JESUS A. ARIAS, APPELLANT,
v.
AFFIRMATIVE 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.
The court held that the insurance policy's PIP endorsement did not require the insured to submit to a recorded examination under oath as a condition precedent to receiving benefits.
[1] An appellate court reviews a trial court's construction of an insurance contract de novo.
[2] When the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, courts must apply the plain meaning of the words and phrases used.
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 intelligenceThe insured sought PIP benefits after a car accident, but the insurer demanded an examination under oath. The insured offered a non-recorded statement…
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 Examination Under Oath cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
The trial court granted an ore tenus motion for judgment on the pleadings based upon the terms of the insurance policy on which appellant sought declaratory relief. Appellant claimed that under the policy he was not required to appear for an examination under oath for purposes of his PIP claim for benefits. The court construed the provisions against appellant’s contention. Because we conclude that the policy did not require such an examination, we reverse.
According to the complaint, appellant, Jesus Arias, sustained injuries requiring medical care as a result of a motor vehicle accident. He notified his insurance company, Affirmative, of his loss and submitted a request for PIP benefits. Affirmative requested that Arias appear for an examination under oath to be transcribed by a court reporter. After correspondence between Arias’ counsel and the insurance company, Affirmative continued to demand the examination under oath. Arias then agreed to be present for an examination under oath but objected to the presence of a court reporter or otherwise recording the statement, contending that the policy did not contain such a requirement. Eventually, Arias and his counsel appeared to give a non-recorded statement under oath, but the insurance company failed to appear. After Affirmative finally refused to provide PIP benefits, Arias filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that the wording of the policy did not require Arias to submit to a recorded statement under oath as a condition precedent to his entitlement to benefits. He further maintained that Affirmative’s refusal to accept Arias’ offer to give a non-recorded statement under oath acted as a waiver of Affirmative’s right to obtain an examination under oath. Arias made other claims, but those are not relevant to our disposition of this appeal.
The Personal Auto Policy in this case, which is subtitled Personal Injury Protection and Property Damage Liability, is divided into two parts. The first consists of the Personal Auto Policy and provides liability protection. Within its provisions is the following:
PART B-DUTIES AFTER AN ACCIDENT OR LOSS
We have no duty to provide coverage under this policy unless there has been full compliance with the following duties:
A. We must be notified promptly of how, when and where the accident or loss happened. Notice should also include the names and addresses of any injured persons and of any witnesses.
B. A person seeking any coverage must:
1. Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of any claim or suit.
2. Promptly send us copies of any notices of legal papers received in connections with the accidents or loss
3. Submit, as often as we reasonably require
a. To physical exams by physicians we select. We will pay for these exams
b. To examination under oath and subscribe the same
(emphasis added).
An endorsement, entitled “Personal Injury Protection Coverage — Florida,” provides that with respect to coverage provided by the endorsement, the provisions of the policy apply “unless modified by the endorsement.” (emphasis added). The endorsement includes the following:
III. Duties After an Accident or Loss Part E is replaced by the following: DUTIES AFTER AN ACCIDENT OR LOSS
A person seeking Personal Injury Protection Coverage must:
C.Promptly give us written proof of claim, under oath if requested. Such proof shall include:
1. Full details of the nature and extent of the injuries and treatment received and contemplated; and
2. Any other information which may assist us in determining the amount due and payable.
(emphasis added). While this section states that it replaces Part E, the original policy only contains Parts A, B, and C and there is no Part E. However, Part B of the policy covers the insured’s duties after a loss.
At a hearing on discovery, the trial court reviewed the policy and invited the insurance company to make an ore tenus motion for judgment on the pleadings to “cut to the chase” as the trial court termed it. The company complied, and the trial court granted the motion, determining that the policy required an examination under oath which could be recorded by a court reporter. Arias appeals.
The construction of an insurance contract involves a question of law, and an appellate court applies a de novo standard of review. Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Beach Cars of West Palm, Inc., 929 So. 2d 729, 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). As we said in Southeastern Fire Insurance Co. v. Lehrman, 443 So. 2d 408, 408-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984):
Courts should resort to complex rules of construction to determine coverage or the applicability of exclusions only when the language used in the policy is ambiguous or otherwise susceptible of more than one meaning. Absent such factors courts should apply the plain meaning of words and phrases used in a policy of insurance.
See also Great Am. Ins. Cos. v. Souza, 855 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
The policy under review does not provide for an examination under oath for purposes of PIP claims. Although the liability provision of the policy requires examinations under oath as part of the duties of a “person seeking coverage,” that section is replaced by a different section in the PIP coverage. Pursuant to that section, “Duties After an Accident or Loss,” the PIP claimant must “promptly give us written proof of claim, under oath if requested.” (emphasis added). No examination under oath is required by the policy. The policy is clear and unambiguous on what is required of the PIP claimant, and the insurance company cannot insist on something not within the terms of the policy.
The trial court looked to the wrong provision of the policy in granting judgment on the pleadings. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
STEVENSON, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Branco, 148 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…ubject or scope of appraisal depends on the contract provisions. Citizens Prop, Ins. Corp. v. Casar, 104 So. 3d 384, 385-86 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Absent ambiguity, the plain meaning of an insurance policy controls. E.g., Arias v. Affirmative Ins. Co., 944 So. 2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Se. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lehrman, 443 So. 2d 408, 408-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). Courts should resort to rules of interpretation only when the policy language is ambiguous or otherwise susceptible to multiple meanings. E…
-
Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Pin-Pon Corp. & Lexington Ins. Co., 155 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…n favor of the insured so as to provide the greatest amount of coverage. Because the interpretation of an insurance contract presents a question of law, an appellate court applies a de novo stan [*437] dard of review. Arias v. Affirmative Ins. Co., 944 So. 2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). An insurance contract must be construed in accordance with the plain language of the policy. Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So. 2d 161, 165 (Fla.2003). “[I]n construing insurance policies, courts should…
-
Merly Nunez v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 117 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2013)…ourt in appellate capacity ultimately ruling in favor of the insured where insurance company denied PIP benefits for failure to attend an EUO). While the exact dates are not reflected on the face of the opinion in Arias v. Affirmative Insurance Co., 944 So. 2d 1195, 1195-97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), it is self-evident that months, if not years, passed while the parties in that case litigated through the trial and appellate courts about whether the insured was obligated to attend an EUO in order to obtain PIP benefi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Beach Cars OF W. Palm, Inc., 929 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Se. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lehrman, 443 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Great Am. Ins. Cos. v. Souza, 855 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)