In Boyd v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) was faced with a challenge to a trial court’s evidentiary ruling. Boyd contended that the trial court improperly allowed Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) Corporate Representative to testify about matters outside of his personal knowledge.
Throughout the trial, Universal’s Corporate Representative testified about numerous topics, including what was reported when the claim was filed with Universal, what documents Universal sent to the insured, what documents were received by Universal, and Universal’s overall coverage determination. Prior to offering this testimony, the Corporate Representative stated that he was the manager of all Corporate Representatives at Universal and that he was familiar with how Universal maintains its records, collects and stores field adjuster estimates, and that he had reviewed the claim file and the applicable insurance policy. He also testified that he served as the records custodian for the claim file.
In determining that the Corporate Representative had sufficient personal knowledge to testify about the claim file documents, the Fourth DCA emphasized that the personal knowledge requirement does not necessitate the Corporate Representative’s direct involvement in all matters at issue. Based on his testimony, the court found that Universal had adequately established that the Corporate Representative “obtained personal knowledge through his job duties with the insurer, as well as his review of the insurer’s documents and records.” Although a mere cursory review of the claim file is not sufficient to establish personal knowledge, such knowledge can be demonstrated through testimony detailing the representative’s “employment, training, or experience that might provide him with personal knowledge of the insurer’s recordkeeping practices.” See Savoy v. Am Platinum Prop. & Cas. Ins., 363 So. 3d 1102, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
There has been a growing trend of challenges to the personal knowledge requirement, both in the context of affidavits submitted for motions for summary judgment and in Corporate Representative trial testimony. Boyd makes clear that personal knowledge does not mean personal involvement. As long as the insurer can establish a foundation for the Corporate Representative’s personal knowledge—whether through well-drafted affidavits or appropriately framed questions at trial—a Corporate Representative who was not personally involved in the handling of the claim should still be permitted to testify about matters related to the claim, including the contents of the claim file.
Joseph A. Matera, Esq.