ALTON FORBES
v.
PEOPLE'S TRUST 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.
An insurance policyholder appealed a summary judgment ruling against her for failing to submit a required proof of loss form for a property damage claim. The circuit court held that the proof of loss was an independent contractual obligation separate from any insurer misconduct regarding an invalid preferred contractor endorsement, and that the policyholder's failure to comply relieved the insurer of liability without requiring proof of prejudice.
The court affirmed the judgment against the appellant, holding that proof of loss is an independent contractual obligation whose breach relieves the insurer of liability without requiring proof of prejudice, consistent with the condition precedent doctrine established in Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co.
[1] A proof of loss requirement in an insurance policy constitutes a condition precedent to suit, the breach of which bars recovery without the insurer having to demonstrate…
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 intelligenceThe appellant filed a property damage insurance claim under her policy. The insurer initially attempted to enforce a preferred contractor endorsement …
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 Windfall cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a series of thoughtful, detailed orders on motions for summary judgment, the circuit court ruled against appellant, the plaintiff below, because appellant had failed to complete the proof of loss form required by the insurance policy for the property damage claim. We affirm the resulting final judgment against appellant. We reject appellant’s argument that the insurer’s improper attempt to utilize a preferred contractor to make repairs relieved appellant of the duty to submit a proof of loss, as the latter was an independent obligation under the insurance contract. The undisputed evidence showed that the insurer requested a formal proof of loss after the insurer had abandoned its reliance on an invalid preferred contractor endorsement, and that appellant failed to comply with this request.
As to the argument that the failure to file a proof of loss did not prejudice the insurer, we are bound by Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co., 660 So. 2d 300, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), which holds that an “insurer need not show prejudice when the insured breaches a condition precedent to suit.” We certify conflict with the following cases:
Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (holding that “the insurer must be prejudiced by the insured’s non-compliance with a post-loss obligation in order for the insured to forfeit coverage,” and that when “an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer”); Shivdasani v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 306 So. 3d 1156, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (applying Estrada); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Farmer, 104 So. 3d 1242, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (holding that the trial court did not err in allowing the insureds to prove to the jury that the insurer was not prejudiced by their failure to submit a proof of loss).
Affirmed; conflict certified. WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.