“Post-loss duties must be complied with”
In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Marie Suffrat, 3D23-2263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the Florida’s Third District Courts of Appeal (“Third DCA”) was faced with an appeal of a final judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Marie Suffrat (“Suffrat” or “Insured”) against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”).
The case arose from a Hurricane Irma claim, where Suffrat reported the loss to Universal nearly three years later, on September 2, 2020 (date of loss was September 10, 2017). After a thorough claim investigation, the claim was denied, primarily due to Suffrat’s failure to promptly notify Universal of the loss. Thereafter, the Insured filed suit and Universal moved to dismiss for failure to provide the required pre-suit notice of intent as required by Statute 627.70152, which the trial court denied holding that the Statute did not apply retroactively.
At trial, Suffrat testified that multiple roof repairs related to Irma occurred prior to reporting the claim. During trial, each Party presented their own competing expert engineer. Insured’s engineer testified that the property was damaged by Irma, while the engineer for Universal testified that due to the passage of time and multiple repairs, it was difficult to determine the cause of the damage. Universal’s corporate representative also confirmed prejudice during trial. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Insured.
Due to the Third DCA’s ruling in Cantens, the Court held that the trial court erred in denying Universal’s motion to dismiss the Insured’s complaint for failure to comply with Statute 627.70152. Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 388 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). As it relates to the verdict, the Third DCA held that it was improper for the trial court to strike Universal’s late notice defense since Florida law allows parties to plead multiple defenses in the alternative. Second, the Court found there was an abundance of evidence to support Universal’s late notice defense, including Suffrat reporting the claim almost three years after the fact and only after numerous roof repairs. The Third DCA then reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, including the Third DCA’s holding that the trial court erred in denying Universal’s motion to dismiss and that the verdict in favor of the Insured was legally improper.
We see that the Court affirmed an insurance policy’s post-loss duties that insureds must comply with. The Court’s ruling makes it clear that a party can plead multiple defenses in the alternative, and this Court’s decision can be used to beat an insured’s expert when that expert attempts to
rebut prejudice.
AlaEldean Elmunaier, Esq.