Category Archives: Florida Insurance Examinations Under Oath

Florida Supreme Court Decides Curran Regarding Compulsory Medical Examination in Uninsured and Underinsured Case is a Condition Subsequent

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida’s Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that could change the way insurance claims and evaluated.  Do you know what the Court said?


In March, Florida’s Supreme Court decided whether an insurer of uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage has to prove prejudice when the insured fails to attend a compulsory medical examination (“CME”).  As you know, we first addressed this issue almost a year ago in this article.

Here is the Court’s complete decision in Curran v. State Farm:

Download (PDF, 135KB)

The Curran decision contains a lengthy analysis of the relevant Florida case law; however, in summary, the Court determined that a CME provision in the UM insurance policy context is a condition subsequent to coverage for UM benefits; therefore, State Farm was required to plead and prove that the insured’s failure to attend the CME prejudiced State Farm.

photo from http://www.peterbottcher.ca/sc/deco/contract_300x220.jpeg

Ultimately, the Curran decision hinged on what type of policy provision the CME provision is: a condition subsequent or a condition precedent. State Farm argued that the CME was a condition precedent to coverage. If State Farm prevailed, then it would have had a presumption throughout the litigation that the insured’s failure to attend the CME prejudiced State Farm (like breach of the prompt notice provision). By contrast, the insured sought to have the CME be characterized as a condition subsequent because, if so, State Farm would have to plead and prove that the insured’s failure to attend the CME prejudiced State Farm.repair 1

The Court agreed with the insured; therefore, the Court required State Farm to prove it was prejudiced.  The Court started the analysis by describing the public policy behind the UM statute, Fla. Stat. 627.727(1). The Court explained its decision must include the public policy behind this statute. Next, the Court simply stated that the CME occurs after the parties enter into a contract and after a claim occurs; therefore, the Court opined that the CME provision was a condition subsequent to coverage. The Court reasoned that the CME provision was a part of the cooperation clause. Under Florida law, insurers have the burden of proving prejudice for breach of the cooperation clause provisions.

Importantly, the Court did not remand the case for further fact finding; instead, it determined that State Farm failed to prove prejudice as a matter of law.  Thus, not only did State Farm fail to obtain the presumption, they lost the issue altogether.

What does Curran mean for Examinations Under Oath in homeowners insurance cases? Advocates for insurers would argue nothing, and insureds’ attorneys would argue everything. The Court was careful to explain that this decision was strongly influenced by the UM statute and public policy, and the Court did not mention whether the cases it cited on the EUO provision were incorrectly decided.  Thus, insurers’ and insureds’ attorneys have room to argue their points on whether Curran should be extended to property insurance EUO failures; however, neither has direct support from the Florida Supreme Court. This decision is similar to the Court’s decision in GEICO v. Nunez, where the Court heavily relied on the specific statute at issue, and not just the insurance policy.


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, please 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.

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.