questions by clicking here.


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, then go to our Getting Started page by clicking here, where we have a guide with easy-to-find links to the laws, cases, and articles that will answer your question, or contact me.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Phone Number

Comment

captcha

The End of Chipped Tile Claims for Florida Homeowners Insurance? Maybe – Ergas v. Universal


First Party Property Insurance Blog is Proud to Announce our New E-Book: the Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.

You know I am always here to provide tons of value to businesses in the insurance claims industry. We spent years collecting and analyzing leading industry data, strategies, action steps, and cases to know for our clients. We decided to make this available exclusively to the First Party Property Insurance Blog Community.

In this 99 page book, we provide our readers with:

  • the 16 Strategies You Need to Know to Master Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims, including pages of Action Steps and Cases to Know for evaluating each strategy
  • the 6 Key Statutes You Need to Know to Master Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims, including Practice Tips and Cases to Know for handling each statute
  • The 3 Tools You Need in Your Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims Toolbox, including our Resources, Legal Document Library, and Affirmative Defenses analysis, and
  • our CaseGlide Florida Homeowners Insurance Databases with insurer data, attorneys, and public adjusters

We’ve been conducting Webinars and Training Sessions on this material for years, and they have always helped our clients’ businesses. The Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook has everything you need to help your colleagues, staff, and partners master our claims industry. Our clients have used the material in this E-Book to revolutionize how they handle claims and litigation.

We’re so confident in this E-Book that we offer you a money-back guarantee if it does not have the information you and your insurance claims business needed to improve. Click the image of the E-Book now to buy it for your friends and clients today.


Add to CartView Cart


*April 30, 2014 Update: the marring exclusion has now been applied by three Florida appellate courts.  Read this article to get the most recent analysis of the issue here in Florida.*

For anyone that missed it, Florida’s Fourth DCA recently issued an order in Ergas v. Universal Property & Casualty finding that the “marring” exclusion barred coverage for tile damage caused by a dropped object. Depending on your background, you may or may not know that these types of claims – one crack or chip in a tile – can cost in excess of $30,000.00 per claim. You may (or may not) also be surprised to find out that there are at least hundreds, if not thousands, of these claims per year in Florida. This is a big segment of claims in South Florida, and you would be shocked at how much of an impact a decision like Ergas could have.
People familiar with this type of case know the storyline: the insured allegedly accidentally dropped something on a single tile and it cracked or dented the tile. The major problem here arises when the tile is continuous throughout the whole or most of the house, and the insureds do not have any replacement tiles. Under those facts, some insureds, public adjusters, and insureds’ attorneys would argue they were entitled to have the tile floor in their entire home replaced. Until this Ergas case, there was not any persuasive appellate court authority on the issue. Thus, insureds would request a complete replacement of the tile (well into the five figures) as a result of that single, small tile crack/dent.
The Fourth DCA in Ergas looked at several proposed definitions for the term “mar,” including “to injure, spoil, damage, ruin, detract from,” “to inflict damage,” “blemish” and “to cause harm to, spoil, or impair.” The Court found that a dropped object on tile fit any of the definitions; however, there are some important things to note. First, the footnote on page 4 suggests that the insureds did not argue that the term was ambiguous because it was over-inclusive. The Court suggested that the term could not be enforced if the Court were asked to apply it to reach an absurd result. The Court noted that Universal tried to draw the line at superficial versus substantial damage – superficial damage fell within the “marring” exclusion while substantial would not. I don’t think the Court discussed whether there was support for that argument, but this distinction certainly makes perfect sense. Overall, the Court appears to leave the door open to some new arguments, but the Court does not hint as to how it would rule if those arguments were made.
Here’s the link to the full opinion:
So, in summary, there’s no doubt that the damage fit within the exclusion, because the exclusion’s definitions show you how many types of perils it could encompass. The insureds’ attorney in Ergas argued that, because the term “marring” was placed in the policy next to the terms “wear and tear” and “deterioration,” it did not make sense to give it a definition that would encompass a peril that was allegedly sudden and accidental. In other words, they argued someone reading the policy would have thought that all of those terms referred to long term losses, whereas the insurer wants the “marring” portion of the exclusion to apply to a sudden and accidental loss. The insureds did not provide an alternative definition for the Fifth DCA to consider and, accordingly, lost.
Nevertheless, this first appellate examination of the exclusion already has policyholders’ attorneys arguing the case was wrongly decided:
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in other jurisdictions. I am aware of at least two other DCAs with the issue pending on their dockets, so we will see if the Ergas ruling makes its way around the state. It will also be interesting to see how insurers and insureds’ attorneys refine their arguments (if they preserved them) after the Ergas decision.

Getting Started

New to the First Party Property Insurance Blog? Take five minutes to find the answers to your insurance questions by clicking here.

Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, then go to our Getting Started page by clicking here, where we have a guide with easy-to-find links to the laws, cases, and articles that will answer your question, or contact me.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Phone Number

Comment

captcha

« Older Entries