PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Damage/Loss / Florida Federal Court Affirms Insurer’s Denial of Hurricane Irma Claim Reported More Than Two Years Late

Florida Federal Court Affirms Insurer’s Denial of Hurricane Irma Claim Reported More Than Two Years Late

October 26, 2021 by J. Kent Crocker

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer in LMP Holdings v Scottsdale Insurance Co., holding that the insurer was prejudiced by the insured’s delayed reporting of the claim.

The matter concerned a Hurricane Irma claim for a commercial property located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Co., issued LMP Holdings Inc., the insured, an all-risk commercial property insurance policy. The policy included a “duties in the event of loss or damage” section that provided several conditions imposing an obligation on the insured to provide prompt notice and pertinent information to the insurer as soon as possible.

On September 11, 2017, one day after Hurricane Irma impacted South Florida, an officer of the insured’s holding company visited the property. During the inspection of the property, the officer was informed by a handyman for the holding company that there were “some punctures” on the roof and that a panel to one of the AC units on the roof had come off. The officer also observed “extensive water damage in the storage room” and “some water damage” in the office reception area. Later, in 2018, other problems with the AC unit arose that prompted the insured to replace the compressor to the unit. The same year, the insured noted that a water stain also began to appear on the ceiling tile in the interior of the property along with a missing section of the lower portion of the exterior sign. Still later, sometime in 2019, a header on the top part of a bank of windows on the east side of the property began showing rot and deterioration damage, which resulted in water stains becoming visible.

On December 10, 2019, more than two years after knowing about the initial damage, the insured notified the Insurer for the first time of the loss and made a claim for damages. After inspecting the property, the insurer issued a reservation of rights letter to the insured, noting the insured’s failure to timely report the claim. The insurer then retained an engineer to inspect the property who confirmed during an inspection that there was an absence of wind damage to the roof and exterior walls while taking note that portions of the alleged damages had already been repaired. On July 10, 2020, two years and 10 months after the date of loss, the insurer formally denied coverage for the insured’s claim. The insured subsequently filed suit alleging claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment.

In granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the court took note of the fact that the property was inspected and that the officer of the holding company decided not to timely report the damages because “he believed it was not enough to be over the deductible.” The court then held that the insured’s 27-month delay in reporting the loss to the insurer constituted late notice because the insured was aware of the damages and chose not to report it to the insurer. The court further held that as a result of the insured’s untimely reporting of the claim, there was a presumption of prejudice to the insurer that the insured failed to rebut with sufficient evidence. Finally, the court held that even though the insurer did have the opportunity to have an engineer inspect the property, the insurer was still prejudiced by not being able to inspect the property prior to the insured’s making repairs.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Workers Compensation Rate Hearing and Proposed Cat Fund

Next Article »

Virginia Federal Court Orders Suppliers of Contaminated Fruit to Reimburse Subrogated Insurer for Defense of Smoothie Cafes

About J. Kent Crocker

J. Kent Crocker is an associate at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Related Articles

  1. Eleventh Circuit Finds Fuel Thefts Separated by “Time and Space” Constitute Separate Occurrences Needing Separate Deductibles Under Property Policy
  2. A Case of Mass Listeria: Insurer’s Duty to Defend in New Jersey Contaminated Pizza Crusts Suit
  3. Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder’s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing