Middle District of Florida Case Provides Insight on Daubert and Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

By Douglas M. Cohen

In Shetler v. Clear Blue Specialty Ins. Co., No. 6:24-cv-272-RBD-LHP, 2025 LX 363395 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 3, 2025), the court ruled on defense motions in a first-party property case, providing some guidance on factors to consider when ruling. Among these motions were a Daubert motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert engineer; a summary judgment motion contending that the failure to submit a proof of loss was a material breach of the policy that forfeits coverage; and a summary judgment motion determining whether  an insurer must show prejudice when an insured breaches a condition precedent, including the requirement to provide a sworn proof of loss.

With respect to the Daubert Motion, the defense contended that the engineer relied too heavily on the insured’s interview to determine the cause of damage. The court, however, disagreed, denying the Daubert Motion and noting that any weaknesses in the engineer’s evaluation, such as overreliance on a biased homeowner, are better addressed on cross-examination rather than exclusion.

With respect to the defendant’s contention that the insured’s failure to submit a proof of loss as requested was a material breach that forfeited coverage, the court found that the insurer could not conclusively show that it requested a sworn proof of loss as required by the policy. More specifically, the e-mail requests sent by the insurer did not strictly comply with the “electronic transmittal” definition in the policy, given that no e-mail address for the plaintiffs or their attorney appeared in the declarations. Without further record evidence about the e-mail requests and the circumstances surrounding them, summary judgment was denied and deemed inappropriate at that point. Furthermore, the court also held that based on the policy language expressly requiring prejudice, the insurer had the burden of proof to show it was prejudiced by not receiving a sworn proof of loss. The court, denying summary judgment on this ground, found that because the insurer issued an explanation of coverage letter after the purported breach of failing to submit the sworn proof of loss, there was at least some evidence that the insurer was not prejudiced by the insured’s failure to submit.