.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Florida Court Upholds Denial of Late Hurricane Claim, Reinforcing Prompt Notice Requirement

Morales v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D24-0096, LT Case No. 20-25161, August 6, 2025

September 1, 2025

In August, the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami upheld a summary judgment in favor of the insurance company in a case that addressed whether homeowners can recover for hurricane damage when they wait several years to report the claim. The court ruled that the insurance company was entitled to deny coverage for a hurricane claim reported years after the storm.

The homeowner filed her claim with Citizens more than three years after Hurricane Irma occurred. Citizens denied the claim based on the homeowner’s failure to satisfy the policy’s prompt notice provision. The homeowner challenged the denial in the trial court, but the lower court ruled in favor of Citizens, finding that the delayed notice did violate the terms of the insurance policy contract.

The homeowner then appealed. However, the appellate court ultimately upheld the lower court’s decision. The Third District Court of Appeal referenced several previous cases, including Arce v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and Navarro v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, that dealt with policyholders who waited years to report their alleged hurricane-related loss to the insurance carrier. In both of those cases, the courts found that these delays violated the prompt notice requirement, thus justifying Citizen’s denial of the claim. Here, the District Court echoed the Arce and Navarro courts, stating that policyholders must act “with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time” after discovering damage.

For insurance carriers, the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion reinforces the enforceability of prompt notice clauses in property insurance policies and supports a carrier’s ability to deny stale and untimely claims. For homeowners, the District Court’s message is clear: waiting years to report damage can result in a properly denied claim, even if the loss may have otherwise been covered. Overall, the Third District’s ruling strongly supports the enforcing of prompt notice provisions by the insurance carrier in property insurance policies. 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – September 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.