Opinion ID: 2812344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the district court’s findings of facts and

Text: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On August 28, 2013, and after a bench trial, the district court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law as to Count II of the Third Amended Complaint, which was the count in which 200 Leslie sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to an appraisal of its Hurricane Wilma damages. 2
As to the altered proof of loss form, the district court found that “200 Leslie did not send QBE a sworn proof of loss on a form provided by QBE containing information requested by QBE, as required by the QBE policy.” The district court noted that “the problem created by the inclusion of undamaged property in the $10,934,677.49 Proof of Loss figure was not remedied by striking the subject language because, due to such inclusion, the figure did not actually equate to 200 Leslie’s ‘whole loss and damage.’” The district court therefore “d[id] not find Golant’s explanation for striking out the language in the Proof of Loss form . . . to be reasonable or justified.” As to the inventory of damaged and undamaged property, the district court found that “200 Leslie did not provide QBE with complete inventories of the damaged and undamaged property, . . . as required by the QBE policy.” The 2 The district court dismissed as moot Count I, which sought a judgment declaring that glass windows and sliding glass doors that provide access to a single condominium unit were covered under the policy. 8 Case: 13-15228 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 9 of 16 district court further found that, “[w]ithout the information regarding the damaged/undamaged breakdown,” Bertucci, the claims adjuster working for QBE’s third-party managing agent, “could not determine what [QBE] was required to pay under the terms of the QBE policy; and the distinction is important because it shows what needs to actually be repaired or replaced from hurricane damage.” Finally, as to the examination under oath, the district court found that Vilain, the 200 Leslie board member and representative at the examination, “did not reasonably prepare for the [examination under oath] and, as a result, did not adequately respond to QBE’s inquiries regarding matters relating to the insurance or the claim . . . as required by the QBE policy.” Accordingly, the district court also found that “200 Leslie did not fully comply with the QBE policy requirement that its representative submit to examination about any matter relating to the insurance or the claim.”
Based on its foregoing fact findings, the district court concluded that 200 Leslie failed to comply with the three post-loss obligations discussed supra: (1) the requirement that 200 Leslie provide to QBE a sworn proof of loss, (2) the requirement that 200 Leslie provide QBE with complete inventories of the damaged and undamaged property, and (3) the requirement that 200 Leslie produce its representative to submit to an examination under oath about any matter relating 9 Case: 13-15228 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 10 of 16 to the insurance or the claim. Accordingly, the district court concluded that 200 Leslie breached the policy terms as to each provision. Turning to the effect of the breaches, the district court stated that, because the three post-loss requirements were “conditions precedent to appraisal, 200 Leslie had the burden to show at trial that QBE was not prejudiced by its failure to comply with these post-loss conditions.” The district court found that 200 Leslie failed to establish that no prejudice resulted from its breaches. Specifically, the district court stated, in relevant part: 200 Leslie did not offer any evidence at trial that QBE was not prejudiced by its breaches of the Proof of Loss, Inventories of Damaged and Undamaged Properties[,] and Examination Under Oath post-loss conditions. It did not elicit any testimony from Bertucci that QBE could go to appraisal despite these breaches. On the contrary, Bertucci’s credible testimony was that appraisal is not appropriate because QBE does not know 200 Leslie’s actual valuation of its Hurricane Wilma damages. According to Bertucci, without information regarding the damaged/undamaged breakdown, he could not determine what it was required to pay under the terms of the QBE policy; and the distinction is important because it shows what needs to actually be repaired or replaced from hurricane damage. Because 200 Leslie did not carry its burden of showing prejudice, it cannot avoid the conditions precedent to appraisal with which it did not comply. The district court therefore ruled that “QBE has prevailed as to Count II of the Third Amended Complaint.” Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court entered a separate final judgment in favor of QBE and against 200 Leslie. 10 Case: 13-15228 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 11 of 16 On September 23, 2013, 200 Leslie moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. 200 Leslie timely appealed.