IN THE MATTER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NOS. 2020-5 AND 2020-6 (DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY) (CONSOLIDATED)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that because the jury found the insurer was not prejudiced by the insured’s failure to submit a sworn proof of loss form, “there was no material breach of the contract”
• holding that the trial court did not err in allowing the insureds to prove to the jury that the insurer was not prejudiced by their failure to submit a proof of loss
• holding breach of condition precedent must be material, meaning one causing prejudice, to constitute defense to enforcement of contract
• affirming denial of insurer's directed verdict for insured’s failure to submit proof of loss because the contract “establishes a duty without specifying the consequences when that duty is breached”
• stating Florida courts have consistently interpreted proof of loss obligations coupled with similar no-action clauses to be conditions precedent, i.e., an obligation to be performed before the contract is effective
• “[E]ven in proof of loss cases, prejudice is an issue in determining whether forfeiture results from an insured's breach.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).