State Farm’s legal battle with a couple accused of falsifying insurance claims concerning a diamond ring has continued with an appeals court reversing summary judgment in favor of the insurance company.
On March 13, the District Court of Appeal of Florida’s Second District reversed the Pinellas County Circuit Court ruling that granted State Farm summary judgment in Charles and Sharon Svetlanovich’s lawsuit. They sued State Farm for breach of contract after it refused to cover the loss of a diamond ring, which a State Farm agent previously appraised at $88,495, insured.
“Because our review of the record evidence reflects that any determination as to whether the Svetlanoviches made misrepresentations hinges on credibility assessments that are solely the province of the trier of fact, we conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings,” Judge Craig C. Villanti wrote in the opinion.
Ultimately, since State Farm was the party making the claims, it had the responsibility and burden of proving it. But the evidence that the company presented also caused many genuine issues of fact to rise. For example, details around a traffic stop ahead of the ring being lost (such as the exact time of the stop and where Svetlanovich was going when he was stopped) are genuine issues of fact in themselves.
The lower court ruled in favor of State Farm despite the genuine issues of whether the couple did make false representations and lied in their claim.
Justices Matthew C. Lucas, and Associate Senior Judge James R. Case concurred.
In denying the initial claim, State Farm held that the couple made misrepresentations of not only how they purchased the ring but how it was lost as well.
The couple previously claimed that Svetlanovich had the ring in the car, taking it for repairs, when he was arrested after a dispute with an officer during a traffic stop. Their car was impounded and towed. He went to go pick up the car, and a tire was slashed, and the ring was missing. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit ensued after State Farm refused to cover the losses.