Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. Secures Summary Judgment in Cast Iron Pipe Case
Plus Citizens Obtains Summary Judgment in Late Notice Ian Case
Congratulations to Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company on an important summary judgment win on a Mark Nation cast iron pipe case right before trial. Once again, Kimberly Salmon argued the motion on behalf of Universal while Mark Nation represented the insured plaintiff. Today, Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Mark Wolfe entered the order, which can be accessed here, finding that the policy contains an exclusion for damage caused by water that backs up through sewers or drains. The Court agreed with Mrs. Salmon that the 2013 Cheetham case does not apply. Instead, the Court relied on Koss v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n., 407 So.3d 591 (Fla 3rd 2025), which is out of the very same district court of appeal this year. The Koss Court calls the water backup exclusion clear and unambiguous and refused to add language to the policy to create coverage.
A lot of defendants hire experts to show less expensive alternative forms of cast iron pipe repairs. We are proving the loss is excluded.
Meanwhile, Jacksonville attorney Vincent Cano secured a summary judgment from Manatee Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas on a late notice Ian claim. The judgment can be accessed here. The Court went through the two step process to determine if the insureds failed to promptly report the loss and if it prejudiced the Defendant.
Florida courts consider whether damage was caused by a Known Event, such as a hurricane, or whether the insured was on-site when readily apparent problems developed to determine whether notice was prompt. Based on the facts presented, the Court ruled that it cannot be reasonably argued that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the multiple areas of direct physical damage as a result of hurricane Ian. It cannot be reasonably argued that the insureds provided prompt notice to Citizens as required by the policy. It cannot reasonably be argued that they gave Citizens a description of how, when and where the loss or damaged occurred promptly.
The Court analyzed whether the delay prejudiced Citizens ability to respond to and properly evaluate the claim. The Court ruled, “Just as the question as to whether the insured failed to properly notify its Insurer of the claimed loss promptly was not a close question, neither is whether that long delay significantly impacted and prejudiced Citizens’ ability to timely investigate the claim.”
Plaintiff’s extended delay in notifying Citizens of the loss and failure to comply with the post-loss obligations including, but not limited to, materially altering the subject property without taking photos or videos, prejudiced Citizens in regard to its opportunity or ability to inspect and photograph the covered property and alleged damaged property in temporal proximity to the reported date of loss; determine the cause of the loss, if possible, in temporal proximity to the reported date of loss; determine the scope and extent of alleged damage to the property in temporal proximity to the reported date of loss; gather all necessary facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged claim in temporal proximity to the reported date of loss; and to adjust the claim and/or evaluate its obligations if any, under the subject policy in temporal proximity to the reported date of loss, therefore, relieving it of any indemnity obligations under the terms and conditions of the subject policy.