# Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. v. Farmer

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · December 28, 2012 · 104 So. 3d 1242

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4797506

## Case

- **Full name:** ALLSTATE FLORIDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. Thomas FARMER and Margaret Farmer
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** December 28, 2012
- **Citations:** 104 So. 3d 1242; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 22157; 2012 WL 6719459
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Berger
- **Judges:** Berger, Cohen, Lawson
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4797506

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[p]rop-erly applying the Macias prejudice presumption rule,9 the trial court did not err in allowing the [insureds] to prove to the jury that [the insurer] was not prejudiced by [the insureds’] failure to substantially comply with the proof of loss condition”
- 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
- 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
- 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”

## Opinion text

BERGER, J.,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority because I believe this court’s decision in Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) controls the outcome of this case. The plain language of the policy requires there be full compliance with policy terms before a lawsuit may be filed. Since the jury found that the Farmers failed to comply with a condition precedent-namely, that they provide a signed and sworn proof of loss-I would reverse the final judgment entered in their favor. Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4797506. Public record. Not legal advice.