Security First Insurance Company v. Michael Moreno

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-1968
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 7, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1968 Lower Tribunal No. 21-2723-CA-01 ________________

Security First Insurance Company, Appellant,

vs.

Michael Moreno, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

Orr | Cook, and Michael Fox Orr and Loreyn P. Raab (Jacksonville), for appellant.

Cassel & Cassel, P.A., and Michael Cassel (Hollywood), for appellees.

Before SCALES, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOBREE, JJ.

SCALES, C.J. In this first-party insurance case, appellant Security First Insurance

Company (“Security First”) appeals a final judgment rendered after a jury

verdict in favor of its insureds, appellees Michael and Katherine Moreno (“the

Morenos”), on the Morenos’ breach of contract claim. Security First claims

that the trial court erred by denying its motion for a directed verdict on the

issue of whether the Morenos gave Security First “prompt notice” of their

Hurricane Irma loss under the terms of the parties’ all-risk property insurance

policy. Because the undisputed trial evidence established that the Morenos’

claim notice – sent some two and half years after the Morenos discovered

water damage – was untimely, we reverse the final judgment and remand for

a new trial solely on the secondary issue that the jury did not reach in

rendering its verdict: whether the Morenos’ untimely notice of their Hurricane

Irma loss prejudiced Security First.

I. Relevant Background

On September 10, 2017, the Morenos’ insured property was

purportedly damaged by Hurricane Irma. The Morenos reported the loss to

Security First on April 22, 2020. Security First opened a claim, sent the

Morenos a reservation of rights letter that requested additional information,

and hired an engineering firm to inspect the property.

2 While Security First’s engineer’s report concluded a portion of the

claimed damage was caused by Hurricane Irma, Security First explained to

the Morenos that, by its estimate, the loss ($2,087.40) was below the policy’s

$6,000 windstorm deductible. Security First’s letter to the Morenos explained

that the other damages claimed by the Morenos were not caused by

Hurricane Irma and/or were otherwise excluded from coverage under the

policy. Finally, the letter provided the following: “By investigating your claim

and sending this letter, Security First Insurance has neither waived nor

intends to waive any legal or policy terms, conditions, rights, provisions or

requirements.”

On February 3, 2021, the Morenos filed the instant, first-party

insurance action against Security First in the Miami-Dade County circuit

court. The Morenos’ complaint alleged that Security First had breached the

parties’ all-risk property insurance policy by not fully compensating them for

the loss to their property. In its amended answer and affirmative defenses,

Security First raised several coverage defenses, including that the Morenos

had forfeited coverage for their loss by failing to provide it “prompt notice” of

the loss1 and that the damages claimed by the Morenos were excepted from

1 The policy provided, in relevant part:

SECTION I – CONDITIONS

3 coverage by certain policy exclusions (i.e., wear and tear and deterioration,

defective design or construction, and/or lack of maintenance).

The lower court conducted a three-day jury trial in April 2024, which

centered on Security First’s coverage defenses. As to the cause of the loss,

the parties presented competing expert testimony as to whether the claimed

damages resulted from Hurricane Irma. This opinion need not recite their

entire testimonies. For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the Morenos’

expert engineer testified that the claimed damages were caused by

Hurricane Irma; whereas, Security First’s expert engineer testified that the

claimed damages were not caused by Hurricane Irma. The parties also

presented competing testimony through other witnesses as to the scope of

the repairs required to restore the property and the cost of repairing the

claimed damages.

2. Your Duties After Loss.

In case of a loss to covered property, we have no duty to provide coverage under this Policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us. These duties must be performed either by you, an “insured” seeking coverage, or a representative of either:

a. Give prompt notice to us or our agent . . .

4 As to Security First’s coverage defense that the Morenos had failed to

give it “prompt notice” of the loss, Michael Moreno gave the only relevant

testimony. Mr. Moreno testified that before Hurricane Irma made landfall, he

never observed any water leaks in the home. After the hurricane passed by

his home, Mr. Moreno walked around the exterior of his home and saw a few

roof tiles on the ground and saw that the fence on the property had blown

over. Mr. Moreno used a ladder to reach the portion of the roof covering the

garage and removed several dislodged tiles. At that time, he observed no

water damage inside the home.

Two months later, in November 2017, however, Mr. Moreno noticed

several water stains on the garage ceiling, and a separate water stain on the

family room ceiling near the door that connects to the garage. On seeing the

water stains, he placed a tarp on the portion of the roof covering the garage

to prevent any further damage. This was the only remedial measure ever

taken by Mr. Moreno to address the roof or the water stains. Yet the water

stains inside the home grew over time. Mr. Moreno testified that, “[i]t does

get bigger when there’s a lot of wind, there’s a storm with a lot of wind, then

there is some damage, some water that comes in.” Moreover, three to four

months after seeing the first set of water stains, he observed a new water

stain on the living room ceiling. Mr. Moreno testified that he waited over two

5 years to report the loss to Security First because he “had personal family,

personal issues going on.”

At the close of the Morenos’ case, and again, at the close of Security

First’s case, Security First moved for a directed verdict on the policy’s prompt

notice provision. The trial court denied a directed verdict, finding there was

a jury question on the prompt notice defense.

The trial court instructed the jurors and provided them a special verdict

form agreed to by the parties. In the special verdict form, the jury answered

“YES” to the question asking whether the Morenos’ property had suffered a

direct loss during the policy period from Hurricane Irma. On separate line

items, the jury addressed each of Security First’s coverage defenses. As to

the prompt notice defense, the jury answered “NO” to the question: “Did

Defendant prove by the greater weight of the evidence that Plaintiffs, Mr. and

Mrs. Moreno, did not give prompt notice of their loss to Defendant, Security

First.” Because the jury answered “NO” to this question, the jury did not reach

the next question asking whether the Morenos had proved that Security First

was not prejudiced by their failure to give prompt notice. The jury then

answered “NO” to separate questions asking whether Security First had

proven that the claimed damages resulted from a policy exclusion – i.e., wear

6 and tear or deterioration, defective design or construction, or lack of

maintenance.

The jury’s verdict awarded the Morenos $47,500, an amount

significantly less than that requested by the Morenos. On October 3, 2024,

the trial court entered the challenged final judgment in accordance with the

jury verdict but reduced the damages award to $40,500 to account for the

policy’s deductible and to conform to the evidence. The court added

$9,969.42 in prejudgment interest.

Security First then filed a motion renewing its motion for a directed

verdict. The trial court denied the renewed directed verdict motion and

Security First timely appealed the resulting judgment.

II. Analysis2

In this appeal, Security First does not challenge the jury’s

determination that the Morenos’ property suffered a direct loss during the

2 “A trial court should grant a motion for directed verdict when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that a jury could not reasonably differ about the existence of a material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Meruelo v. Mark Andrew of Palm Beaches, Ltd., 12 So. 3d 247, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). An appellate court, on de novo review, should reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict if no reasonable view of the evidence – when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party – could sustain a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. JD Dev. I, LLC v. ICS Contractors, LLC, 351 So. 3d 57, 61-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

7 policy period from Hurricane Irma. Nor does Security First challenge the

jury’s determinations that Security First failed to prove that the loss was

excluded from coverage by policy exclusions for wear and tear or

deterioration, defective design or construction, or lack of maintenance.

Rather, Security First challenges only the trial court’s denial of its directed

verdict motion regarding whether the Moreno’s claim notice was timely.

This Court has interpreted the insurance policy phrase “prompt notice”

to mean that notice should be provided “with reasonable dispatch and within

a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the

particular case.” Laquer v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 167 So. 3d 470, 474

(Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (quoting Yacht Club on the Intracoastal Condo. Ass’n v.

Lexington Ins. Co., 599 Fed. Appx. 875, 879 (11th Cir. 2015)). Stated another

way, “[n]otice is necessary when there has been an occurrence that should

lead a reasonable and prudent [person] to believe that a claim for damages

would arise.” Id. (quoting Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782, 785

(Fla. 3d DCA 1981)). While generally a question of fact for the factfinder, see

id., we conclude that, under this case’s facts and circumstances, as a matter

of law, that the Morenos failed to promptly notify Security First of their

Hurricane Irma loss.

8 Mr. Moreno’s testimony established that he knew he had a claim for

damages for at least two years before he reported the loss to Security First.

Two months after Hurricane Irma passed through South Florida, he noticed

water stains on the garage and living room ceilings. And, critical to our legal

determination here, even after Mr. Moreno placed a tarp over the portion of

the roof covering the garage, the water staining continued to worsen. Mr.

Moreno acknowledged that the water stains got bigger when there was “a

storm with a lot of wind,” causing “some water that comes in,” and a new

water stain appeared on the living room ceiling. But Mr. Moreno still waited

over two years to report the loss because he had “personal issues going on.”

On these facts and circumstances, the Morenos’ April 22, 2020 notice

of the September 10, 2017 loss, as a matter of law, was not prompt and the

trial court should have entered a directed verdict for Security First on this

issue.3 See Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Visca, 387 So. 3d 313, 320 (Fla. 4th DCA

2024) (concluding the insurer was entitled to a directed verdict on the first

prong of the prompt notice analysis); accord Arce v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.,

3 We caution that this opinion is premised on the specific facts adduced at trial. As we have held, there are circumstances that will give rise to a jury question on whether an insured’s delayed notice to his insurer, even a significant delay, is nevertheless “prompt.” See, e.g., Castro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 365 So. 3d 1203, 1207-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Laquer, 167 So. 3d at 474-75.

9 388 So. 3d 205, 209-10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (concluding that the insurer was

entitled to summary judgment on the first prong of the prompt notice

analysis); Navarro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 353 So. 3d 1276, 1280 (Fla.

3d DCA 2023) (same).

We therefore reverse the final judgment and, because the jury did not

reach the second prong of the two-part analysis as to prejudice, we remand

for a new trial solely on the issue of whether Security First was prejudiced by

the Morenos’ failure to give Security First prompt notice of the loss. See

Visca, 387 So. 3d at 320.4

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

4 If the jury determines that the Morenos failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, then Security First is entitled to a final judgment against the Morenos on its prompt notice coverage defense (i.e., the Morenos forfeited coverage under the policy). If, however, the jury determines that the Morenos proved that Security First was not prejudiced by their failure to give prompt notice of the loss, the trial court should reinstate the jury’s verdict on the inapplicability of Security’s First’s policy exclusions and enter a judgment for the Morenos, awarding the Morenos the same damages awarded in the challenged judgment.