Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Fourth District Court of Appeals finds that insureds failed to provide insurance carrier with “prompt notice” as a matter of law.
Security First Insurance Company v. Visca, 387 So. 3d 313, 315 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
September 1, 2024
On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma allegedly caused damage to the roof of the homeowners’ property, resulting in interior water intrusion issues. On February 20, 2020, about 29 months later, the homeowners first notified their insurance carrier of the loss by filing an insurance claim. The insurance carrier denied the claim, explaining the policy excluded coverage because the damages resulted from wear and tear and not Hurricane Irma. The coverage determination letter did not cite untimely notice of loss as a basis for the denial.
Subsequently, the homeowners filed a lawsuit against their insurance carrier, alleging breach contract due to the denial of coverage for damages sustained to the insureds’ home.
After a jury trial verdict in favor of the homeowners, the lower court entered judgment and denied the insurance carrier’s post-trial motions for directed verdict and a new trial.
The insurance carrier appealed the lower court’s ruling. The appellate court found that, as a matter of law, the homeowners failed to provide their insurance carrier with “prompt notice” of roof damage caused by Hurricane Irma; the home had no active roof leaks leading up to the hurricane; the homeowners later retained a public adjuster to pursue an insurance claim on their behalf after finding a roof leak a year after the hurricane; the public adjuster did not file a claim for over a year after finding the leak (approximately two-and-a-half years after the hurricane); and the homeowners failed to otherwise notify their insurer of the loss, which was their duty under the insurance policy.
In summary, the appellate court found that the homeowner’s duty to notify their insurance carrier was triggered upon their initial discovery of roof damage in 2018, yet they conceded they failed to provide notice until February 2020; thus, notice was not prompt as a matter of law, and the insurance carrier was entitled to a directed verdict on that issue. The appellate court also found that the insurance carrier did not waive its defense of prompt notice by failing to include it in its coverage decision or by denying coverage for the claim based on other grounds. It should be noted, the appellate court remanded the case for a new trial on whether the insureds’ untimely notice prejudiced the carrier.
Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – September 2024 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 © 2024 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.
