In Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Maytin, ____ So.3d ____ (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010), the insured homeowner sued Citizens for failing to pay a homeowner’s claim.  After filing suit, the insured moved to compel appraisal.  Citizens argued that the insured prevented the insurer from fully inspecting the property, thereby precluding him from invoking the appraisal clause.  The trial court granted the motion to compel, and ordered the case to appraisal.  Citizens appealed the non-final order.

The 3rd reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the insured complied with post-loss conditions. In doing so, the Court reminded the trial court that absolute 100% compliance with all conditions is not required. In making this point, the Court quoted from Sunshine State Insurance Co. v. Corridori, 28 So3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), wherein the 4th held:

[W]here the ‘insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented’ regarding the necessity or sufficiency of compliance . . . . Whether appellees’ compliance with the policy terms was necessary or sufficient is a dispute of fact. (citation omitted).

This holding is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Bankers Insurance Company v. Macias, 475 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1985) where the Court held that where there is a claim of failure to comply with a condition precedent

The burden should be on the insured to show lack of prejudice where the insurer has been deprived of the opportunity to investigate facts and to examine the insured.