## Facts

- State Farm issued a homeowners/tenants policy to Richard and Patricia Goldman covering personal property and contents.
- The Goldmans’ residence was burglarized on October 8, 1992, and they submitted a sworn proof of loss.
- On December 30, 1992, State Farm demanded that each insured submit to an examination under oath (EUO) and produce documents under the policy’s “Duties After Loss.”
- The policy required EUOs “as often as [the insurer] reasonably require[d],” with each insured examined separately and not in the presence of any other insured, and required compliance with policy provisions before suit could be filed.
- EUOs were scheduled and then rescheduled at the Goldmans’ request; there was no genuine dispute they knew State Farm was requesting EUOs at a mutually convenient time and place.
- Before any EUO occurred, the Goldmans filed suit on January 19, 1993 for breach of contract, alleging compliance with all conditions precedent and wrongful refusal to pay.
- On the same day suit was filed, the Goldmans’ counsel proposed renoticing the EUOs as depositions under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The trial court entered final summary judgment for State Farm based on the Goldmans’ failure to comply with the EUO condition.

## Issues

1. Whether the insureds’ failure to submit to the insurer’s demanded, separate EUOs under the policy constituted a willful and material breach that barred recovery.
2. Whether a post-suit joint sworn deposition could satisfy or substitute for the policy’s pre-suit requirement of separate EUOs.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed final summary judgment for State Farm.
- Refusal to comply with a policy-based EUO demand was held to be a willful and material breach precluding recovery under the policy.
- The court held that the Goldmans’ post-suit joint deposition did not cure or replace the contractual requirement of pre-suit, separate EUOs.
- Because the material facts were undisputed and the effect of noncompliance was a legal question, summary judgment was proper.

## Legal Principles

- When a policy provides that no action may be brought unless policy provisions have been complied with, compliance with “Duties After Loss” requirements— включая examinations under oath—operates as a condition precedent to suit.
- An insured’s willful refusal to submit to a reasonably requested EUO required by the policy is a material breach that bars recovery.
- A deposition conducted after litigation begins is not a substitute for a contractually required EUO that is part of the insurer’s pre-suit claim investigation process.
- Where a policy requires separate EUOs of multiple insureds, providing only joint sworn testimony does not satisfy the policy’s stated procedure.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the policy’s EUO and “no suit” provisions as pre-suit conditions to recovery, holding that the insureds’ failure to appear for separate EUOs before filing suit was a material breach that barred the claim, and that a later joint deposition could not replace the required EUOs.


Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)