Southern District of Florida Rules Insureds Must Provide Prompt Notice and Ample Opportunity for Insurers to Investigate Claims

By Paris T. Baker

In Glob. Approach, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 24-cv-22531, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120183 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2026), the Southern District of Florida granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the insured failed to provide prompt notice as required by the policy.

The insurer issued an insurance policy to the insured that required promptly reporting a notice of loss. The insured reported a claim for water damage that occurred on September 3, 2021, to the insurer on October 20, 2021. Notably, before reporting the claim, the insured hired an unknown handyman and contractor to demolish and repair the damaged bathroom. There is no dispute that the insurer was deprived of the opportunity to inspect the property in the condition in which it was in after the loss occurred due to the work performed by the insured’s representatives. Nonetheless, the insurer opened partial coverage for the claim, citing it was prejudiced in its investigation due to work done before the notice and the insurer’s unsuccessful attempts to contact the contractor who performed the work. In disagreement, the insured filed suit.

During the case, the insurer moved for summary judgment. In determining whether summary judgment should be granted, the Court addressed two issues: (i) whether the notice was prompt and (ii) if not, whether the insured has rebutted the presumption of prejudice to the insurer. In resolving both issues, the Court analyzed Florida case law on the issue.

Regarding prompt notice, the Court acknowledged there is no “bright-line” rule under Florida law, citing Kings Bay Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Inc. Corp., 102 So. 3d 732 (4th DCA 2012). Instead, the Court noted, under Florida law, “prompt,” “as soon as practicable,” “immediate” or comparable phrases have been interpreted to mean that notice should be given with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time in view of the facts and circumstances of the dispute of the particular case. Here, the Court did not focus on the number of days between the loss and the reported date. Instead, it focused on the fact that the insured noticed the damaged bathroom and, rather than notify the insurer, “promptly” hired an unidentified handyman to inspect, as well as a contractor to perform work. As a result, the Court determined the notice was not prompt.

Analyzing the second question, the Court relied on Florida law that states “the burden is ‘on the insured to show lack of prejudice where the insurer has been deprived of the opportunity to investigate the facts,’” as stated in Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So.2d 1216, 1217-18 (Fla. 1985). The insured unsuccessfully argued (i) substantial prejudice is a jury question, and (ii) Florida courts have uniformly held that where an insurer has an opportunity to investigate a claim and deny it on grounds other than late notice, that ‘effectively rebuts any presumption of prejudice arising from the late notice’ and an insurer waives its right to object to coverage on the basis that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the claim.

In addressing the insured’s first argument, the Court reasoned the Eleventh Circuit has effectively held that “[p]rejudice is properly resolved on summary judgment where an insured fails to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption” per PDQ Coolidge Formad, LLC v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 566 F. App’x 845, 849 (11th Cir. 2014). Applying that to this case, the Court reasoned it was undisputed the insured was deprived of the opportunity to inspect the property in the condition it was in immediately after the loss. Further, it also noted the insurer’s expert who determined the cause and origin of the claimed damages does not satisfy the insured’s burden.

Addressing the second argument, the Court cited CCER Invs. LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 23-cv-21272 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2025), where it explained “[e]ven if an insurer believes it has other grounds for denying coverage it is entitled to timely notice so it can have an opportunity to make an early evaluation of its risks and to decide how to proceed.” Applying the reasoning to this case, the Court held the insured did not produce any evidence to rebut the presumption of prejudice. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of the insurer.