EUGENIA GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
What constitutes a reasonable time within which to give notice of an accident under the terms of a policy of insurance is ordinarily an issue of fact. See Continental Casualty Co. v. Shoffstall, 198 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 204 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1967). Here, the appellee/in-surer failed to demonstrate conclusively that notice was unreasonable as a matter of law and, even if unreasonable, that the insurer was substantially prejudiced thereby-
While a presumption of prejudice follows a finding of unreasonable notice, that presumption may be overcome by competent evidence, Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 222 So. 2d 206, 209 (Fla.1969), which ordinarily raises a separate issue of fact. See Ramos v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Co., 336 So. 2d 71 (Fla.1976) (the question of whether the failure of an insured to cooperate with the insurer is so substantially prejudicial as to release an insurer from its obligation is, in most instances, a question of fact). Summary judgment for the insurer was error. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stark v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…nsurer has been deprived of the opportunity to investigate the facts.” Macias, 475 So. 2d at 1218. Whether the presumption of prejudice to the insurer has been overcome is “ordinarily ... a separate issue of fact.” Gonzalez v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 441 So. 2d 681, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Before the trial court should grant summary judgment, the record on such a motion should “conclusively foreclose[ ]” the insured’s “ability to overcome the presumption [of prejudice].” Robinson v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 718 S…
-
Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Marchesano, 482 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…reports do not manifest any legislative intent contrary to that which is perceived in this opinion. . In Ferrigno v. Progressive American Insurance Co. 426 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) and Ruiz v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 441 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), insurers had failed to comply with the statutory mandate to send the notification. Insureds in those cases prevailed against the insurers' contentions that the statutorily provided for uninsured motorist coverage limits were not…
-
Himmel v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 257 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…ntracoastal Condo. Ass’n v. Lexington Ins. Co., 599 Fed. Appx. 875, 879 (11th Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, “the issue of whether an insured provided ‘prompt’ notice generally presents an issue of fact.” Id.; see also Gonzalez v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 441 So. 2d 681, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“What constitutes a reasonable time within which to give notice of an accident under the terms of a policy of insurance is ordinarily an issue of fact.”). But see Kroener v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 63 So. 3d 914, 916 (Fla. 4…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Tiedtke v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 222 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1969)
- Ramos v. Nw. Mut. Ins. Co. & Lawrence J. Williams, 336 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1976)
- Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Shoffstall, 198 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- City of Miami Beach v. Carroll, 204 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1967)
- D. A. D., Inc. v. Powell, 204 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1967)