AMERICAN RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGIL RIGGINS AND CAROLYN B. RIGGINS, APPELLEES
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.
American Reliance Insurance Company appeals summary judgment orders in favor of insureds Virgil and Carolyn Riggins in a fire loss coverage dispute. The court reverses, holding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the insurer waived contractual requirements for the insureds to produce documents and submit to examination under oath.
The court held that the insurer's contractual right to require the insureds to provide documents and submit to examination under oath does not depend on the insurer first providing fire cause and origin reports. However, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the insurer waived these contractual provisions through its conduct.
[1] Non-final orders granting summary judgment are appealable under Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) of the Florida Rules of…
[2] An insured is required to provide an insurer with relevant records and documents and submit to an examination under oath after a fire loss claim is made under the insuran…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“We agree entirely with the defendant insurer that the plaintiff insureds were absolutely required under the contract of insurance herein (1) to provide the insurer upon its request with certain relevant records and documents, and (2) to submit upon request to an examination under oath by the insurer, after a fire loss claim is made under the insurance contract.”
Establishes that the insurance contract unambiguously imposed these obligations on the insureds independent of any duty by the insurer to produce reports.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case arises from a dispute between insureds and their insurance carrier concerning coverage for a fire loss. The insurance contract required the i…
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 Waiver Of Contract Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant American Reliance Insurance Company from two non-final orders which grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs Virgil and Carolyn B. Riggins on the declaratory decree and breach of contract counts in a multi-count complaint. The action below arises out of a dispute between the insureds and their insurance carrier concerning insurance coverage for a certain fire loss.
We hold that (1) the non-final orders under review are appealable to this court under Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; and (2) genuine issues of material fact are presented by this record which precluded the entry of the subject summary judgments. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
We agree entirely with the defendant insurer that the plaintiff insureds were absolutely required under the contract of insurance herein (1) to provide the insurer upon its request with certain relevant records and documents, and (2) to submit upon request to an examination under oath by the insurer, after a fire loss claim is made under the insurance contract.
Accordingly, the trial court was clearly in error in requiring, as a prerequisite to the performance of the above acts, that the insurer provide the insureds with certain fire cause and origin reports; there is nothing in the contract of insurance which requires the insurer to produce such reports for the insureds.
Nonetheless, genuine issues of material fact are presented on this record relating to whether the insurer, by its conduct, waived the provisions of the contract of insurance requiring the insureds to perform the above-stated acts after a claim was made under the insurance contract. See Sentry Ins. v. Brown, 424 So. 2d 780, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA1982), rev. denied, 430 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1983); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Vogel, 195 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA1967).
We accordingly reverse the summary judgments under review and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. This reversal will necessarily require the trial court upon remand to vacate the order granting attorney’s fees for the plaintiff.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…under oath must be complied with, and, if breached, the insurer will be deprived of a valuable right for which it had contracted. 5A J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice § 3549, at 549-50 (1970); American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Riggins, 604 So. 2d 535, 535-36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (insured is absolutely required to submit to an examination under oath when requested by an insurer). The puipose of the examination under oath provision was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Claflin v. Commo…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran, 83 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…under oath must be complied with, and, if breached, the insurer will be deprived of a valuable right for which it had contracted. 5A J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice § 3549, at 549-50 (1970); American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Riggins, 604 So. 2d 535, 535-36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (insured is absolutely required to submit to an examination under oath when requested by an insurer). The purpose of the examination under oath provision was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Claflin v. Commo…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Vogel, 195 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Sentry Ins. v. Brown, 424 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)