n addition to the 3rd DCA’s decision in State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Sanders (2019), another relevant case is Aida Gonzalez vs. St. Johns Insurance Company. This case, heard in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, involved competing Motions for Summary Judgment. Aida Gonzalez, the plaintiff/counter-defendant, sought a summary judgment regarding whether the St. Johns Insurance policy required both the insured and her public adjuster to submit to an Examination Under Oath (EUO). St. Johns Insurance Company, the defendant/counter-plaintiff, filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on the same issue.
The court, in its Final Judgment, denied Aida Gonzalez’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted St. Johns Insurance Company’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. The court found that:
a) The Amended Paragraph 7 of the SJ HO 100 07 10 Homeowners Endorsement changes and expands the policy;
b) No ambiguity exists between Section – Conditions, B. Duties After Loss, and the Special Provisions- Florida endorsement;
c) Aida Gonzalez is contractually obligated to have her public adjuster(s) submit to an Examination Under Oath as a condition precedent to being eligible for payment, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy.
This case further reinforces the contractual obligation for insured individuals, along with their public adjusters, to comply with Examination Under Oath requirements outlined in insurance policies. The court’s decision highlights the importance of adhering to policy conditions for eligibility in receiving payments. (This could be in the process of being appealed to the 6th DCA)