A Florida appeals court just put insurers on notice: write "prejudice" into your notice clause, and you may have to prove it.
On July 22, 2026, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal ruled on a Hurricane Irma claim filed nearly three years after the storm - a mixed result, with the bigger piece going against the insurer.
The claim came from Wild Oak Bay Owners Association, whose property was damaged when Irma made landfall on September 10, 2017. The association did not report the claim until July 29, 2020, a gap the trial court called a "1053-day delay." Wild Oak Bay then assigned its benefits to SFR Services, LLC (SFR), which submitted an estimate for roof replacements on forty-eight buildings and sued American Coastal Insurance Company for breach of contract.
The trial court granted American Coastal summary judgment on late notice and prejudice. The appeals court agreed the notice was late, citing November 2017 meeting minutes that logged "nine (9) roof leaks" and "mainly flashing leaks."
The prejudice piece is the one carriers should study. Florida common law presumes prejudice when a claim comes in late. But this policy said American Coastal had "no duty to provide coverage under this Policy if the failure to comply with the following [listed] duties is prejudicial to us."
Read literally, the court said, that wording "removed any presumption of prejudice." The insurer had to prove prejudice, not assume it.
Even under a presumption, the court added, SFR's evidence overcame it. Its engineer reviewed fifty-five buildings, used National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data and pressure calculations, and ruled out a later storm, testifying that "[t]he passage of time actually helps [the] investigation" because "[t]he patina builds up."
The trial court had branded that opinion "preposterous." The appeals court said judging an expert's credibility is a jury's job, not summary judgment's.
The insurer did keep one point - SFR could not accept a settlement offer after judgment was entered. But the coverage denial was reversed and sent back for further proceedings, and the court certified a conflict with another appeals court on the prejudice question.
