Fraud/Special Investigation

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal recently overturned a long standing assumption regarding the admissibility of examinations under oaths (“EUOs”) as trial evidence in Universal X Rays, Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 422 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), reh'g denied (Nov. 3, 2025). For years, a longstanding mythos existed around EUOs in Florida that they could not be used in litigation because of a multitude of reasoning: hearsay, trustworthiness, due process, creation in anticipation of litigation, among other common critiques. Such was the situation that great evidence could be potentially unearthed in an EUO, but if it could not be independently verified by other means, certain evidence as to fraudulent or denied coverage claims would never see the light of day.

In Universal X Rays, the assignee and insured, Miguel LaRosa-Ferrer sat for an examination under oath per his insurance policy following a car accident. The EUO was conducted via videoconference with a court reporter and the insured had an attorney present. During the required examination, the insured admitted that he had moved to a new address shortly before applying for the insurance policy but continued to list his old address on the application. This resulted in a lower premium for the insured. Two months later, United Auto sent a letter to the insured rescinding the policy, citing material misrepresentation of the garaging address, and returned the premium.

Several months later, the appellant, Universal, sued United Auto for breach of contract after it denied a medical billing reimbursement request for no-fault personal injury protection benefits. United Auto eventually moved for summary judgment on the issue of material misrepresentation with its key piece of evidence being the EUO transcript. Universal argued that the EUO transcript was inadmissible as improper hearsay, an out of court statement by a declarant offered for its truth, and that it violated section 92.33, Florida Statutes (2025) because the insurer did not provide a copy of the transcript to the insured. However, Universal offered no actual evidence disputing that the insured committed a material misrepresentation.

The lower trial court disagreed with Universal’s legal arguments and because no evidence disputing the material misrepresentation was presented, entered final judgment for United Auto. Unsurprisingly, Universal promptly appealed, as there is a history of trial courts in Florida finding EUOs to be inadmissible for numerous reasons leading to a long fabled belief in the industry as to the same.

For example, in JJZ Medical Center, Inc., v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 432a, (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. Cty. 2024), a Miami-Dade trial court declined to review an examination under oath demonstrating material misrepresentation after an insured signed an affidavit to the contrary and it was submitted as evidence. The court held that the EUO could not be admissible because there was no cross-examination of the witness making it “inherently untrustworthy.” The court went on to state that an EUO transcript met no exception to hearsay exclusions under Florida law either such as former testimony or a business records exception.

Another County Court in Miami-Dade excluded an EUO transcript involving a material misrepresentation summary judgment because it was not provided to the declarant nor adopted by the declarant per § 92.33 Fla. Stat, and would be considered hearsay. Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D., aao Andisleydis Sordo Perez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 382a (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. Cty. 2023). In this case, the court honed in on the argument that an examination under oath, while sworn, lacks personal knowledge of the declarant because it is not provided to them, nor do they adopt it after it is transcribed. § 92.33 Fla. Stat requires a written statement by an injured party to be provided to that individual or it may not be used in a later civil action. The court held this statute to applicable and, thus, excluded the EUO transcript.

Both of these common lower court arguments were then brought up on appeal by Universal. They argued to the Third District Court of Appeal that the EUO was inadmissible hearsay, violating Florida Statute § 92.33, which requires a copy of a written statement to be provided to the declarant. However, Third District Court of Appeal rejected both arguments and for a reason that seemed to catch the appellant off-guard.

First, the court cited Florida’s revised summary judgment standard, which in 2021, aligned Florida’s Rule 1.510 with the federal summary judgment standard Rule 56. Using the full benefit of federal case law, the court held that hearsay is permissible “as long as it can” be presented in admissible form at trial—such as through live testimony. In such instances, the proper response from an opposing party is to present conflicting evidence of the statement. However, in this case, Universal put forth no evidence that the insured’s garage address was not materially misrepresented, and, thus, they lost this issue.

The Third District rejected the argument that the insurer violated § 92.33 Fla. Stat., noting that the statute only requires “written statements” to be provide to an injured person. The court held that an EUO, which is a sworn transcribed statement, would not even be covered by § 92.33, and the appellant failed to provide any authority to the contrary. Given that appellant’s statutory argument did not apply and it presented no evidence to contradict the examination under oath, which could be reduced to admissible form at trial, the Third District affirmed the admissibility of the EUO in favor of the insurer.

The significance of the Universal X Rays opinion now means EUOs are an even stronger fraud deterrent in Florida. They can be taken with confidence and utilized to stem frivolous litigation and claims at much earlier phases than before. Rather than ignore the EUO transcript, opposing parties now must affirmatively disprove that fraud has occurred once it is admitted.