Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

September 28, 2015 | Blog Post| Unprotected: Florida Appellate Court Holds Protective Safeguard Condition Is Not A Condition Precedent To Coverage

A Florida appellate court recently held that the breach of a protective safeguard condition did not automatically suspend coverage.  Depositors Insurance Co. v. CC&C of Lake Mary, LLC, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1716 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 24, 2015).  While the policy specified that the insurance would be automatically suspended upon a breach of the protective safeguard condition, the appellate court held that a showing of prejudice was required to support a denial of coverage.

CC&C of Lake Mary, LLC, purchased a business owner’s policy from Depositors Insurance Company.  The policy contained a Protective Safeguard Endorsement where the policyholder agreed to maintain a central burglar alarm in consideration for a significant premium reduction.  The endorsement stated that “[t]his [i]nsurance will be automatically suspended at the premises” if the policyholder failed to maintain a burglary alarm system monitored by a security company or failed to notify the insurer of any suspension or impairment of the system. 

The policyholder entered into an alarm monitoring contract, but eventually failed to pay the amount due on that contract.  After the alarm monitoring company cancelled that contract for non-payment, the policyholder did not notify the insurer of the cancellation.  About three weeks after the cancellation, the policyholder’s property was burglarized.  The parties agreed that the burglary would not have been detected even if the alarm monitoring contract had been active.  The insurer denied the theft claim based on the policyholder’s breach of the protective safeguard endorsement.

The policyholder sued the insurer, alleging breach of contract.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to whether the policyholder’s breach of the protective safeguard condition barred recovery of insurance benefits.  The parties agreed that the protective safeguard condition was a condition precedent under the policy.  The trial court found that the insurer had not been prejudiced by the breach of the protective safeguard condition based solely on the fact that the burglary would not have been detected even if the alarm monitoring contract had been in effect.  For this reason, the trial court entered final summary judgment for the policyholder.

The insurer appealed, and the appellate court reversed for two reasons.  The first reason was that appellate court held that the protective safeguard condition was a condition subsequent under Florida law.  So a showing of prejudice was required to support a denial of coverage—despite the express language of the policy stating that the insurance would be automatically suspended upon a breach of the protective safeguard condition.  Arguably, this express language has been effectively removed from Florida policies unless the facts before the court establish that the insurer has been prejudiced by the breach.

The second reason was that the appellate court held that the trial court erred when it focused its prejudice analysis on whether burglary would have been detected if the alarm monitoring contract had been in effect.  The appellate court explained that, in a case involving a protective safeguard condition, the issue of prejudice depends on whether the insurer had an opportunity to decide whether to cancel the policy, increase the premium, or waive the policy condition.  The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

The CC&C ruling is significant because it is the first appellate decision by a Florida state court to analyze a breach of a protective safeguard condition.  This ruling is also significant, because it holds that a protective safeguard condition is a condition subsequent under Florida law.  By contrast, the majority rule around the country is that protective safeguard conditions are conditions precedent to coverage.  This means that prejudice to the insurer is not presumed in Florida courts when a policyholder has breached a protective safeguard condition. 

Because the CC&C opinion is the first appellate decision analyzing the breach of a protective safeguard condition, CC&C may be the overture for further litigation on this issue.  This decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal does not bind the other appellate courts in Florida, which may agree with the majority view that protective safeguards conditions are conditions precedent to coverage (which would trigger a presumption of prejudice to the insurer under Florida law).  But for the time being, CC&C remains the only Florida appellate decision on this issue.

Ezequiel Lugo 

Ezequiel Lugo, a Senior Associate who has been with Butler since 2009, is Board Certified by The Florida Bar as a Specialist in Appellate Practice. As such, Ezequiel's practice focuses on appeals and trial support. He primarily handles appeals that involve insurance coverage disputes and casualty defense cases.

January 07, 2019 Blog PostOfferors relax! Offerees take note! The technical requirements of rule 2.516 do not apply to proposals for settlement

The Florida Supreme Court in Wheaton v. Wheaton, No. SC17-716, 2019 WL 99109 (Fla. Jan.4, 2019), resolved the district split on the issue whether proposals for settlement made pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 must comply with the e-mail service provisions of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516.

Read More »
October 25, 2018 Blog PostFlorida Supreme Court gives green light to insurers to take immediate appeals of rulings that find no settlement reached

Attention liability insurers and their counsel – the Florida Supreme Court has given the green light to immediate appeals of non-final orders that determine the existence and enforceability of settlement agreements.

Read More »
May 21, 2018 Blog PostThis offer expires in 30 days! No automatic extensions says high court

The new rule? The filing of a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090 to enlarge the time to accept a proposal for settlement does not automatically toll the 30-day deadline for accepting the proposal until the motion is decided.

Read More »
August 04, 2017 Blog PostStill Keeping Us Guessing: Florida Supreme Court Poised to Clarify The Daubert Standard in Florida. Maybe.

Earlier this year, the Florida supreme court raised a red flag on the new Florida Statute section 90.702 in In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, SC16-181, 2017 WL 633770 (Fla. Feb. 16, 2017).  In that opinion the supreme court only noted it had “grave concerns” that (unidentified) elements of the new section 90.702 Daubert statute are constitutionally suspect – it gave no substantive ruling on the matter.

Read More »
July 26, 2017 Blog PostThe Continuing Saga of Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company: The Second District Court of Appeal Rules on Remand

On July 20, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal issued an order that closed its books on the Sebo appeal.  Mr. Sebo made a homeowner’s claim to American Home contending construction deficiencies had allowed water to enter the residence at multiple points, causing, eventually, a complete destruction of the residence.  The trial court ruled the concurrent cause doctrine applied, and so that the combination of covered water damage and excluded faulty, inadequate and defective construction had resulted in coverage for the loss. 

Read More »
June 26, 2017 Blog PostEXTRAORDINARY WRITS: CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

Extraordinary Writs:  Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.  The ins and outs of appellate relief via an extraordinary writ covered by Carol in depth in this webinar.  

Read More »
May 02, 2017 Blog PostPreserving Error For Appeal in Florida State Courts 2017 Podcast

Carol’s first webinar for the 2017 Appellate Webinar Series covered preserving error for appeal in Florida state courts.  Don’t win the battle and lose the war because of unpreserved error! 

If you missed the webinar, you can catch up on all of the essential information you need to know regarding critical preservation issues downloadable on all devices.

Read More »
April 14, 2017 Blog PostSupreme Court says lawyer's referral of client to a doctor for treatment is attorney-client privileged communication, and out of bounds in discovery

The Florida Supreme Court declared that the attorney-client privilege shielded a motor vehicle accident plaintiff from being required to disclose that her attorney had referred her to a doctor for treatment.

Read More »
April 03, 2017 Blog PostFlorida Supreme Court To Consider Rule Change Allowing Immediate Review Of Orders On Settlement Agreements

The Florida Bar Appellate Rules Committee has proposed to the Florida Supreme Court an amendment to the appellate rules that would allow immediate appeals of orders that determine if, “as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, was set aside, or never existed.” 

Read More »
February 21, 2017 Blog PostSupreme Court speaks on Daubert – says not much

Last week the supreme court issued its opinion on the recommendations of the Florida Bar Rules committee regarding the new Daubert statute. The supreme court noted there are “grave concerns” that (unidentified) elements of the Daubert statute are constitutionally suspect.  But, in the end, Florida’s Daubert statute is still the law of Florida – the Florida statute was not struck down or deemed to be unconstitutional.  Practitioners still must comply with it.

Read More »
January 18, 2017 Blog PostSAFEGUARDING EVERY VETERAN'S BENEFITS: LESSONS FROM BRUCE V. MCDONALD, 2017 WL 57172

On January 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected the assertion by the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and the Board of Veterans Appeals (the Board) that a service member who requested a discharge in Lieu of Court Martial after an unauthorized absence of 42 days was barred from seeking veteran’s benefits for an injury he had suffered on active duty.

Read More »
June 02, 2015 Blog PostThe Florida Supreme Court Endorses Citizens' Immunity

The high court declared that Citizens is shielded from statutory bad-faith suits, and that bad faith is not a “willful tort,” which is a statutory exception to the immunity granted by the Florida Legislature.  The vindication was a long time coming for Citizens.  The Legislature created Citizens with a broad immunity that seemed clearly intended to shield it from bad-faith actions...

Read More »
Key Points
Practice Area