Skip to Content

Failure of Insured to Comply with Conditions Precedent bars Hurricane Claim
August 08, 2011
In a first party property damage case, Edwards v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., No. 3D10-2062 (Fla. 3d DCA June 15, 2011), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal held that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the insurer, State Farm, based on the insured’s failure to comply with conditions precedent to payment of claims.

Years after the hurricane, the insured through a public adjuster filed a supplemental loss claim for damages purportedly sustained during Hurricane Frances. The insured claimed damages from the storm were $52,510,34.

The trial court granted summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed finding that the insured failed to comply with conditions precedent in the following ways: 1) the insurer made requests for specific basic documents relating to the loss which were never provided; 2) the plaintiff failed to submit to an examination under oath as requested by the insurer and; 3) plaintiff never submitted documents supporting costs allegedly expended to repair of the roof. The court held that the insured’s non-compliance with the conditions precedent to payment relieved the insurer of its duty to pay the claim.

For more information, please contact Thomas A. Dye
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.