Waiver Of Proof Of Loss

24 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Palmer
  297 So. 2d 96· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-05-24 ·cited 85×
  Cincinnati Insurance refused to pay fire insurance proceeds for over three months due to complications with a dissolved corporation. The insured brought suit, and the insurer paid the claim before trial, but the court awarded attorney's fees under Florida law. The appellate court
• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Norwood M. Phelps
  294 So. 2d 362· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-05-21 ·cited 42×
  Hartford Accident & Indemnity appeals a summary judgment awarding homeowners coverage under an all-risks homeowner's insurance policy for water damage caused by a burst underground water pipe in the home's plumbing system. The court held that the policy's specific coverage for pl
• Taylor v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.
  44 Fla. 273· Fla.· 1902-01-01 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of a bill for reformation and recovery on a fire insurance policy issued in the name of a deceased woman (Eudora O. Taylor) when the actual owners were her husband and children. The court held that the insurance company's agent, kn
• Bear v. N.J. Ins. Co.
  138 Fla. 298· Fla.· 1939-05-26 ·cited 30×
  Insureds sued two insurance companies for fire damage to their Pensacola building. The trial court ruled against the insureds, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the insurer admitted liability after the second fire, waived formal proof of loss, and failed to tim
• The Emp'rs' Liab. Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Royals Farm Supply, Inc.
  186 So. 2d 317· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-05-11 ·cited 24×
  In this consolidated case, a mortgagee sued seven insurance companies for fire loss claims on property it had mortgaged. The trial court granted summary judgment for the mortgagee on the principal amount, plus interest and attorney's fees. The insurers appealed, challenging inter
• Aetna Ins. Co. v. Holmes
  59 Fla. 116· Fla.· 1910-01-01 ·cited 24×
  Aetna Insurance Company appealed a judgment for policyholders Holmes and Tookes on a fire insurance claim, arguing the plaintiffs failed to provide timely notice and proof of loss. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an insurance company's local agent with authority
• Scottish Union & Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Bejcy
  201 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1953-01-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that special damages for mental anguish and other consequential losses are not recoverable in an ordinary fire insurance policy claim where the insurer denies liability in good faith, absent specific statutory provisions or clear foreseeability of such damages at t
• Beverly v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.
  50 So. 3d 628· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-10-27 ·cited 14×
  Lloyd and Edith Beverly appealed a summary judgment dismissing their insurance claim against State Farm for hurricane damage benefits and attorney's fees under Florida law. The court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether State Farm wron
• Guar. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Jacobs
  57 So.2d 845· Fla.· 1952-03-28 ·cited 11×
  The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a lower court's judgment for policyholders in a fire insurance dispute. The court held that the insurance company waived the requirement for formal proof of loss by unconditionally denying liability, and that the merchandise destroyed was ind
• All-Star Ins. Corp. v. Scandia, Inc.
  321 So. 2d 575· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-09-16 ·cited 10×
  Insurance carriers appealed from a trial court judgment where the judge set aside two jury verdicts and entered final judgment for the full policy amount of $135,000. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial judge abused discretion in setting aside verdicts supported
• Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Terry
  277 So. 2d 563· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-05-15 ·cited 10×
  American Bankers Insurance Company appeals a judgment for damages, costs, and attorney's fees in a motorcycle theft insurance dispute. The court affirmed, holding that the insurer waived the formal proof of loss requirement by admitting liability upon notice of theft, thereby los
• Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Slide Rule & Scale Eng'g Co.
  177 F.2d 305· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-18 ·cited 10×
  A valid parol contract of insurance can be formed by an agent with actual authority, even if the specific insurers are not disclosed at the time of contracting, and the insurer's denial of liability waives the requirement for proof of loss.
• Meigs & Cope Agency OF Fla., Inc. v. Edythe Koffey
  435 So. 2d 867· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-07-05 ·cited 9×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should be added to the judgment because the claim was contractual, the amount was liquidated by the jury verdict, and the defendant stipulated to entitlement to interest.
• Lititz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lengacher
  248 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1957-11-06 ·cited 8×
  A builder has an insurable interest in a dwelling under construction when an agreement for construction exists, even if formal work hasn't begun, and an insurer waives proof of loss by denying liability.
• Lincoln Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hurst
  112 Fla. 350· Fla.· 1933-10-17 ·cited 8×
  Lincoln Fire Insurance Co. appealed a jury verdict awarding Ernest Hurst the full face value of a fire insurance policy ($1,250) on a house destroyed by fire. The central issues were whether a conditional vendee could sue alone on a joint policy when the vendor refused to join, a
• Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Deerfield Groves Co.
  195 So. 2d 625· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-02-13 ·cited 6×
  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation appealed a judgment ordering it to pay damages for denying coverage on a 1963 grapefruit crop loss, claiming the policy lapsed due to unpaid premium. The trial court found the company was estopped from denying liability because it failed to prov
• Llerena v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
  379 So. 2d 166· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-01-22 ·cited 5×
  Mary Llerena appeals the dismissal of her insurance claim against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company for collision damage. The court holds that the insurer's submission of settlement offers constituted an admission of liability that waived the formal proof of loss requirement, an
• McCONNELL v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. of San Francisco
  178 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1949-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insured did not voluntarily part with possession of the car under the policy's exception, and the insurer waived strict proof of loss requirements.
• Gonzalez v. People's Tr. Ins. Co.
  307 So. 3d 956· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a summary judgment granted to an insurance company, finding that a dispute over whether the insureds substantially complied with their post-loss obligations presented a genuine issue of material fact. The case highlights the importance of factual disp
• Mima Keel v. The Indep. Life & Accident Ins. Co.
  99 So. 2d 225· Fla.· 1957-12-20 ·cited 2×
  A denial of liability by an insurance company's agent, advising the beneficiary that filing a proof of loss would be of no advantage, constitutes a waiver of the policy's proof of loss requirement.
• Lititz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barnes
  248 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1957-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Wood, as the named insured, retained an insurable interest in the property due to his liability on the mortgage debt, even after conveying the property.
• Hawkeye Chem. Co. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  510 F.2d 322· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-20
  A fire insurance policy condition excluding coverage for increased hazard is inoperative if the increase in hazard did not contribute to the loss, as dictated by Iowa statute, even if the insured had knowledge and control over the increased hazard.
• Laird v. Chicago Ins. Co.
  227 So. 2d 230· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-10-21
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error due to the absence of a trial transcript.
• Victory Cabinet Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.
  183 F.2d 360· 7th Cir.· 1950-06-30
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to remand because the suit involved separable controversies between citizens of different states, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a claim for business interruption loss due to lack of proper proof of los