MATTHEW HAIMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Matthew Haiman appealed a summary judgment granted against him in an insurance coverage dispute involving a claimed loss of an insured watch. The trial court ruled that Haiman made a material misrepresentation and failed to comply with document production requirements, but the appellate court reversed, finding disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper because disputed issues of material fact existed regarding both the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation and whether documents were produced in compliance with policy requirements. Both issues should be resolved by the trier of fact.
[1] Materiality of a misrepresentation in an insurance claim is a question of fact for the trier of fact.
[2] An insured's compliance with post-loss policy provisions may be a condition precedent to filing suit, but a factual dispute regarding compliance or explanation for noncom…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“As to the first issue, materiality is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.”
Establishes that materiality of misrepresentation is a factual, not legal, question inappropriate for summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaiman owned two Rolex watches, only one of which was insured under a Federal Insurance Company policy. He claimed a loss on the insured watch but ini…
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 Condition Precedent To Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
In appellant’s suit to pay an insured loss of a watch, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee insurance company on two grounds: (1) that appellant made a misrepresentation of material fact related to the claim; and (2) that he failed to comply with document production demanded by appellee prior to instituting suit. Because an examination of the record reveals that there are disputed issues of material fact as to both issues, we reverse.
As to the first issue, materiality is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. See, e.g., Silverman v. Pitterman, 574 So. 2d 275, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Beneby v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 402 So. 2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Appellant had two Rolex watches, only one of which was insured and was the subject of the loss. While appellant agrees that he initially misrepresented where he originally obtained the second uninsured watch, he corrected his statement very soon thereafter, and thus, he maintains it could have had no effect on appellee’s investigation. Whether that constitutes a material misrepresentation which would void coverage should be determined by the trier of fact.
As to the second issue, there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether certain documents requested by appellee were in fact produced. Appellant’s affidavit states that they were. Moreover, while appellee cites to Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co., 660 So. 2d 300, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), for the proposition that compliance with the insured’s duties after a loss is a condition precedent to suit, this case is distinguishable. In Goldman, pursuant to the policy, the insured was required to submit to an examination under oath respecting a loss. The policy also stated that no action against the company could be maintained until the insured complied with all policy provisions. The insured did not make himself available for any examination prior to filing suit. We held that this was a condition precedent to any action. See id.
In this case, the policy contained a similar “examination under oath” provision, which required the insured to “produce all records we required.” Not only did appellant appear for a examination under oath, but he produced volumes of documents for the insurance company. We agree with Diamonds & Denims, Inc. v. First of Georgia Insurance Co., 203 Ga.App. 681, 417 S.E. 2d 440, 441-42 (1992), that,
[a] total failure to comply with policy provisions made a prerequisite to suit under the policy may constitute a breach precluding recovery from the insurer as a matter of law. If, however, the insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented for resolution by a jury.
(Citations omitted).
In this case, appellee’s affirmative defense stated that the failure to produce documents was a material breach of the policy. Whether the failure to produce documents requested is a material breach would be a question of fact for the jury. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
POLEN, C.J. and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…. 3d DCA 1993). This reasoning applies equally to a policy’s condition precedent that an insured submit a sworn proof-of-loss. In Ferrer, the insureds never submitted a sworn proof-of-loss. As the court expressed in Haiman v. Federal Insurance Co., 798 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001): [A] total failure to comply with policy provisions made a prerequisite to suit under the policy may constitute a breach precluding recovery from the insurer as a matter of law. If, however, the insured cooperates to some degree…1 / 2
-
Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Farmer, 104 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…ecluding recovery from the insurer as a matter of law. If, however, the insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented for resolution by a jury. Id. (quoting Haiman v. Fed. Ins. Co., 798 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). Applying Goldman to the proof of loss violation, this Court concluded that the insured’s failure to submit a proof of loss and inventory list constituted a material breach of the condition precedent to suit, and “[h]er failure…
-
Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ficient. As this court has previously noted, where the “insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented” regarding the necessity or sufficiency of compliance. Haiman v. Fed. Ins. Co., 798 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citation omitted). Whether appellees’ compliance with the policy terms was necessary or sufficient is a dispute of fact. The trial court, without taking any evidence, did not resolve this dispute of fact with competent evid…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Evans v. State, 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Wellington E. Beneby v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 402 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Silverman v. Pitterman, 574 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)