DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ROLANDO PEREZ and YADIRA PEREZ, Appellants, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. No. 4D21-2944 [August 10, 2022] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020- CA-001311-XXXX-MB. Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel and William D. Mueller of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellants. Maureen G. Pearcy of Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., Miami, for appellee. WARNER, J. Appellants (“insureds”) challenge a final summary judgment in favor of appellee Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) on insureds’ claim for benefits under their homeowners’ policy. The trial court found no genuine issue of fact that insureds failed to comply with their post-loss duties of prompt notification, which resulted in prejudice to Citizens. We reverse because a genuine dispute of material fact remains as to whether the delay in notification of the claim resulted in prejudice to Citizens. Insureds purchased an insurance policy from Citizens to cover their residence. The policy contained a provision that Citizens would have no duty to provide coverage for any loss where insureds failed to give prompt notice of a loss to Citizens or insureds’ insurance agent. Per the policy terms, if insureds failed to provide “prompt notice” to Citizens, and that failure was “prejudicial to [Citizens],” then the loss would not be covered. While the policy was in effect, insureds’ home sustained water damage due to Hurricane Irma around September 10, 2017. Insureds submitted a damage claim to Citizens on November 27, 2018. Citizens sent an independent adjuster to inspect the damage the next month. Citizens then denied the claim on the basis that insureds’ failure to timely report the loss prejudiced Citizens’ investigation of the claim. Insureds sued Citizens, alleging that it breached the policy by failing to pay the covered loss. Citizens answered and alleged in its affirmative defenses that insureds failed to comply with the policy’s “prompt notice” and “suit against us” conditions. Citizens moved for final summary judgment based upon the insureds’ violation of the policy’s “prompt notice” and “suit against us” conditions. It claimed that the insureds had notice of damage but did not report it until fourteen months after the date of loss. Due to the delay, Citizens was prejudiced, because it could not confirm the cause of the loss or the property damage attributable to it. It attached an affidavit of its corporate representative regarding the various dates and correspondence with the insureds, including a letter to the insureds stating that it was prejudiced by the late notice of the claim. It provided no evidence of prejudice. In insureds’ response, they contested Citizens’ contentions that notice was untimely, and that Citizens suffered prejudice. They attached their answers to interrogatories in which they stated that that a tenant was living in their property when they first became aware of the damage to the property, which was sometime before they moved into the property in February 2019. They explained …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals