Appellants Rolando and Yadira Perez appealed a final summary judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation regarding their homeowners' insurance claim for water damage caused by Hurricane Irma. The trial court ruled that the insureds failed to meet their post-loss duty of prompt notification, resulting in prejudice to Citizens. The policy stipulated that failure to provide prompt notice could lead to a denial of coverage if it prejudiced Citizens.
The Perez's home sustained damage around September 10, 2017, but they did not submit their claim until November 27, 2018. Citizens denied the claim, asserting that the delay hindered their ability to investigate the damage. In response to Citizens' motion for summary judgment, the insureds contested the assertion of untimely notice and claimed no prejudice to Citizens. They argued that they became aware of the damage through a tenant who had lived in the property and made some repairs, although they did not provide specific dates regarding the tenant's notification.
To support their position, the insureds presented an affidavit and report from a building inspector who linked the roof damage to Hurricane Irma with reasonable certainty, despite the time elapsed since the loss. At the hearing, Citizens maintained that the late notice was prejudicial and cited the tenant's repairs as a barrier to the insureds' ability to challenge the presumption of prejudice. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, determining that a genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether the delayed notification indeed prejudiced Citizens.
Insureds contended that their expert's affidavit effectively countered the presumption of prejudice due to late notice. The trial court granted Citizens' motion for summary judgment, determining the notice was untimely and that Citizens was presumed prejudiced, a presumption the insureds failed to rebut. On appeal, it was noted that summary judgment is warranted when there is no genuine dispute over material facts. The court confirmed the trial court did not err in finding no prompt notice, as the insureds did not clearly establish when they became aware of the damage, nor when their tenants informed them about it. The insureds' failure to provide specific dates meant they could not prove prompt notice, which was crucial to their case.
Although the trial court found no genuine dispute regarding Citizens' prejudice from the late notice, the policy language placed the burden of proving prejudice on the insurer. The court referenced prior cases indicating that an insurer must demonstrate actual prejudice to deny coverage due to the insured's failure to comply with policy conditions. Citizens did not provide evidence of prejudice; instead, it argued that the expert's affidavit failed to rebut the presumption. However, the affidavit suggested a genuine factual dispute, indicating that the expert could identify the cause and extent of the damages despite the notice delay. The appellate court concluded that the trial court incorrectly relied on the presumption of prejudice, which was not applicable given the policy terms, and reversed the decision, remanding for further proceedings.
