You Restorations LLC, a/a/o Corina De Leon and Cesar De Leon v. First Protective Insurance Company, d/b/a Frontline Insurance

Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for First Protective Insurance Company in an assigned insurance-claim dispute. The court held that the insureds provided untimely notice of the alleged windstorm loss and failed to rebut the resulting presumption that the insurer was prejudiced by the delay. The court affirmed on that alternative ground under the tipsy coachman doctrine, despite disputed evidence concerning causation.

Holdings

1. Under the tipsy-coachman doctrine, an appellate court may affirm summary judgment on an alternative legal ground supported by the record when that ground was presented to the trial court in the summary-judgment motion, even though the trial court relied on a different rationale.
2. An insured's duty to provide notice is triggered when a reasonable person, considering the available facts and information, would conclude that an occurrence implicating the policy is likely. The insureds' nearly two-year delay in reporting a windstorm-related loss, after observing damage that worsened over time, constituted failure to provide prompt notice as a matter of law.
3. When an insured breaches a policy's notice provision, prejudice to the insurer is presumed, and the insured bears the burden of rebutting that presumption. The insureds failed to rebut the presumption because the evidence showed that the damage continued and increased between the storm and the claim, impairing Frontline's ability to determine the extent of the loss.
4. Conflicting expert evidence concerning the cause of the property damage did not preclude summary judgment because the undisputed late notice and unrebutted prejudice independently entitled Frontline to judgment as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment could be affirmed on the alternative ground that the insureds failed to provide prompt notice of the loss.
2. Whether the insureds rebutted the presumption that Frontline was prejudiced by the untimely notice.
3. Whether disputed expert evidence concerning causation precluded summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed