Schnagel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- DAVID HIMMEL v. AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
- Laine v. Allstate Insurance (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 2005)
- Solano v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)
- Jyurovat v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
- El Dorado Towers Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2010)
- Coconut Key Homeowners Ass'n v. Lexington Insurance (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2009)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Lynda SCHNAGEL, Appellant,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*1038 John G. Crabtree and Thomas M. Pflaum of John G. Crabtree, P.A., Key Biscayne, and John W. Conness of John W. Conness, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
STEVENSON, J.
The instant appeal stems from the trial court's entry of final summary judgment in favor of the defendant insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and against its insured, Lynda Schnagel. We reverse.
Schnagel's 1996 Lexus was insured by State Farm and, in April 2000, Schnagel reported the car stolen. State Farm believed that Schnagel was somehow involved in the theft and, pursuant to the policy's cooperation clause, demanded that Schnagel provide it with a variety of documents, including financial records. Schnagel provided some, but not all of the requested documents. Since Schnagel acknowledged that she had not provided all of the requested documents, the trial judge concluded that she had breached the policy's cooperation clause and, consequently, entered judgment in favor of State Farm. This was error. Where, as here, an insured cooperates to some degree, the issue of whether there has been a material breach of the insurance contract is one for a jurynot the trial judge. See Haiman v. Fed. Ins. Co., 798 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment in favor of State Farm and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.