See Ifergane v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 232 So.3d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (noting that if Citizens' letter to its insured "was a denial of coverage letter, then as a matter of law, Citizens waived any right it had to enforce the insured's post-loss conditions . . . .") (citing Wegener v. Int'l Bankers Ins. Co., 494 So.2d 259, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (concluding as a matter of law that "the effect of the ... repudiation of coverage was to waive any right to insist upon the insureds' ... compliance with the various conditions to recovery") and Castro v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 228 So.3d 596, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("When an insurance carrier investigates a claim of loss and denies coverage because it concludes that a covered loss has not occurred, the insurance carrier cannot assert the insured's failure to comply with the policy's conditions precedent to filing suit as a basis for summary judgment."))
Our sister court explained that "[w]hen an insurance carrier investigates a claim of loss and denies coverage because it concludes that a covered loss has not occurred, the insurance carrier cannot assert the insured's failure to comply with the policy's conditions precedent to filing suit as a basis for summary judgment." Castro v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 228 So. 3d 596, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). This court echoed the sentiment.
It is necessary to resolve this issue because should the factfinder determine that Citizens' letter was a denial of coverage letter, then as a matter of law, Citizens waived any right it had to enforce the insured's post-loss conditions—including the right to take Alexandra's examination under oath. See, e.g., Wegener v. Int'l Bankers Ins. Co., 494 So.2d 259, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (concluding as a matter of law that "the effect of the ... repudiation of coverage was to waive any right to insist upon the insureds' ... compliance with the various conditions to recovery"); Castro v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2D15-5456, 228 So.3d 596, 599, 2017 WL 3614102, at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 23, 2017) ("When an insurance carrier investigates a claim of loss and denies coverage because it concludes that a covered loss has not occurred, the insurance carrier cannot assert the insured's failure to comply with the policy's conditions precedent to filing suit as a basis for summary judgment."). If the letter was not a denial, but a request for further information, then Citizens did not waive its right to demand an EUO, and under our prior decision in Ifergane I, Alexandra's noncompliance precludes coverage. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment entered in favor of Citizens and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.