CITY MANAGEMENT GROUP CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer where the insured failed to notify the insurer of an accident for over two years, breaching the policy's notice provision and creating a presumption of prejudice that relieved the insurer of all obligations.
Breach of an insurance policy's notice provision by notifying the insurer more than two years after an accident creates a presumption of prejudice that relieves the insurer of all obligations under the policy.
[1] A presumption of prejudice to an insurer arises from an insured's breach of the notice provision of an insurance policy by notifying the insurer more than two years after…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCity Management Group Corporation failed to notify its insurer, American Reliance Insurance Company, of an accident for over two years, thereby breach…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that (a) the insured, City Management Group Corporation, was, without dispute, over two years late in notifying its insurer, American Reliance Insurance Co., of the subject accident in this case, and, consequently, was in breach of the notice provisions of the insurance policy herein; (b) a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arose as a result of this late notice, and there is nothing in the record to overcome this presumed prejudice or to raise genuine factual issues in relation thereto, see Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 222 So. 2d 206, 209 (Fla.1969); (c) this breach of the notice provisions of the insurance policy herein, which is presumed prejudicial to the insurer, relieved the insurer of any obligations under the said policy to pay the judgment herein or to defend the subject lawsuit, including an appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside the instant default judgment, see Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782, 785-86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Deese v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 205 So. 2d 328, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Mills, 171 So. 2d 190, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 179 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1965); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ranson, 121 So. 2d 175, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); and (d) this being so, a summary judgment for the insurer herein was entirely proper. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
1500 Coral Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 112 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…er of fact, it is appropriately raised on summary [*545] judgment where, as in this case, the insured fails to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption. Soronson, 96 So. 3d at 953; see also City Mgmt. Grp. Corp. v. Am. Reliance Ins. Co., 528 So. 2d 1299, 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (finding a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arose as a result of late notice, and there was nothing in the record to overcome this presumed prejudice or to raise genuine factual issues in relation to it). The record…
-
King Cole Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Usplate Glass Ins. Co., 45 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…recovery under the policy.” Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Furthermore, such a breach relieves the insurer of its obligation to defend the subsequent lawsuit. City Mgmt. Group Corp. v. Am. Reliance Ins. Co., 528 So. 2d 1299, 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, the policy clearly provides that prior to bringing suit, the insured was required to notify USPlate of its loss. When the insured provided USPlate with the estimate from the glazier, USP-late not only paid the amount…
-
Adolfo Z. Aguila-Rojas v. City Mgmt. Grp. Corp., 606 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…coverage. This Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the insurer on the basis that City Management breached the insurance policy by failing to timely notify the insurer of the claim. City Management Group v. American Reliance Assurance Co., 528 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ranson, 121 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Mills, 171 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Deese v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 205 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Staples Constr. Co. & Farmer Alliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 179 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1965)
- Mills v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 179 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1965)