Haiman v. Federal Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D01-800.,4D01-800. |
| Citation | 798 So.2d 811 |
| Parties | Matthew HAIMAN, Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bill Ullman, Miami, for appellant.
David W. Molhem of Strickland, Molhem & Fraley, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
In appellant's suit to pay an insured loss of a watch, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee insurance company on two grounds: (1) that appellant made a misrepresentation of material fact related to the claim; and (2) that he failed to comply with document production demanded by appellee prior to instituting suit. Because an examination of the record reveals that there are disputed issues of material fact as to both issues, we reverse.
As to the first issue, materiality is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. See, e.g., Silverman v. Pitterman, 574 So.2d 275, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Beneby v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 402 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Appellant had two Rolex watches, only one of which was insured and was the subject of the loss. While appellant agrees that he initially misrepresented where he originally obtained the second uninsured watch, he corrected his statement very soon thereafter, and thus, he maintains it could have had no effect on appellee's investigation. Whether that constitutes a material misrepresentation which would void coverage should be determined by the trier of fact.
As to the second issue, there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether certain documents requested by appellee were in fact produced. Appellant's affidavit states that they were. Moreover, while appellee cites to Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co., 660 So.2d 300, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), for the proposition that compliance with the insured's duties after a loss is a condition precedent to suit, this case is distinguishable. In Goldman, pursuant to the policy, the insured was required to submit to an examination under oath respecting a loss. The policy also stated that no action against the company could be maintained until the insured complied with all policy provisions. The insured did not make himself available for any examination prior to filing suit. We held that this was a condition precedent to any action. See id.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran, s. 5D09–1488
...F.Supp.2d 1324 (S.D.Fla.1998) ], the insureds never submitted a sworn proof-of-loss. As the court expressed in Haiman v. Federal Insurance Co., 798 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001): [A] total failure to comply with policy provisions made a prerequisite to suit under the policy may constitute a......
-
Mid–continent Cas. Co. v. Basdeo
...to suit under the policy may constitute a breach precluding recovery from the insurer as a matter of law.” Haiman v. Federal Ins. Co., 798 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Diamonds & Denims, Inc. v. First of Ga. Ins. Co., 203 Ga.App. 681, 417 S.E.2d 440, 442 (Ga.Ct.App.1992)); se......
-
SCW W. LLC v. Westport Ins. Corp.
...of compliance.” Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So.3d 129, 131 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2010) ( quoting Haiman v. Fed. Ins. Co., 798 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001)). Accord El–Ad Enclave at Miramar Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 752 F.Supp.2d 1282, 1286–87 (S.D.Fla.......
-
Access Ins. Planners, Inc. v. Gee
...or breaches, is a question of fact. See Moore v. Chodorow, 925 So.2d 457, 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Haiman v. Fed. Ins. Co., 798 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ). Here, the application of the statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact. “A legal or equitable action ......