In First Home Insurance Co. v. Fleurimond (3D09-2034), the Third District affirmed the trial court's order compelling appraisal. After the insured home was damaged by Hurricane Wilma, the insurer made payments that the insured deemed inadequate. The insured hired a public adjuster and the insurer demanded an examination under oath (EUO). The court described the facts as follows:
The insured and his wife appeared without counsel at the specified time and place. The insured had asked his public adjuster to appear with him at the EUO, but the public adjuster failed to appear. According to the insured, during the examination the examiner badgered him and yelled at him. After answering the examiner’s questions in English, the examiner stated that he thought there was a language problem and asked an interpreter to join them. The examiner repeated all of the same questions which were translated into Creole. After answering the second series of questions, the insured and his wife left during a break and did not reappear. Thereafter the insured retained counsel. Counsel contacted the insurer and offered to resume the EUO. The insurer replied that it was too late and refused the offer.
The court held:
We have held that “the insured must meet all of the policy’s post-loss obligations before appraisal may be compelled.” U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (en banc). This includes the obligation to submit to an EUO. Id. at 469. Our court has said, “‘[T]he failure to submit to an examination under oath is a material breach of the policy which will relieve the insurer of its liability to pay.’” Stringer v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 622 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
We agree with the trial court in rejecting the insurer’s arguments. First, the insured and his wife appeared for the EUO at the designated time and place. The substantial issue before the trial court was whether the insured and his wife were justified in leaving the EUO. The insured testified that he was badgered and yelled at, and that he was required to answer the identical series of questions twice, once
in English and once in Creole.
After the insured’s exit from the EUO, he obtained counsel who offered to present the insured and his wife for a resumption of the EUO. This was before the insured filed suit against the insurer. The insurer refused the offer. It was not until after the insurer refused the offer that the insured filed suit. On these facts we entirely agree with the trial court that the lawsuit was not premature, and appraisal was properly ordered.