Ezequiel Lugo obtained a favorable decision in an appeal from a final summary judgment order determining that the insured failed to timely provide notice of a supplemental Hurricane Irma claim.
The insured, a condominium association, made a timely claim for roof damage. The carrier sent a reservation of rights letter that asked for a sworn statement in proof of loss, which the insured never provided. The carrier continued to investigate the claim and issued a letter stating the covered damages were below the applicable deductible. The letter also asked the insured to forward any other information or documentation not previously provided.
More than two years after the hurricane, the insured told the carrier that the insured’s engineer disagreed with the carrier’s findings. The carrier asked for a copy of the engineer’s report.
The insured then sued for breach of the insurance contract. The insured finally provided the requested documentation during discovery, more than three years after the hurricane. The documentation showed additional damage that had not been previously reported. The trial court granted summary judgment for the carrier based on section 627.70132, Florida Statutes, and the cases of Goldberg v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), and Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Horne, 314 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
On appeal, the insured claimed that the carrier: (1) was on notice of the supplemental claim before the lawsuit was filed; and (2) failed to show any prejudice related to the failure to submit a supplemental claim before being sued. Ezequiel argued on appeal that the insured failed to give any estimate of the additional claimed damages until the three-year deadline for supplemental claims under section 627.70132 and the policy had passed. Ezequiel also argued that summary judgment was proper because the insured had failed to comply with conditions precedent by failing to provide a sworn proof of loss or requested documentation before filing suit.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals rejected the insured’s arguments, and affirmed without a written opinion. The appellate court also entered an order denying the insured’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees and conditionally granting appellate attorneys’ fees for the carrier.
The case is Verandas at McArthur Palms Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Coastal Ins. Co., 2024 WL 937313 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).
For additional information, contact Ezequiel Lugo.
