Robert A. Kinman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company , 411 F. App'x 261 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                            [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                      FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-11913                       JAN 27, 2011
    Non-Argument Calendar                   JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 6:09-cv-00889-ACC-DAB
    ROBERT A. KINMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
    INSURANCE COMPANY,
    a foreign profit corporation,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    ______________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _____________
    (January 27, 2011)
    Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Kinman brought this action against State Farm Mutual Automobile
    Insurance Company for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits for injuries he
    allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. State Farm pled as an affirmative
    defense that Kinman failed to perform a condition precedent to the entitlement of
    benefits under the policy by refusing to attend a scheduled medical examination as
    required by the policy. The district court granted State Farm summary judgment,
    concluding that “[n]o reasonable jury could conclude that State Farm’s [medical
    examination] as requested and scheduled was unreasonable or that Kinman’s
    refusal to submit to the [examination] was reasonable.” Order, March 25, 2009 at
    6. “Because Kinman’s policy required him to submit to the [examination] and he
    unreasonably refused to do so, Kinman is not entitled to coverage under the
    uninsured motorist provision.” Id. at 8.
    Kinman now appeals, contending that the district court erred in concluding
    that attendance at the scheduled medical examination constituted a condition
    precedent to coverage, and, further, that issues of fact remained to be litigated
    regarding Kinman’s failure to appear for the examination. We are not persuaded.
    We find no error in the court’s analysis of the insurance coverage. As the court
    properly concluded, no material fact issue was presented and State Farm was
    2
    entitled to summary judgment.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-11913

Citation Numbers: 411 F. App'x 261

Judges: Anderson, Black, Per Curiam, Tjoflat

Filed Date: 1/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023