In Himmel v. Avatar Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Restoration Construction, LLC v. Safepoint Insurance Company, makes clear prompt notice is question of fact based on the surrounding circumstances including when the insured found out about the loss.
Himmel v. Avatar Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 257 So.3d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
"Notice is necessary when there has been an occurrence that should lead a reasonable and prudent [person] to believe that a claim for damages would arise." Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So.2d 782, 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Notice is said to be prompt when it is provided "with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case." Laquer v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 167 So.3d 470, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (quoting Yacht Club on the Intracoastal Condo. Ass'n v. Lexington Ins. Co., 599 Fed.Appx. 875, 879 (11th Cir. 2015) ). Accordingly, "the issue of whether an insured provided `prompt' notice generally presents an issue of fact." Id.; see also Gonzalez v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 441 So.2d 681, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ("What constitutes a reasonable time within which to give notice of an accident under the terms of a policy of insurance is ordinarily an issue of fact.").
Florida courts have interpreted [prompt notice notice] to mean that notice should be provided "with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case." Yacht Club on the Intracoastal Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 599 Fed.Appx. 875, 879 (11th Cir.2015) (citation omitted). "Notice is necessary when there has been an occurrence that should lead a reasonable and prudent [person] to believe that a claim for damages would arise." Waldrep, 400 So.2d at 785. Thus, the issue of whether an insured provided "prompt" notice generally presents an issue of fact. LoBello, 152 So.3d at 600.
Of course, this issue of fact may sometimes be resolved by summary judgment. In the context of hurricane damage claims, courts have upheld summary judgment on the insured's failure to provide "prompt" notice where the insured was aware of damage to the residence shortly after the hurricane, but, for a variety of reasons, waited until several years passed before notifying the insurance company. See, e.g., 1500 Coral Towers, 112 So.3d at 543-44 (upholding summary judgment on the insured's failure to give "prompt" notice of roof damage caused by a hurricane where the insured was aware of roof damage one month after the hurricane, but waited more than four years to report the damages because it was unsure if the damages would exceed the policy deductible); see also Yacht Club, 599 Fed.Appx. at 879 (explaining that "prompt" notice is generally a jury question, but "Florida courts have interpreted `prompt' differently when damage is caused by a known event, such as a hurricane, or when the insured was on-site when readily apparent problems developed").
Restoration Construction, LLC v. Safepoint Insurance Company, 308 So.3d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
The determination of whether an insured provides "prompt" notice of a loss to an insurer is a material issue of fact as it may affect the insurer's coverage decision. See Himmel v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins., 257 So. 3d 488, 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). "Notice is said to be prompt when it is provided `with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case.'" See id. (quoting Laquer v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 167 So. 3d 470, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)).
In Himmel, this court reversed a summary judgment entered in favor of an insurer. After reviewing the applicable case law, we held that "the issue of whether an insured provided `prompt' notice generally presents an issue of fact." Id. (citations omitted).
2 YEARS IS NOT PROMPT NOTICE ONLY WHEN THE TIME FRAME TO SUBMIT A SWORN PROOF OF LOSS IS TIED TO THE DATE OF THE LOSS
In Laquer v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 167 So.3d 470 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015) clarified the holding in Soronson v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 96 So.3d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) stating 2 years did not constitute prompt notice as a matter of law when there was a fixed time period to report the loss. In Laquer there was a fixed time period to report the loss, because prompt notice had to be submitted with a sworn proof of loss within 60 days of the date of the loss.
In today’s policies most sworn proof of loss must be submitted within 60 days from the date of request not the date of loss.[1]
[1] In Laquer v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 167 So.3d 470 the court stated: Soronson v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 96 So.3d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), does not mandate a contrary result because it involved a policy with a different notice provision. In Soronson, the policy provided that "[a]fter a loss . . . [the insureds] shall . . . give immediate notice to [the insurer]" and "submit to [the insurer], within 60 days after the loss, [the insureds'] signed, sworn proof of loss." Id. at 950. The Fourth District held that the insureds' duty to provide notice ran from the date of loss, not the date of reasonable discovery, because the policy language at issue required notice and a sworn proof of loss within a fixed time from the date of the loss. Id. at 952. Unlike Soronson, the policy language here does not tie the notice and proof of claim to a fixed time from the date of loss.
