Kelley Kronenberg Partner Candice Magee secured final summary judgment for Frontline Insurance Company in a first-party property lawsuit in St. Johns County, Florida. The claim carried approximately $50,000.00 in exposure. The Court entered judgment for Frontline and ordered that the plaintiffs recover nothing. 

The insureds reported a Hurricane Milton loss to Frontline in February 2025, about four months after the October 2024 date of loss. Frontline requested an executed sworn proof of loss the next day, as the policy’s Duties After Loss provision requires. It asked again in June 2025, in writing to both the insureds and their counsel, and warned that the missing document could prejudice its evaluation of the claim. The insureds never provided one. Frontline investigated without it and denied coverage on multiple grounds. The insureds filed suit. 

Candice moved for final summary judgment on a single ground: the insureds’ failure to submit an executed sworn proof of loss. Under Florida law, a sworn proof of loss requirement is a condition precedent to coverage and to suit against the insurer, and the policy barred suit unless the insureds fully complied with its terms. 

The insureds raised two arguments in opposition. First, they argued that Frontline waived the requirement because its coverage letter did not mention the proof of loss. Second, they argued that Frontline was not prejudiced by its absence. 

The Court rejected both. On waiver, the Court relied on the coverage letter itself, which said that all policy terms and conditions continued to apply and that Frontline reserved the right to assert additional policy defenses. Florida law also allows an insurer to deny coverage on multiple grounds without waiving a condition it did not cite. The Court further found that the insureds never filed a reply to Frontline’s affirmative defenses and could not raise waiver at the hearing. It distinguished the insureds’ key case, in which the insured had at least submitted a late proof of loss. Here, the insureds never submitted one even after a written request. 

On prejudice, the Court held that an insurer need not show prejudice when an insured breaches a condition precedent to suit. It added that the insureds offered no competent evidence to rebut any presumption of prejudice. 

The Court granted the motion and entered final judgment for Frontline. 

Learn more about the firm’s First-Party Property and Coverage Division: click here. 

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