Kelley Kronenberg Partners Samantha Navedo and Kim Fernandes secured a per curiam affirmance from Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal, upholding a summary judgment they had previously won for their insurance carrier client in a first-party property case involving alleged water damage from a plumbing failure. The claim’s total exposure, including attorney’s fees, exceeded $150,000.00. 

The policyholders reported a kitchen water loss in early 2022, claiming a dishwasher leak caused damage to their property. When the carrier’s field adjuster arrived for inspection, the kitchen was already under renovation. The policyholders had moved the kitchen sink and poured new cement over the affected area. They failed to retain the damaged property, failed to document damages before making repairs, and failed to provide invoices, receipts, or the plumber’s report despite multiple requests for information. 

The carrier sent three Request for Information letters over several months. The policyholders did not provide the requested documentation. The carrier issued a conditional denial based on the policyholders’ failure to comply with the Duties After Loss provision of the policy, which prejudiced the carrier’s investigation into the cause and extent of the loss.  

In the lower court action, our team moved for summary judgment, arguing the policyholders materially breached the policy by failing to comply with their post-loss obligations and that this breach prejudiced the carrier’s investigation. The evidence also revealed inconsistencies in the policyholders’ account. During their recorded statement, they said the dishwasher caused the damage. At deposition, they claimed the cause was a kitchen sink issue and denied ever having a problem with the dishwasher. Their interrogatory responses stated the kitchen was under renovation when they discovered mold, but at deposition one of the policyholders denied the kitchen was under renovation before filing the claim. 

The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the policyholders failed to comply with their post-loss duties, that this failure was a material breach, and that the carrier was prejudiced in its investigation. The policyholders presented no evidence to rebut the prejudice. 

The policyholders appealed, arguing the carrier filed its motion for summary judgment too late, that pending discovery precluded summary judgment, and that the trial court erred in not considering additional evidence submitted on rehearing after judgment had already been entered. The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed without opinion. The appellate court also conditionally granted entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees based on the carrier’s unaccepted Proposal for Settlement from 2024. The fee issue will be remanded to the trial court for adjudication. 

Learn more about the firm’s First-Party Property and Coverage Division; click here: https://www.kelleykronenberg.com/our-practices/first-party-insurance-defense-coverage-bad-faith/  

Read our First-Party Property newsletter: https://www.kelleykronenberg.com/category/newsletter/