Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal Affirms Summary Judgment in Late-Notice Claim

The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment in favor of First Protective Insurance Company in a dispute stemming from delayed notice of storm-related damage. The case arose after homeowners assigned their policy rights to property to a home improvement and restoration company, despite knowing of garage ceiling damage shortly after a 2020 storm and roof damage nearly a year before reporting the claim in 2022. The appellate court agreed that the insureds’ late notice breached the policy’s prompt reporting requirement, creating a presumption of prejudice that the assignee failed to overcome.

First Protective Insurance Company provided a homeowners insurance policy to the DeLeons, who assigned their rights under the policy to You Restorations, LLC (YR). Prior to assigning their rights under the policy, the insureds were aware of damage to their garage ceiling almost immediately after a April 2020 storm and were aware of the damage to their roof above the garage at least 10 months prior to reporting the claim in March of 2022. 

During litigation, First Protective filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted due to the insureds providing late notice of the claim and YR’s failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice. 

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reasoned that, since the insureds stated to the adjuster during a recorded statement that they noticed a stain on the ceiling of their garage only a few weeks after the 2020 storm, which only grew over time, the insureds failed to provide prompt notice as a matter of law, as the duty to notify is triggered upon discovery of damages. 

Since the notice provision was breached by the insureds, prejudice to First Protective was presumed. YR attempted to rebut the presumption by arguing that, since First Protective was able to deny the loss due to policy exclusions, First Protective should be precluded from asserting prejudice. 

However, the District Court disagreed. First, YR attempted to rely on precedent unrelated to an insured’s duty to promptly report a loss. Second, the insureds’ recorded statement indisputably proved the damage increased overtime, between the date of loss and the date of reporting. Lastly, even YR’s own expert stated the damages seen were due to multiple rain events. 

_{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.}