MANUEL FEIJOO v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (2026)

Affirmed. See Infinity Auto Ins. Co. v. Miami Open MRI, LLC, 361 So. 3d 954, 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Moreover, because submitting to an examination under oath is a condition precedent to receipt of PIP benefits under section 627.736(6)(g) and the policy at issue, prejudice is not an element of Infinity Auto's affirmative defense to Miami Open's claim for services taking place on June 18, 2015, and the trial court erred in requiring otherwise.”); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. LFC Med. Ctr., Inc., 388 So. 3d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“United put forward sufficient evidence that the insured breached the policy by not attending the EUO ․”); Nunez v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 325 So. 3d 267, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Because the undisputed facts show that Nunez wholly failed to comply with her post-loss obligation to attend an EUO, and likewise failed to offer evidence of compliance or attempted compliance—or even a reasonable justification for the failure to attend—the trial court properly directed a verdict on whether Nunez materially breached the contract.”).

PER CURIAM.