Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co.
Florida District Court of Appeal
660 So. 2d 300 (1995)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The policy under which State Farm Fire General Insurance Company (State Farm) (defendant) insured Richard and Patricia Goldman (plaintiffs) required that, at State Farm’s request, the Goldmans would appear separately for examination under oath. The policy also stipulated that the Goldmans’ noncompliance with policy requirements would preclude the Goldmans from suing State Farm. The Goldmans filed a claim against the policy after their house was burglarized. State Farm denied indemnification on the grounds that its investigation of the burglary was compromised by the Goldmans’ refusal to be examined under oath. Instead, the Goldmans offered and gave a joint sworn deposition. However, State Farm did not accept the deposition as a substitute for separate examinations of each spouse and continued rejecting the Goldmans’ claim. Two years after the burglary, the Goldmans sued State Farm for indemnification. The trial court entered summary judgment for State Farm, and the Goldmans appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rivkind, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
