In the case of Hally Finnell v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association Inc., 383 So.3d 836 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2024). the main issue at hand was whether the insured breached the homeowner's insurance policy by failing to submit to an Examination Under Oath (EUO). The insurer denied the insured's claim for property loss due to water damage based on this alleged breach.
The insured, Hally Finnell, had a homeowner's insurance policy with the insurer, Florida Insurance Guaranty Association Inc. The homeowner's insurance policy specified that in the event of a property loss, the insured was required to submit to an EUO, which would be conducted separately and not in the presence of any other persons except legal counsel. However, prior to the scheduled EUO, Finnell’s counsel informed the insurer's counsel that Finell intended to bring her own videographer and court reporter. The insurer objected to this, resulting in the EUO not proceeding as planned and the subsequent denial of the claim.
In response, Finnell brought a lawsuit against the insurer, claiming breach of contract and seeking declaratory judgment for the insurer's failure to pay the covered claim. The insurer, in its answer and affirmative defenses, alleged that the insured breached the policy by failing to submit to the EUO and moved for summary judgment on this defense. Finnell, in her response to the motion for summary judgment, argued that she had complied to some extent with the EUO requirement but cited the hostile relationship between the attorneys as a barrier to the EUO being conducted and, specifically, pointed to instances of unprofessional conduct by the insurer's trial counsel as evidence of this hostility.
The trial court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding that Finnell breached the homeowner's insurance policy by failing to submit to the EUO. However, on appeal, the appellate court ruled differently. The appellate court determined that when an insured complies to some extent with post-loss obligations, an issue of fact arises.
In this case, Finnell appeared for the EUO and provided an explanation for why it did not proceed. The appellate court concluded that since the insured cooperated to some degree with the policy's post-loss obligations, the motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. The court found that an issue of fact remained in dispute and therefore reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In essence, this ruling shifts the balance of power, allowing insured individuals to navigate the complexities of policy compliance with greater ease. By merely demonstrating a reasonable effort to meet post-loss obligations, they can now effectively challenge an insurer's summary judgment, transforming the landscape of insurance disputes and ensuring that a genuine commitment to fulfilling their responsibilities is enough to keep their claims alive.