Property insurance policies contain post-loss obligations that an insured is required to comply with prior to filing a lawsuit. One of those obligations may be providing the insurer with a sworn proof of loss. In a recent case, the Court held that whether an insured substantially complied with pre-suit post-loss obligations is a question of fact for the jury. For instance, in this case, the insurer argued that the insured failed to submit a sworn proof of loss within 60 days of the loss. The insured, however, submitted a sworn proof of loss to the insurer prior to filing her lawsuit, albeit it was not timely submitted. The insurer ultimately wanted this untimeliness to constitute the insured’s forfeiture of coverage. The Court held that whether the insured substantially complied with the post-loss policy obligation and whether any untimely compliance was prejudicial to the insurer were questions of fact for the jury. This is a benefit to a policy holder (insured) that makes it a question of fact (up to the factfinder) to determine whether an insured’s pre-suit noncompliance with a policy obligation actually prejudiced the insurer. See State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Figueroa, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D339a (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Please contact David Adelstein at firstname.lastname@example.org or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.