By Kevin Grady
Case No.: No. 4D2024-1547 (Dec. 17, 2025)
(Fourth District Court of Appeal)
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury’s finding that the insureds’ had failed to provide prompt notice of a loss event, and such failure prejudiced the insurer’s claim investigation and final judgment was entered for the insurer. The District Court of Appeal found that the insurer produced no evidence to support that it had been prejudiced by the delay in reporting.
The insureds’ insurance policy included the following language: “In case of a loss to covered property, we have no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the [homeowners’] failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us. These duties [include]: 1. Give prompt notice to us or our agent; …” The date of the plumbing loss was 9/1/2019, and it was reported on 10/29/2019. As part of the claims process, the insurer sent a coverage determination letter to the insureds citing the payment above and further stating that “the insurer reserves all rights under the policy provisions to raise additional coverage defenses as [those defenses] become known to us in the future.” The insurer found coverage for the loss and issued payment.
The insureds sued for breach of contract and alleged that the insurer was unwilling to cover the costs which would be necessary to tear out portions of the property to determine the loss event’s cause and then replace those torn our portions. In its affirmative defenses, the insurer cited the “duties after loss” clause and that such failure had allegedly prejudiced the investigation, it also alleged the costs estimate was excessive. At deposition and trial, the corporate representative of the insurer was unable to testify as to how a 58-day delay had allegedly prejudiced the insurer’s claim investigation.
The primary issue is whether the trial court erred by failing to grant the homeowner’s directed verdict on the issue of late notice and prejudice.
The appellate court found that the defendant’s defense of prejudice was based on merely speculation, as the corporate representative testified that the insurer “ha[d] no idea” if anything had changed in between the date of loss and time of reporting, and that the defendant had not presented any evidence indicating that the property condition may have changed in that 58-day time period. Thus, the defendant’s corporate representative’s testimony was insufficient to establish prejudice as a matter of law.
The 4th DCA referenced its holding in the matter of Perez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 345 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), which involved identical policy language and the court held “policy language places the burden on the insurer to prove prejudice.” Id. at 896.
The 4th DCA found that the insurer did not meet its burden to prove that it was prejudiced in the delay in the reporting of the loss and remanded the case back to the circuit court to grant the homeowners’ directed verdict motion on the insurer’s affirmative defense and conduct a new trial solely on the amount of the homeowners’ loss.
