← Case library
3rd DCAMarch 10, 2021Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for new trial⭐ Notable

Nunez v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

Case No. 19-1614

An insured failed to appear for an EUO; the jury was asked only whether the insurer proved the insured 'unreasonably' failed to attend, and returned a verdict for the insured. A successor judge granted a new trial under American Integrity v. Estrada but also directed a verdict that the insured had materially breached. The Third DCA affirmed the new trial but reversed the directed verdict, holding materiality of the breach was a jury question never submitted, and remanded for a new trial under the Estrada burden-shifting framework with leave to amend pleadings.

Key facts

  • Insured failed to appear for a scheduled examination under oath (EUO) required by the insurance policy; insurer denied the claim based on this nonattendance.
  • At trial, the jury was instructed only on whether the insured 'unreasonably' failed to attend the EUO and returned a verdict for the insured; a successor judge then granted a new trial but entered a directed verdict that the insured had materially breached the policy.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This decision reinforces and applies the Third DCA's Estrada framework for post-loss obligation defenses in first-party property cases, confirming that materiality of the breach is a jury issue and that the prejudice… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.