Third District Court finds that an insured’s knowledge of a possible claim is critical to the calculus of determining prompt notice.

The trial court found that the appellants failed to give prompt notice of their loss when they reported it two-and-a-half years after the date of loss, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice. 

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that an insureds’ awareness of damage to their property must be considered in determining whether summary judgment should be entered. The court noted that the word “prompt,” in terms of notice, “is synonymous with ‘forthwith,’ ‘immediate,’ and ‘as soon as practicable’ and that notice should be provided with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time in view of all the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Furthermore, the obligation to provide notice arises “when there has been an occurrence that should lead a reasonable and prudent man to believe that a claim for damages would arise.” See Navarro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp, 353 So. 3d 1276, 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Laquer v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 167 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). 

Therefore, an insureds’ knowledge is important to consider in determining whether notice was prompt. 
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}