Yohandy Varona v. SafePoint Insurance Company

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 17, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1438

Lower Tribunal No. 20-1317

________________

Yohandy Varona,

Appellant,

vs.

SafePoint Insurance Company, Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.

Giasi Law, P.A., and Erin M. Berger, and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa), for appellant.

Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, and Frieda C. Lindroth, and Patrick M.

Chidnese (Tampa), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

MILLER, J.

Affirmed. See LoBello v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (outlining two-step process to determine whether insured’s untimely reporting of loss is sufficient to support denial of recovery under policy as follows: “[t]he first step in the analysis is to determine whether . . . the notice was timely given. If the notice was untimely, then prejudice to the insurer is presumed”) (internal citations omitted); Navarro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 353 So. 3d 1276, 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (finding insured failed to act “with reasonable dispatch” and report “within a reasonable time” by waiting to make claim until after damage was repaired) (quoting Laquer v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp, 167 So. 3d 470, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)); Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782, 785–86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (concluding reporting of six weeks after alleged loss is not prompt notice); see also Laquer, 167 So. 3d at 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding notice is prompt when given “‘with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case’”) (quoting Yacht Club on the Intracoastal Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 599 F. App’x 875, 879 (11th Cir. 2015)); Arce v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2024 WL 24945, at *5 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 3, 2024) (“Prejudice to the insurer from a breach of the prompt notice provision is manifest, thus justifying the presumption [of prejudice].”).