Cassel & Cassel, P.A. - Property Damage Attorneys
  • Home
  • Our Attorneys
    • Hillary B. Cassel
    • Michael A. Cassel
    • Alex J. Zatik
    • Christy Brigman
    • Michael B. Nemerof
  • Practice Areas
  • Firm News & Blog
  • FAQs
  • Glossary of Terms
  • Contact Us

Analysis of New Case Law re: the Burden of Proving Prejudice

4/20/2022

0 Comments

 
On April 13, 2022, the Fourth District Court of Appeals released their decision in Sharon Godfrey v. People’s Trust Insurance Company,[1] (hereinafter "Godfrey").  The Godfrey opinion discusses a shift in the burden to prove prejudice as it pertains to the failure to comply with conditions precedent to coverage in a homeowners insurance policy.
Background and Facts
 
In July 2017, the insured sustained a water loss to her property which was reported to her insurance carrier in May 2018.  In turn, the carrier requested a sworn proof of loss.  After the carrier sent numerous follow-up correspondences and received no response, the insured filed suit in October 2018.
 
In litigation, the carrier moved for summary judgment asserting that the insured materially breached the terms of the policy by failing to 1) provide prompt notice, and 2) provide a sworn proof of loss.  The trial court granted the carrier’s motion over the assertion of the insured that the insurer must show that it was prejudiced.  The appeal followed.
 
4th DCA Opinion
 
The 4th DCA ultimately held that, while the insured clearly breached the terms and conditions of the governing policy, the question of whether the insurer was prejudiced remained a question of fact.  This was in no small part due to the lead in clause of the insured’s policy which states, in pertinent part, that there was “no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to [the insurer].”[2]  The 4th DCA took this to mean that the People’s Trust policy expressly requires that the insurer affirmatively show that they were prejudiced.
 
Analysis, Impact, and Effect
 
We have previously provided a complete analysis on policy conditions precedent so we will refrain from repeating ourselves here in full; however, there are some aspects worth reiterating in line with the Godfrey opinion. 
 
Normally, “[a] material breach of an insured’s duty to comply with a policy’s condition precedent relieves the insurer of its obligations under the contract.”[3]  A total failure to comply with a policy provision, generally related to the requests for a proof of loss or examination under oath, amounts to a breach of the policy precluding recovery without the need to show prejudice.[4]  “If, however, the insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented for resolution by a jury.”[5] Additionally, "[t]he question of whether an insured's untimely reporting of loss is sufficient to result in the denial of recovery under the policy implicates a two-step analysis. . . . The first step in the analysis is to determine whether or not the notice was timely given. . . . If the notice was untimely, then prejudice to the insurer is presumed. . . . However, the presumption of prejudice to the insurer 'may be rebutted by a showing that the insurer has not been prejudiced by the lack of notice.'"[6]  With all of this said, such analyses were subject to the lead-in provision of the operative conditions which stated as follows: “After a loss to which this insurance may apply, you shall see that the following duties are performed”[7] or “In case of a loss to covered property, you must see that the following are done.”[8]
 
In newer insurance policies, the lead-in provision to the duties after loss section shifts the burden of proving prejudice where the policy states as follows: “Your Duties After Loss. In case of a loss to covered property, we have no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us.”[9]  As noted in Godfrey, by mandating that the failure to comply be prejudicial to the insurer, the policy effectively requires the insurer to show how they were prejudiced instead of the other way around. 
 
In a legal sense, the term prejudice is defined as “injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one’s rights.”[10]  In the context of post loss conditions, prejudice occurs “where the insurer has been deprived of the opportunity to investigate the facts.”[11] Therein lies the application of the definition of prejudice in first party insurance matters – whether there was injury or damage to the insurer such that they were deprived of the opportunity to investigate the facts of the claim.  Based on the newer language addressed in Godfrey, this prejudice must be plead and proven by the insurer.  Of course, “a party cannot create its own prejudice and thereby benefit from it.”[12]  As such, insurers should do everything within their power to alleviate any potential prejudice before denying a claim for failure to comply with policy conditions, especially in light of the more stringent standard imposed by the policy terms discussed in Godfrey.
 
Should you have any questions about how this analysis may relate to your own claim, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free consultation.

[1] Godfrey v. People's Tr. Ins. Co., 4D21-901, 2022 WL 1100490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).
[2] Godfrey, supra, at 1.
[3] Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
[4] Haiman v. Federal Insurance Co., 798 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Starling v. Allstate, supra. 
[5] Haiman at 812 (quoting Diamonds & Denims, Inc. v. First of Georgia Ins. Co., 417 S.E.2d 440, 441–42 (Ga.Ct.App.1992)).
[6] LoBello v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) quoting Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985) (additional citations omitted).
[7] Id. at 596.
[8] Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d 905, 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
[9] Arguello v. People's Tr. Ins. Co., 315 So. 3d 35, 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).
[10] Merriam-Webster Online, “Prejudice.”
[11] Gemini II Ltd. v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Ins. Co., 592 F. App'x 803, 807 (11th Cir. 2014) citing Macias, 475 So.2d at 1218.
[12] Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Basdeo, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2010).  See also Corrigan v. Vargas, 277 So. 3d 642, 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), reh'g denied (Aug. 30, 2019) (“The doctrine of unclean hands is designed to prevent courts from granting a party relief from a result the party brought about through its own voluntary acts.”); McCollem v. Chidnese, 832 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“[T]he conduct constituting the unclean hands… must generally be connected with the matter in litigation and must affect the adverse party.”).
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Attorney Blog

    Categories

    All
    Case Law Analyses
    Firm News

    Archives

    April 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    December 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018

Picture

    ​To receive our newsletters, provide the information below:

Submit

Contact Us

Presidential Circle
4000 Hollywood Blvd.
Suite 685-S
Hollywood, FL 33021


E-Mail:  info@cassel.law

​Phone:   (954) 589-5504
​
Fax:       (954) 900-1768

Hablamos Español*

Visit us on Social Media
Picture
Picture

All Rights Reserved · © 2021 CASSEL & CASSEL, P.A. · Attorney Advertising
DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this website is intended as general information only and does not constitute, nor should it be taken as, legal advice.  No information contained on this website should be relied upon without consulting with an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which your matter arises.  Laws and legal requirements change frequently and are subject to revision and interpretation.  We make no representation, warranty, or claim that the information contained on this website is up to date.  We are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the resources or information available at or from this website.  Any accounts of recent trials, verdicts, settlements, or results contained in this website are intended to illustrate the experience of the law firm.  Prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results as each case is unique and results will differ based on the particular facts and law applicable in each case.  Nothing contained on this website constitutes a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of a specific legal matter.  The services discussed on this website may not be available in all jurisdictions. The attorney responsible for this website is Michael Cassel, Esq. 

*Spanish speakers are non-attorney staff assistants employed by Cassel & Cassel, P.A.  The non-attorney staff assistants are not members of the State Bar of Florida and are not licensed to practice law.  Los asistentes hispanoparlantes empleados por Cassel & Cassel, P.A., no son abogados. Nuestro personal no son miembros de la asociaciòn de abogados de la Florida, y no estàn licenciados para practicar la ley en el estado de la Florida.
  • Home
  • Our Attorneys
    • Hillary B. Cassel
    • Michael A. Cassel
    • Alex J. Zatik
    • Christy Brigman
    • Michael B. Nemerof
  • Practice Areas
  • Firm News & Blog
  • FAQs
  • Glossary of Terms
  • Contact Us