In Global Approach, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 2026 WL 1513430 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2026), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the insured’s six-week delay in reporting a water loss – coupled with pre-notice demolition and repairs – violated the policy’s prompt notice requirement and barred coverage as a matter of law.
Facts
The insurer issued a property policy covering the insured’s rental property. With respect to reporting claims, the insured was required to provide “prompt notice of the loss or damage.” On September 3, 2021, the insured discovered water damage originating in a bathroom. Before notifying the insurer, the insured hired contractors, demolished the damaged bathroom, and began repairs. The insured did not report the claim until October 19, 2021, approximately 46 days later. By the time of the insurer’s inspection, the bathroom was gutted and no pre-repair evidence was preserved. Consequently, the insurer issued a partial denial based on the insured’s failure to provide “prompt notice.” The insured then sued, and the insurer moved for summary judgment based on late notice.
Analysis
a. Delay Following Known Loss Was Not “Prompt” as a Matter of Law
Applying Florida law, the Court held that “prompt” notice requires reporting a loss within a reasonable time after the insured knew or should have known of it. Here, the insured immediately knew of the loss but waited six weeks to report it while inspecting, demolishing, and repairing the property. The Court concluded that this delay deprived the insurer of a meaningful opportunity to investigate and therefore rendered notice untimely as a matter of law.
b. Late Notice Triggered an Unrebutted Presumption of Prejudice
Under Florida law, once notice is deemed untimely, prejudice to the insurer is presumed, shifting the burden to the insured to rebut that presumption. Here, the insured failed to meet this burden.
The insured argued that the insurer was not prejudiced because experts could still determine the cause of the loss post-repairs. The Court rejected this argument, holding that post hoc causation opinions do not cure the loss of a timely investigation. Even if the cause could be identified, that did not restore the insurer’s lost opportunity to inspect the property in its original condition, evaluate the scope of damage, or participate in repair decisions.
The Court further held that the insured’s pre-notice repairs independently established prejudice. By substantially altering the property before the insurer could inspect it – and without preserving evidence showing that a timely inspection would have revealed the same information – the insured prevented the insurer from assessing the original scope of damage, the adequacy of mitigation efforts, and the existence of any additional covered loss.
c. Denial on Other Grounds Did Not Waive Late Notice Defense
The Court also rejected the insured’s waiver argument, reaffirming that an insurer does not forfeit a late notice defense simply by investigating the claim or addressing causation. The Court reasoned that holding otherwise would effectively nullify the policy’s prompt notice requirement.
Conclusion
This decision underscores that prompt notice provisions require insureds to notify their insurers with reasonable diligence upon learning of a loss – not after undertaking their own investigation, demolition, or repairs. Courts may be reluctant to excuse delays that deprive insurers of the opportunity to inspect the property in its original post-loss condition, particularly where the insured alters or destroys critical evidence before providing notice.
