Insurance Coverage Denial Proper Where Insured Did Not Comply With His Policy's Post-Lost Duties
Insights for Insurers Alert | 2 min read
Nov 7, 2011
Edwards v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 64 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA June 15, 2011)
Plaintiff insured reported a claim to defendant, his property insurer, after sustaining damage to his home from Hurricane Frances on September 4, 2004. The insurer determined that the damages were beneath the insured’s deductible, and therefore made no payment on his claim.
In June 2008, the insured submitted a supplemental claim to the insurer, seeking payment for his Hurricane Frances claim. The insured submitted a representation letter from his public adjuster, which incorrectly referred to the insured’s nonexistent Hurricane Wilma loss. Attached to the public adjuster’s letter was an estimate for $52,000, including $13,000 for a complete roof replacement.
In July 2008, the insurer’s adjuster inspected the insured premises and found no damage to the roof. The insured’s adjuster then sent the insurer an unsigned October 2006 contract proposal from a roofer summarizing the cost to install a new roof for $9,300 (about $3,000 less than the cost submitted by the public adjuster), but with no contact information for the roofer and no cost for the completed roof. As the insured did not respond to questions about these irregularities, the insurer requested a sworn proof of loss and an examination under oath (EUO).
On February 2, 2009, the insured sent his own sworn proof of loss form to the insurer, but did not provide the requested documents or information. The insurer never received additional documents or information from the insured. As to the EUO, the insured never appeared for it, and the insurer was notified that the insured had retained counsel. The insured sued the insurer in June 2009 contending that it had breached the insurance policy by failing to pay his claim.
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s order denying coverage. The court cited the policy provisions requiring the insured to provide documents and submit to an EUO. It noted that the insurer had made specific basic document requests that the insured never satisfied, and that the insured had ignored the insurer’s request for an EUO. Thus, the court determined, the insurer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Practice Note
As a practice note for first party property practitioners, the insured should be counseled to comply with its insurer’s reasonable requests for information and documents, and to provide a sworn proof of loss and examination under oath when requested. Noncompliance by an insured with an insurer’s reasonable material request(s) could be found to result in a waiver of the insured’s right to any insurance proceeds under his or her policy.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers



