MANUEL V. FEIJOO, M.D., P.A. A/A/O ELIZABETH TAVERAS
v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Failure to submit to an examination under oath as required by an insurance policy is a material breach that relieves the insurer of liability, and prejudice is not an element of the insurer's affirmative defense.
[1] Failure to submit to an examination under oath as required by an insurance policy constitutes material breach relieving the insurer of liability for personal injury prote…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“because submitting to an examination under oath is a condition precedent to receipt of PIP benefits under section 627.736(6)(g) and the policy at issue, prejudice is not an element of Infinity Auto's affirmative defense”
The court cited Infinity Auto Ins. Co. v. Miami Open MRI, LLC to establish that prejudice is not required for the insurer's defense based on failure to attend an EUO.
Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D., P.A., on behalf of Elizabeth Taveras, sought personal injury protection benefits from Progressive American Insurance Company. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Post-Loss Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 1, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1049 Lower Tribunal No. 21-2772-SP-25
Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D., P.A., a/a/o Elizabeth Taveras, Appellant,
vs.
Progressive American Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer, Judge.
George David P.A., and George David and Christian Carrazana, for appellant.
Banker Lopez Gassler P.A., and DeeAnn J. McLemore, and Tabitha C. Blackwell (St. Petersburg), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and REBULL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Infinity Auto Ins. Co. v. Miami Open MRI, LLC, 361 So. 3d 954, 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Moreover, because submitting to an examination under oath is a condition precedent to receipt of PIP benefits under section 627.736(6)(g) and the policy at issue, prejudice is not an element of Infinity Auto's affirmative defense to Miami Open's claim for services taking place on June 18, 2015, and the trial court erred in requiring otherwise."); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. LFC Med. Ctr., Inc., 388 So. 3d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“United put forward sufficient evidence that the insured breached the policy by not attending the EUO . . . .”); Nunez v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 325 So. 3d 267, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) ("Because the undisputed facts show that Nunez wholly failed to comply with her post-loss obligation to attend an EUO, and likewise failed to offer evidence of compliance or attempted compliance—or even a reasonable justification for the failure to attend the trial court properly directed a verdict on whether Nunez materially breached the contract.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Celerina Nunez v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 325 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)