Tag Archives: forfeiture provision

“FORFEITURE” PROVISIONS IN INSURANCE POLICIES

Posted on by


Insurance policies contain what are referred to as “forfeiture” provisions.  These are provisions where an insured through its actions / conduct can arguably forfeit coverage under the policy for a peril or claim that would otherwise be covered under the policy.  Typical examples of forfeiture provisions are post-loss obligations contained within the policy such as submitting timely notice, submitting a proof of loss, or complying with an examination under oath provision in a policy. As it pertains to these post-loss obligations (submitting timely notice, submitting a proof of loss, or agreeing to submit to an examination under oath), an insured should comply with them in order to remove any argument from the insurer that the insured forfeited coverage through non-compliance.

 

The recent case of Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v. Caribbean Beach Club Association, Inc., 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1350c (2d DCA 2014), demonstrates how an insurer can waive a forfeiture provision in a policy.  In this case, the insured condominium had a property insurance policy.  Fire was a covered peril under the policy.  The policy also contained additional coverage (at an additional insurance premium) through an Ordinance or Law Coverage endorsement.  This endorsement stated:

 

 

“b. With respect to the Increased Cost of Construction:

(1) We will not pay for the increased cost of construction:

(a) Until the property is actually repaired or replaced, at the same or another premises; and

(b) Unless the repairs or replacement are made as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage, not to exceed two years. We may extend this period in writing during the two years.”

 

A fire damaged the property in April 2003.   After the governing authority inspected the damage, in late 2004, it implemented the 50% rule that provided “if a building is more than 50% damaged, any reconstruction or repair must comply with current building codes.”  This is the reason the insured condominium paid the additional premium for the Ordinance or Law Coverage endorsement. The implementation of this rule resulted in a huge increase to required construction costs because this meant that the condominium would need to replace the damaged building to comply with current flood elevation codes.

 

Initially, the insurer was cooperating with the insured condominium and was prepared to pay for the replacement work for the fire damage since fire damage was a covered peril.  It engaged a contractor that prepared a replacement estimate and intended to pay the full replacement cost.  However, in late June 2005, more than two years after the fire damage, the insurer told its insured condominium that it will not pay the increased costs of construction pursuant to the endorsement as it would rely on the two-year clause contained in the endorsement that provided: “Unless the repairs or replacement are made as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage, not to exceed two years. We may extend this period in writing during the two years.”  In other words, since the repairs were not made within two years from the loss or damage and never extended by the insurer, the insurer was denying the increased construction costs as a consequence of the governing authority requiring the repairs to comply with current code requirements.

 

The insured filed a lawsuit against the property insurer arguing that the insurer waived the right to rely on the two-year repair period in the endorsement.  The insured argued that the two-year provision was essentially a forfeiture provision that an insurer can waive.  The Second District agreed that the two-year provision was a forfeiture provision and, relying on Florida law, explained:

 

“Florida law abhors forfeitures. As a result, [i]f an insurer intends to stand on any forfeiture reservation, it should inform the insured as soon as practicable after it has ascertained facts upon which it bases its forfeiture.  It is equally well established that when an insurer has knowledge of the existence of facts justifying a forfeiture of the policy, any unequivocal act which recognizes the continued existence of the policy or which is wholly inconsistent with a forfeiture, will constitute a waiver.”

Caribbean Beach Club Association, supra (internal citations and quotations omitted).

 

Based on this law, the Second District held that the insurer waived its right to rely on this two-year forfeiture provision.  The insurer knew about the two-year provision to complete repairs from the date of loss and never brought it to its insured’s attention knowing full well that its insured expected that the insurer was going to pay the claim including the increased costs of construction as the result of the local governing authority implementing the 50% rule.  And, the insurer continued to adjust the claim even after the two-year window actually expired.   Since the insurer was not substantially prejudiced by the insured’s noncompliance with the two-year provision, and the insurer could not support that it was prejudiced, the Second District found that the two-year window did not apply and the insured was entitled to the increased costs of construction per the endorsement. To that end, the Court further held:

 

“The trial court correctly found as a matter of law that the two-year clause was a forfeiture provision waived by Axis [insurer]. When an insurer acquiesces to an insured’s failure to strictly adhere to a timetable of payment or performance, courts are inhospitable to the insurer’s sudden invocation of strict enforcement of forfeiture provisions.”

Caribbean Beach Club Association, supra.

 

For more information on forfeiture provisions, such as complying with post-loss obligations in a policy, please see: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/complying-with-post-loss-policy-conditions-under-an-insurance-policy/.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

COMPLYING WITH POST-LOSS POLICY CONDITIONS UNDER AN INSURANCE POLICY

Posted on by


Insurance policies, particularly property insurance policies, contain post-loss obligations (that serve as conditions precedent to payment). This essentially means that when an insured submits a claim to an insurer, an insurer can demand obligations from the insured, and the insured is required to comply with these obligations. These obligations could be requiring the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss, allowing the insurer to inspect the damaged property, submitting all applicable documentation to the insurer, and allowing the insurer to take an examination under oath of the insured. An examination under oath is simply a pre-suit deposition where the insured answers the insurer’s questions under oath about the insurance claim with a court reporter memorializing the questions and answers. While these post-loss obligations can pose an inconvenience to the insured, they are obligations under the policy (the insurance contract) and refusing to comply with these obligations will allow the insurer to easily argue that the insured forfeited insurance coverage. Thus, an insured could be in a position where they are denied coverage for failure to comply with post-loss obligations in an insurance policy when, had they complied, there would have been coverage and payment.

 

To briefly illustrate, recently, in Edwards v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1269a (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), a homeowner, through a public adjuster, submitted a claim to its property insurer for reimbursement for the costs to fix roof damage from a hurricane. The insurer made numerous efforts to obtain documentation of expenses that the homeowner incurred to fix the roof, but was never provided this documentation. The insurer also scheduled an examination under oath of the insured, which was cancelled prior to the scheduled date. The insured providing documentation to reflect the amount of the claim and submitting to an examination under oath were post-loss conditions in the insurance policy. Because the insured did not comply with these policy conditions, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the insured forfeited coverage: “Failure to comply with a condition precedent to payment relieves the insurer of its duty to make payment.” See Edwards.

 

Accordingly, an insured that submits a property insurance claim (or any insurance claim, for that matter) should ensure they are complying with post-loss policy conditions that are being requested by the insurer.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.