of the Tampa office, recently prevailed by obtaining summary judgment for a homeowners’ insurer. The decision is a step forward enforcing insureds’ compliance with the requirements of a policy’s terms, conditions and post-loss obligations.
The case involved two separate water losses, reported to the carrier on the same day. During the carrier’s initial inspection, it requested the insured’s in person
recorded statement. The insured refused an in-person recorded statement, but offered a telephonic statement. The insured ultimately refused on six separate occasions. The insured also failed to appear to her examination under oath on three separate occasions, and thereafter filed suit. The carrier moved for summary judgment, the insured countered she offered a telephonic statement which the carrier refused, and thus the carrier did not satisfy its burden to show it had been prejudiced. Jessica arguing recent case law showed it was the burden of the insured not the insurer to show prejudice. The trial court was persuaded by Jessica’s arguments and entered summary judgment for the insurer. Thus, the trial court held that the insured’s failure to provide an in-person recorded statement was a material breach entitling the insurer to summary judgment.