New South Communications, Inc. v. Houston Casualty Company, No. 4:2018cv10110 - Document 54 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 36 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 6/13/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
New South Communications, Inc. v. Houston Casualty Company Doc. 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT O F FLO RIDA KEY W EST DIVISIO N NEW SOUTH COM MUNICATIONS,lNC.) D/B/A FLORIDA KEYSM EDIA,LLC, ) ROBERT HOLLADAY,inhisindividual ) capacity,and FLORIDA KEYS ) MEDIA,LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO.:4:18-cv-101IO-JLK ) v. ) ) HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER GM NTING DEFENDANT'S M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT JAM ES LAW REN CE Km G,DistrictJudge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Courtupon Defendant Houston Casualty Com pan 's (''HCC's'')M otionforSummaryJudgment(the''M otion,''ECFNo.36),filedApril15,2019.T e Courtisfully briefed on the m atter.lA hearing washeld on the M otion on M ay 13, 2019.Up n review ofthe record and carefulconsideration,theCourtfindsthattheM otion should be grante . 1. BACK GROUND Thisdisputearisesoutofaclaim underaninsurancepolicy(the''Po1icy'')issuedbyH C for property damage to certain insured properties (the ''Properties'') allegedly caused y Hunicane Irmawhen itstruck the FloridaKeysin September2017 (the ''C1aim'').HCC issu 'ln supportof the M otion, H CC sim ultaneously tsled a Statem entof U ndisputed M aterialFac s (the ''SUMF'') and corresponding affidavit and exhibits. (ECF No. 35,) Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to HCC'SM otion and a supporting Statem entofDisputed M aterialFacs (the''RSUMF''),along with affidavitsand exhibits,onApril29,2019.(ECF Nos.40,42.)HC filed a Reply in SupportofitsM otion,along with an additionalexhibit, onM ay 6,2019.(E F N().47.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com thePolicytoNew SouthCommunications,Inc.(''New South'')fortheperiod ofFebruary 1,20 7 to February 1,2018,butachangeendorsem entam ended thePolicy to include additionalperso s andentitiesasnamed insureds,includingFloridaKeysM edia,LLC (''FloridaKeys'')andRob rt Holladay(''Ho1laday''),theownerofFloridaKeysandthepresidentand amemberofthebo d ofNew South.Plaintiffs claim in theirAmended ComplaintthatHCC breached the insuran e contractby failing to issueproperpaymentforthecostto repairthe alleged dnm agesandto iss e paymentsasrequired bythePolicy. This case was originally fled by PlaintiffNew South on M ay 21,2018,in the Circ it Courtofthe 16thJudicialCircuitinandforM onroeCounty,Florida.(ECFNo.1-1.)OnJuly 1 , 2018,HCC removed the case based upon the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S. . j 1332.(ECF No.1.)TheComplaintwasthereafteramendedto addFloridaKeysand Hollad y as plaintiffs. (ECF No. 19.) The Amended Complaint remains the operative Complait. Discovery isnow com plete. HCC movesforsummaryjudgmentforthreereasons.First,HCC contendsthatnone f the Plaintiffs has standing to assertthe claim for relief made in this action.HCC states th t discovery hasrevealed thatNew South,theonly insured to bring a claim underthePolicy fort e dam age atissue in the Am ended Complaint,has no insurable interestin the Properties,whih Plaintiffs now adm itare allowned orleased by Florida Keys orHolladay,the recently add d Plaintiffsto thislitigation.Additionally,and notwithstandingthecaption ofthiscase,New Sou h and Florida Keysare separate cop orations.''FloridaKeysM edia,LLC''wasnevera traden e ofN ew South;nor w as N ew South ever doing business as ''Florida K eys M edia,LLC.''Th , HCC contendsthatNew Southcnnnothavesustained an injury in factwithrespectto Propertis in which ithasno interest,and itcannotrecoverforany rightsallegedly belonging to persons r 2 entities other than itself.HCC further asserts that Florida Keys and Holladay are likew'se disallowed from suing on a claim broughtunderthe Policy by theirco-insured. HCC arguest at where a plaintifffailsto show thatithas standing to bring its case in response to a sum m y judgmentmotion,as itstates the Plaintiffshave failed to do here,the motion forsumm y judgmentshouldprevail. Second,HCC contendsthat,jurisdictionaldeficienciesaside,the suitisbarred becau e Plaintiffsfailed to com ply w ith conditionsprecedentto coverage and to filing suitagainstHC . Specifcally, HCC argues that Plaintiffs neglected their responsibilities that arose under t e Policy when,priorto New South's commencementofthis lawsuit,HCC offered to pay the f 11 amountofthedamagesitdeterminvdtobecoveredunderthePolicy,subjecttotheexecution d return ofa sworn proofofloss.H(2C assertsthat,underthe Policy,a signed,sworn proofoflo s should havebeen submitted within sixty daysthereaherasacondition precedentto any covera e and to filing any suitagainstHCC.However,the record shows thatnone ofthe Plaintiffs- n t New South,Florida Keys,orHolladay - eversubmitted a sworn proofoflossto HCC.lnstea , New South filed this lawsuit.HCC contendsthatthatthe failure to submita proofofloss b s Plaintiffsfrom bringing thissuit. Finally,HCC moves for summary judgmenton the basis that,even ifPlaintiffs h d standing and werenototherwisebarred from bringing thisaction,an exclusion in the Policy ba s coverage for the alleged dam ages beyond those for which HCC previously offered paym e t. Specifically,thePolicy excludescoverage for''losstothe interiorofbuildingsorstructm es or o personalproperty in the buildings or structures caused by rain,snow ,sleet, ice,sand,or du t, unless:enteringthrough openingsmadeby a'namedperil'....''(Policy,ECF No.40-1,p.31,) HCC assertsthatPlaintiffshave failed to establish thatthe exception to thatexclusion applies o 3 any specifsc piece of property included in the Claim aside from those damages H C acknowledged were potentially caused by rain entering through an opening m ade by Hurric e Irma.Thus,HCC contends no genuine issue of m aterial fact exists that the exclusion 1im ts recovery. II. LEGAL STANDARD A court''shallgrantsummary judgmentifthe movantshowsthatthere isno genuie disputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.''Fed. . Civ.P.56(a).''(T)hemereexistenceofsomeallegedfactualdisputebetween thepartieswill t defeatan otherwise properly supported motion forsummaryjudgment;therequirementist at there be no genuine issueofmaterialfact.''Anderson v.fiberty Lobby,Inc.,477 U .S.242,24 - 48(1986),A dispute aboutamaterialfactis''genuine''if''theevidenceissuchthatareasona le jury could return averdictforthenonmovingparty.''ld.at248.Theapplicablesubstantive1 willdetermine whatfactsare ''material,''but''lolnly disputesoverfactsthatmightaffectt e outcome of the suit under the governing 1aw will properly preclude the entry of summ y judgment.''ld Thepartyseeking summaryjudgmentbearstheinitialburden ofdemonstratingtheba is for its motion and ''identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers o interrogatories,and admissions on sle,together with the afsdavits, if any,which it believ s demonstratetheabsence ofa genuine issue ofmaterialfact.''Hickson Corp.v.N Crossarm C ., lnc.,357 F,3d 1256,1260 (11th Cir.2004)(internalquotationmarksomitted),reh' g denied, 9 F.App' x 889(11th Cir.2004).''gMljhileitistruethata11reasonableinferencesmustbedrawn n thenon-movingparty'sfavor,''ultimately,''summaryjudgmentisappropriateagainstapartyw o failsto m akea showing sufficientto establishthe existenceofan elementessentialtothatpart 's 4 case,and on which thatparty willbearthe burden ofproofattrial.''Shotz v. Cit y ofplantatin, Fla.,344 F.3d 1161, 1184 (1lth Cir.2003) (internalquotation marks omitted). 'The m re existence ofa scintillaofevidence in supportoftheplaintiffsposition willbe insufficient;th re mustbe evidence on which the jury could reasonably find ...by a preponderance oft e evidencethattheplaintiffisentitled to averdict....''Anderson, 477U .S.at252.Iftheevide e offered by the nonmoving party is ''m erely colorable'' or is ''not signiscantly probativ '' , summaryjudgmentisproper.Seef#.at249-50. 111. DISCUSSIO N Upon review of the facts and legalarguments,the undersigned finds persuasive a d adoptsHCC'Slegalargumentsin supportofitsM otion. A. Standing 1. New South lacltsstanding becauseithasno insurableinterestin the Properties. ''(A1partyhasstandingtoprosecuteaclaim infederalcourtonlyifheisthe'realparty 'n interest'''to thatclaim,asrequired by FederalRuleofCivilProcedure 17(a).Tribuev.Hou , No.3:04CV286/RV/EM T,2006 W L 212017,at*2 @ .D,Fla.Jan.26,2006)(quoting US.p. 936.71AcresofLan4 MoreorL:-J,inBrevardCn/y.,StateofFla.,418F.2d 551,556(5th Ci.2 1969))(citing Fed.R.Civ.P.17(a)(2019)).''An action broughtbythe realparty in interestis one ' broughtbytheperson who,according tothegoverning substantivelaw,isentitled toenfor e theright.''PayrollM gmt,Inc.v.Lexington Ins.Co., 815F.3d 1293,1299n.10(11th Cir.201 ) 2DecisionsoftheUnited StatesCourtofAppealsforthe Fifth Circuithanded down priorto t e close of business on September . 30, 1981 are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circu t, includingthe districtcourtstherein. Bonnerv.Cit y ofpricharJ Ala.,661F.2d 1206,1207(11h . Cir.1981). 5 (quoting 6A Charles Alan W right,ArthurR.M iller,M a. ry Kay Kane,Richard L.M arcus& Adam N.Steinman,FederalPracticeandProcedurej1543(3ded.2015), ''gplroperty insurancecontractsareenforceable only wherethe insured hasan insura le interestin the covered property atthe tim e ofthe loss.''Banta Props.,lnc.v.Arch Specialty 1 s. Co.,553F.App'x 908,910 (11th Cir.2014)(citingFla.Stat.j627.405(1)(2019)).Although n insured doesnotnecessarily have ' to (lwa certain property to have an insurableinteresttherein,it m usthave ''an 'actual,lawful,and substantialeconom ic interest'in keeping the property 'fr e from loss, destruction, or pecuniary damage or impairment.''' Id (quoting Fla. Stat. j 627.405(2)).'''Themeasureofan insurableinterestinproperty istheextenttowhichtheinsur d mightbedamnisedbyloss,injury,orimpairmentthereof.'''Id (quotingFla.Stat.j627.405(3). The fact that an insurance policy insures multiple,separate insureds along with th ir respective properties does not give a1linsureds under the policy an insurable interest in 11 coveredpropertieswhereno such interestotherwiseexists.Seeid.at911;Untjax,Inc.v.Facto y lns.Assh,328 So.2d448,456 (FIa.1stDCA 1976),cert.denied,341So.2d 1086 (Fla.197 ). lnstead,each insured m ust establish itsown rights to recovery under the policy,and itcnnn t relyontherightsofothers.SeeBanta,553F.App'xat911;Unljax,328So.2d at453-54.Thisis so even when the insureds arerelated corporateentities,since ''ldqifferentcomorationsusualy are distinct entities in 1aw,''and disregarding the separate existence of corporations is on y justifiedwhereoneofthecoporations''isa sham,orisusedto perpetratedeception todefeata publicpolicy ....''Untjax,328So.2d at452(internalquotation marksomitted);seealsoBant , 553 F.App'x at909,911.Absentsuchjustification,the ''claimsofvariousentities,even thou interrelated,m ustbetreated separately,and ...therightsofeach m ustbem aintained in separa e actions ...in accord with Florida law.''Unljax,328 So.2d at453;see also Federated Tite 6 lnsurers lnc.v.Ward,538 So.2d 890,891(F1a.4th DCA 1989)(''claimsofvariousentitis, eventhoughinterrelated,mustordinarilybetreated separately.''). Atthesummaryjudgmentstage,aparty ''can no longerreston ...mere allegations'' o dem onstrate its standing, ''but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specifc fac '' establishing standing. Clapper v, Amnesty Int'l USA,568 U.S. 398, 412 (2013) (inte al quotation marksomitted),ln thiscase,itisundisputed between the partiesthatatal1relev t tim es:New South did notown orleasethe Propertiesatissue;New South and Florida Keyswe e separatecorporations;''FloridaKeysM edia,LLC''wasnotatradenam eofNew South;and N Southwasnotdoing businessas''Florida KeysM edia,LLC.''(SeeSUM F,ECF No.35,!! 1 - 17;RSUM F,ECF No.40,!(! 15-17.)Rather,ata11relevanttimes,thePropertieswerea1lown d orleased by Florida KeysorHolladay in hisindividualcapacity.(SUM F,ECF No.35,! 1 ; RSUM F,ECF No.40,! 15.)ln l m attemptto establish thatNew South neverthelesshad '' actual,lawful,and substantialeconom ic interest''in the Properties,entitling itto sue HCC n connection with theClaim,Plaintiffscontend thatNew South:(1)isthe named insured on te Policy;(2)wasrequiredunderthe languageofthePolicyto giveHCC noticeoftheClaim; d (3)ownedpersonalproperty contained within thesubjectProperties.SeeFla.Stat.j 627.405(). (Seealso P1s.'Resp.in Opp' n to Def.'sMot.forSumm.J.,ECF No.42,p.2.)TheCourtt)n s theseargum entsto be withoutmeritasrespectsNew South'sstandingto bring thislawsuit. First, it is clear from the Policy that New South was not the only named insur d thereunder,and thatthe insurance contractdid notm andate thatonly New South reportclai s. lndeed,thePolicy'snoticeprovision provides: W H A T M UST BE D O N E IN CA SE O F LO SS 1. Notice--In caseofa loss,''you''must: 7 a give ''us'' or ''our'' agent prompt notice including a description ofthe property involved (''we''may request writtennotice).... (Policy,ECF No.40-1,p.32.)The words''you''and ''your''areelsewheredefined inthePoliy asthe ''personsororganizations gi.e.,plurallnnmed asthe insured in the declarations ....'' (Policy,ECF No.40-1,p.20.) Pursuantto the Policy'sChange Endorsement#1,the list f named insureds was amended to include Florida Keys and Holladay, am ong m any othe s. (Policy,ECF No.40-1,pp.7-8.)The Courtfinds,asa matteroflaw,thattheplain meaning f the Policy requires the insuredsthatsuffered dam age to provide notice thereofto HCC.Aga'n, each insured mustestablish itsown rightsto recovery undera policy;itcannotrely on therig ts ofothers,SeeBanta,553F.App'xat911;Unqax,328So.2dat453-54. Plaintiffs'allegation that the Policy shows that New South owns personal prope y contained within the Properties,and thereforehasstanding,islikewisewithoutmerit.ln supp rt ofthisargument,Plaintiffsrely on an endorsementissued ahertheHunicanethatsaysno su h thing.(Policy,ECFNo.40-1,p.57.)Rather,theendorsement,ChangeEndorsement#10,stats only that $4,000 worth of contents atone of the Properties was m oved to anothertempora y location.withoutidentifying theownerofthecontents.(Policy,ECF No.40-1,p.57.)Furth r, Plaintiffshave presented no proofthatthe personalproperty identified in Change Endorseme t #10 waseven damaged orincluded in the Claim .Thus,even ifN ew South owned thatperson l property,Plaintiffshavefailedtoshow thatNew Southsufferedanyinjuryin factwithrespect o it.New South hasthusfailed to delnonstrate itsstanding. 8 2. Florida Keysand H olladay Iack standing becausethey never subm itted a claim underthe Policy forthedam agesatissue. Florida Keys and Holladay are sim ilarly barred from suing HCC in connection with t e damagesatissuehere. An insured hasno standing to sue 1brcoverage undera policy ifitne er made a claim forcoverage thereunder in the firstplace,irrespective ofwhether its co-insur d m adesuch aclaim .SeePayroll,815 F.3d at1299;G ttrS Holdings LLC v.ContinentalCas.C ., No.3:09-CV-00592 JD,2011W L 855345,at*8 (N.D.Ind.M ar.8,2011),aff'd,697 F.3d 5 4 (7th Cir.2012))Vectren fnerr kjktg.(fServ.,Inc.v.Exec.RiskSpecialty Ins.Co.,875N.E.d 774,777-78 (lnd.Ct.App.2007)(holding insurance policy createsdistinctcontractualdutis betweeninsurerandeverynamedinsured). Here,the record isdevoid ofevidence showing thateitherFloridaKeysorHolladay ev r submitted aclaim to HCC in theirown right.In an attemptto nonethelesssupporttheirstandin , Plaintiffs allege that that HCC was aware of Holladay's involvement ''from the outsetoft e (Cllaim''and thatNew South reported the Claim on behalfofa11named insuredsunderte Policy.(RSUM F,ECF No.40,!jr6-7,11-13,18.)However,Plaintiffsciteno evidenceofrecod to show that New South provided notice on behalf of al1 nnm ed insureds, other than unpersuasiveinterrogatoryanswersubmittedaherHCC raisedthelackofinsurableinterestiss e initsAnswerandAffirmativeDefensestotheComplaint.(SeeRSUM F,ECFNo.40,!6;Def's Answerand Affirmative Defensesto Pls,'Am,Compl.,ECF No.23,p.10.)M oreover,t e interrogatory answeris itselfunsupported by any evidence thatNew South'salleged intentw s disclosed to HCC.(See RSUM F !(6 (citing New South's Verifed Answers to Def's Seco d ContinuingInterrogs.,ECFNo.40. -3,p.5).) Plaintiffslikewisehave failed to produceevidencethatHolladay submitted aclaim eith r on behalfofFlorida Keys orin his individualcapacity.HCC acknowledges thatHolladay w s 9 involved in the presentation ofNew South's claim .Indeed,as itspresidentand a memberof ts board ofdirectors,hewould logically be involved in an insurance claim made by and on beh lf ofNew South alone.(SeeRSUMF,ECF No.40,! 4;Aff,ofRobertHolladay,ECF No.40 2, !4.)However,New Southand FloridaKeysareseparateentities,andthereareno factsto sh w thatHolladay subm itted a claim on behalfofFlorida Keys,much less in hisindividualcapaciy. (SeeDef.'sM ot.forSumm.J.,ECF No.36,pp.8-12;RSUMF,ECFNo.40,!! 16-17.)Seealo Riggins v.Polk Cn/y., 602 F.App'x 765, 766-68 (11th Cir.2015) (president and maj r shareholderofcorporation lacked standing to sue in com oration's name in connection with b'd awarded to second-lowest bidder rather than plaintiffs com oration, where corresponden e indicated thatplaintiffwasacting in hiscapacity asofficerofcorporation and notin hisperso al capacity,andhethuscould notdemonstrate injury particularized to him,distinctfrom injury o coporation). Based on the record,the Courtfinds thatPlaintiffs have failed to come forth with a y evidence that the Claim was in fàctmade on behalf of any person or entity otherthan N South.Therefore,FloridaKeysantlHolladay lack standing to suein connection with theClaim B. ProofafLossRequirem ent Even ifany ofthe Plaintiffk had standing to maintain thisaction,prosecution ofthis s it would bebarred forthe insureds'fàilure to comply with conditionsprecedentto coverage and o filing suitagainstHCC - specifically,the subm ission ofa signed and sworn proofofloss s required by the Policy, Priorto New South's filing of this lawsuit,HCC offered to pay the fullam ount oft e damagesitdetermined to be covered,subjectto the execution and return ofa sworn proof f loss.To this end,on April25,2018,Julio Vistoso (''vistoso'')ofM cLarens,the independe t 10 adjustingtll' m thatinvtstigatedthe Claim on behalfofHCC,sentKevin Downs(''Downs'') FiveStarClaimsAdjusting,thepublicadjustingflrm represtntingNew South,aproofofloss theinsuredtosignbeforeanotarypublicandrtturntoVistoso.(SeeSUM F,ECF No.35,!( ! 24,37,)Vistoso'semailto Downsalso included a statementoflosssetting forth,interalia, adualcash value ofthe dam agesHCC determ ined to becovered afterapplication ofthe dedudiblt,which totaltd $52,217.14.(See Apr.25,2018 emailfrom Vistoso to Downs attachments,ECFNo.40-2,pp.68,76-77.) The Policy expressly required the insured to submita signed,sworn proofofloss sixty days after the insurer's request as a condition precedentto coverage and to filing againstHCC.ThePolicy'sProofofLossprovision states: W HAT M UST BE DONE IN CASE OF LOSS 3. ProefOfLoss- ''You''mustsend ''us''within 60 daysafter''our'request, a signed, sworn proof of loss. This m ust include the follow ing inform ation' . a. thetim e,place,1 :nd circum stancesoftheloss; b. otherpoliciesof'insurance thatmay coverthe loss; c. ''your''interestfmd the interests ofallothers in the property involved, including al1mortgagesand liens; d. changesintitle()fthe covered property during thepolicyperiod;and e, estim ates,specilscations,inventories,and otherreasonableinformation that''we''m ay requireto settletheloss. (Policy,ECF No.40-1,p.33.) 11 Sim ilarly,thePolicy'sLossPaymentprovision provides: LO SS PAYM ENT 2. Your Losses- b. Conditions For Paym ent Of Loss -- An insured loss will be payable30 daysafter: 1) asatisfactoryproofoflossisreceived;and 2) the amount of the loss has been established either by written agreementwith ''you''orthe filing of an appraisal award with ''us'' (Policy,ECF No.40-1,p.35.) Finally,the Policy'sSuitAgainstUsprovision states: O TH ER CO NDITIONS 10. SuitAgainstUs--N o onemaybring a legalaction against''us''underthis coverageunless: a. al1ofthe ''term s''ofthiscoverage havebeen com plied with;and b. the suithasbeen broughtwithin three years after ''you''tirsthave knowledgeoftheloss. (Policy,ECFNo.40-1,p.36.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Policy contains the foregoing language, and it is similarly undisputed between the parties thatNew South,Florida Keys,and Holladay nev r submittedasignedandswornproofoflosstoHCC.(SeeSUM F,ECFNo.35,!!39-42.)Rath r, Plaintiffscontend thatHCC nevermade a ''legitim ate''requestfora proofoflossand thatH C waived the requirem ent of a proof of loss because it ''admitted liability in an unagreed o 12 amount.''(SeeRSUM F,ECF No.40,!!39-41;Opp'n,ECFNo.42,p.7.)Plaintiffsaltemativ ly contend thatNew South's notice ofthe Claim constituted a proof of loss and thatthe insu er failedto establishthatitwasprejudicedby theabsenceofaproofofloss.(SeeOpp'n,ECF o. 42,pp.7-8.)However,theCourtfindsthatHCC requested aproofofloss,and thatPlainti s' arguments attempting to justify their failure to submita proofof loss before filing suit e contraryto applicablelaw. PlaintiffsciteAllstateFloridianInsuranceCo.v.Farmer,104 So.3d 1242(F1a.5thDC 2012)forthepropositionthataninsurermustshow prejudiceinordertodisclaim coveragebas d onan insured'sfailureto provide11proofofloss.(SeeOpp'n,ECF No.42,pp.7-8.)In Farm r, Florida's Fifth District Courtof Appealheld that,where an insured failed to subm ita swo proofoflossbefore filing suit,itwaspermissible forthe trialcourtto allow the insured to sho theinsurerwasnotprejudiced by the insured'sfailureto provide a proofofloss,meaning te insured could rebutthepresumption ofprejudicetotheinsurer.104 So.3d at1250.ThisCou , however, must look to the decisions of the Florida appellate court that would have h d jurisdiction overtheappealhad the caseremained in statecourt,Bravo v.US.,532 F.3d 115 , 1165-66 (1lth Cir,2008);seeJ/Jc'Welfordv,fiberty Mut.Ins.Co.,713 F.App' x 969,973 n 8 (11thCir.2017);InletCondo./1. u' n v.ChildressDlf .J& f/#.,615F.App'x533,539-40(11thC r, 2015),Thus,because this case was originally tsled in the CircuitCourtofthe 16th Judici1 Circuitin and forM onroe County,Florida,the Courtmustlook to decisions ofFlorida'sThid DistrictCourtofAppeal.SeeJon S.W heeleretal.,lnternalOrganization of theDist.Cts. f App.,APP FL-CLE 5-1j5.5(2017)(statingtheThirdDistricthasjtlrisdictionoverappealsfro the16thCircuit). 13 'Fhe Third District,like the Fourth DistrictCourtofAppeal, hasrecognized that' ''(i)tis wellsettled in Florida thatsubmission of a sworn proofoflosswhen required by an insuran e policy isa condition precedentto coverage.'''See Reddy v. StateFarm Fla.Ins.Co.,207 So, d 338,338 (Fla.3d DCA 2016)(quoting Huntv.State Flr?n Fla.Ins.Co.,145 So.3d 210,2 1 (Fla,4thDCA 2014)and collectingothercases).'''Iftheinsured failsto complywith aconditin precedentbefore tiling suit,itsbreach isdeemed m aterial,and thusthe insurerisrelieved of ts dutiesunderthepolicyl.lf''Id (quotingHunt,145So.3dat211);seealsoStateFarm Ins.Co.v. ftlughlin-Afonso,118So.3d 314,315(Fla.3dDCA 2013),rcvgw dismissed,126 So.3d 10 7 (F1a.2013);Gonzalez v.State Furr?n Fla.lns.Co.,65 So.3d 608,609 (F1a.3d DCA 20l ); Edwards v.State Farm Fla.Ins.Co.,64 So.3d 730,732-33 (Fla.3d DCA 2011).Thisis o regardlessofwhethertheinsurerwasprejudicedbytheinsured'sbreach ofthepolicy'sconditin precedent.SeeHunt,145So.3dat211-12(affirmingsummaryjudgmentforinsurerbasedon te insureds'failure to comply with proofoflossrequirementbefore filing suit);Rodrigo v.Stae Farm Fla.lns.Co.,144 So.3d 690,692-93 (Fla.4th DCA 2014)(trialcourtproperly enterd summaryjudgmentforinsurerdue to insured'sfailureto provideaproofoflosspriorto filig suit;no showingofprejudicewasrequired). In thisregard,the CourtnotesthatPlaintiffs'relianceon State Farm M utualAutomobie InsuranceCo v.Curran,135So.3d 1071(F1a.2014)isalsomisplaced.PlaintiffsciteCurranf r thepropositionthattheburdenofproofison HCC toshow thatitwasprejudicedbytheirfailu e to submit a proof of loss.(See Opp'n, ECF No.42,p. 7.) However,Curran involved a compulsory medicalexam ination fbruninsured m otoristcoverage- a requirem entthe courthe d notto bea condition precedentto suit.Curran,135 So,3d at1079.Courtshavedeclined to fi d Curran instructivein proofoflosscases.SeeHunt,145So.3d at212 (holdingCurran wasn t 14 instructive where issue was instlred's failure to com ply with proof of loss requirem ent, a conditionprecedentto coverage,since Curran 'clariûed the standardsapplicable to an insure 's breach ofa condition subsequentto coveragef')(emphasisadded);Rodrigo,144 So.3d at6 2 (rejectingargumentthatCurran rendered sworn proofoflossacondition subsequentratherth n condition precedent,since Curran ''limited itsrationale and holding to the unique subject f uninsuredmotoristcoverageandcompulsorymedicalexams''). Plaintiffs'waiverargumentmustalso berejected.l4CC did notwaive the proofoflo s requirementby admitting liability fortheundisputed portion oftheClaim .ln Rodrigo,supra,t e insured refused tenderofthe undisputed portion ofa claim,electing instead to file suit(lie Plaintiffshere),allegingtheinsurerfailedtopay herthenecessaryamounttorepairherprope . 144 So.3d at691.The courtheld the insurerdid notwaive the proofof loss requirement y tendering paymentbecause '''lilnvestigating any lossorclaim underany policy orengaging n negotiationslooking toward apossiblesettlementofany such lossorclaim'doesnotconstitut a waiverofa 'sworn proofofloss'requirementv''1d.at692 (quoting Fla.Stat.j 627.426(1)() (2007)). Here,the factsshow thatthe Policy required,asa condition precedentto coverage and o filing suitagainstHCC,thattheinsured send,within sixty daysofthe insurer'srequest,a signe , sworn proofofloss.HCC madethe request.Theinsuredsfailed to subm itaproofoflossprior o filing the instantlawsuit.This breach ofthe Policy conditions wasm aterial,and HCC is th s relieved ofitsduties underthe Policy in connection with the Claim .And,contrary to Plaintifs' assertion,informalcom pliance with the Policy's notice requirement is insufficient;rather, insured mustcompletely satisfy the proofoflossrequirem ents,includingtherequirementthatt e statementbe signed and sworn.SeeRodrigo,144 So.3d at693 (''W hi1ethe insured argued th t 15 she provided the insurer with bills,estimates, invoices, and other docum ents to prove er damages,she failed to file aswornproof of loss.Therefore,theinsured materially breache a condition precedent,and the insurerwasnotobligated to pay.');Starling v.AllstateFloridin lns. Co.,956 So.2d 511, 512-14 (F1a.5th DCA 2007) (rejecting substantial complian e argumentwhere the insured submitted un-notarized and incompleteproofof losspriorto tlli g suit). Cê In'teriorofBuildingsLim itation HCC'S fsnal argum ent in the M otion concerns the Policy's Interior of Buildin s Lim itation.Thisprovision states: A D DITIO NA L PR O PER TY LIM ITATIO NS 3, NOT CO V E RED OR SU BJEC T TO InteriorofBuildings- ''W e' 'do notcoverlossto theinteriorofbuildings orstructures orto personalproperty in the buildings orstructures caused by rain,snow ,sleet,ice,sand,ordust,unless:entering through openings made by a ''named peril'';or the loss is caused by the thawing ofsnow, sleet,orice on thebuildingorstructure. (Policy,ECF No.40-1,p.31.)ThePolicydefines''namedperils''toinclude''windstorm,''whih encompassesHurricaneIrma.(Policy,ECFNo.40-1,p.38.) HCC asserts that,even if Plaintiffs had standing and were nototherwise barred fro bringing this suit for the reasons discussed above, the lnterior of Buildings Lim itation ba s coverage for any damages beyond those HCC previously acknowledged were covered.HC furthercontendsthat,to avoid application ofthe lnteriorofBuildingsLimitation,Plaintiffs be the burden ofproving thatthe exception to theexclusion applies;thatis,Plaintiffsmustidenti itemsofdam agescaused by rain entering through an opening m adeby theHunicane,otherth thedam agesthatHCC acknowledged werecovered. 16 As an initial matter,the Courtûnds as a matter of law thatthe Interior of Buildi gs Lim itation is unambiguous,and the Courtmusttherefore construe the provision aswritten. ee M ock v.CentralM ut.Ins. Co., 158 F.Supp.3d 1332, 1341 (S.D.Ga.2016)(snding tha a virtually identicalpolicy provision was ''clearand unambiguous'').The record showsthatrin was a cause of some interior dam age, therefore triggering the application of the Interior f Buildings Limitation.(See SUM F,ECF No.35,!! 27-30.) Thus,the Courtfinds thatt e limitation applies.The Courtfurther finds that the insured bears the burden of proving t e exception to the provision applies.See E.Fla.Hauling,Inc. v.Lexington Ins.Co.,913 So. d 673,678(F1a.3d DCA 2005)(oncean insurerhasshown thatan exclusionappliestoacoverd claim ,theburden shiftsto the insured to show thatan exception to the exclusion appliesin ord r toavoidapplicationoftheexclusion). Here,Plaintiffshave notm ettheir burden ofproof in thisregard.The Courtfinds,asa m atteroflaw,thatPlaintiffshave notshown thatthe exception to the exclusion applies,sin e they have failed to come forward with evidence ofany specific interiordam age caused by ran entering through any openings made by Hurricane lrm a, other than those areas that HC identiûed ascovered and included in itsstatementofloss.Theadjusted amountoftheClaim s lim ited by the lnttriorofBuildings Limitation - to which the insurtdsneverreplied - therefo e standsasaproperamount. Accordingly,upon a carefh-llreview of the record and the Courtbeing otherwise fu1y advised,the Courtconcludesthatno genuine issue ofmaterialfactexistsand HCC isentitled o finalsummary judgment.ltis ORDERED,ADJUDGED,and DECREED thatDefendan's M otion forSummary Judgmcnt(ECF No.36)be,and thesameis,hereby GRANTED andths case DISM ISSED W ITH PREJUDICE. Al1 pending matters, including Plaintiffs'Daube 17 M otion to Exclude Testim ony of Defense Expert, Travis VanFossen (ECF No.31);HC ' s Partially Unopposed M otion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of or References to Bad Faih, ClaimsHandling orSettlem entPractices, andAnyRequestforPunitiveDamages(ECFNo.3 ); HCC'SDaubertM otion to Exclude Testimony ofKathleen Banach (ECF No.33);and HC 's M otion in Lim ine to Exclude Certain Testimony by Plaintiffs'Proffered ExpertAlfredo Brizu la (ECF No.34),be,and the snme i are,hereby DENIED asmoot.The Clerk ofCourtSHA L CLOSE thiscase. DONE and O RDERED in Chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justie Building and United StatesCourthousein M iam i, Florida,onthis13th day ofJune,2019. AM ES LAW N CE KING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JU G SO U TH ERN D ISTRICT O F FL A Copiesfurnished to: TaylorL.Davis CLYDE & CO US LLP 271 17th StreetNW ,Suite 1720 Atlanta,GA 30363 Alfred C.W arrington,V CLYDE& CO US LLP 1221BrickellAvenue,Suite 1600 M iami,FL 33131 ' M atthew G.Struble ChristineM arieDeis STRUBLE,P,A. 101N ortheastThird A venue,Suite 1110 FortLauderdale,FL 33301 18
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
