The court found that a six-month delay in reporting damage from wind did not comply with the policy’s notice requirements. Touchmark Hotel Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61910 (S.D. N. Y. March 24, 2026).

A storm caused damage to Touchstone’s hotel on January 4, 2023. Touchstone’s corporate representative, Rohit Patel, testified that he was not at the property on the day of the storm. In a telephone call the next day, the manager of the property reported to Patel that he observed detached shingles from the roof the hotel in the parking lot. Patel testified that he did not file a claim at that time because Touchmark’s employees did not detect any water leakage in the building and because he did not believe that the cost of the damage from the storm would exceed the policy’s deductible.

Subsequently, on May 23, 2023, following another storm, water intrusion was noticed in the hotel. Nearly a month later, on June 22, 2023, Touchmark submitted its first notice of loss to Mt. Hawley through an insurance agent. Mt. Hawley denied the claim explaining that the engineer it retained to inspect the damage to the roof determined that such damage was inconsistent with wind damage.

The hotel’s attorney sent Mt. Hawley a pre-suit demand letter with a proof of loss claiming a loss of $805,258.91. Touchmark filed suit alleging breach of contract. Mt. Hawley moved for summary judgment arguing that Touchmark violated the provisions of the policy requiring Touchmark to give prompt notice in the event of a loss or damage to the property.

Mt. Hawley argued that Touchmark’s nearly six-month delay between when its corporate representative learned of damage to the roof on January 5, 2023, and its first notification to Mt. Hawley concerning the damage on June 22, 2023 violated the provisions of the policy, relieving Mt. Hawley of its coverage obligations.

Under New York law, compliance with a notice-of-occurrence provision in a policy was a condition precedent to an insurer’s liability under the policy. The court agreed that as of January 5, 2023, the appearance of roof shingles “all over” the property would have suggested to a reasonable person the possibility of a claim under the policy.

The insured’s being unsure of the amount of damage was no excuse for not providing prompt notice. The standard for when an insured must notify the insurer was not when the insured learned of the full extent of the damages but was instead when the insured learned that there was any reasonable possibility of the policy’s involvement. Patel testified that he was aware of some damage to the roof caused by the January 4, 2023 storm by January 5, 2023. That he believed that this damage did not exceed the policy’s deductible did not excuse him from promptly reporting that damage to Mr. Hawley. Touchmark’s five-and-a-half-month delay in reporting the loss to Mr. Hawley was unreasonable as a matter of law and therefore a breach of the policy’s notice provisions. Mt. Hawley was thus relieved from its coverage obligations under the policy.