The trial court incorrectly entered directed verdict for the insurer.

Following a jury trial, the circuit court entered a directed verdict for the insurer and set aside the jury’s verdict, concluding the insured failed to provide the insurer with prompt notice of the loss. The reviewing court determined that the evidence submitted to the jury was susceptible to different reasonable inferences as to whether the insurer was prejudiced by the delay in reporting the loss. Because a trial court may direct a verdict only when the evidence and all reasonable inferences fail to prove a plaintiff’s case, the trial court incorrectly entered the directed verdict for the insurer. Instead, because the evidence was conflicting, the issue of whether or not the notice was prompt should have been submitted to the jury as a question of fact, not passed upon by the judge as a matter of law. The reviewing court reversed the circuit court’s order for directed verdict for the insurer and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict. 

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – June 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.}