The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the insured’s claim due to late notice. Global Approach, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120183 (S. D. Fla. June 1, 2026).

Global suffered water damage on September 3, 2021, which originated in the bathroom of one of its rental properties. Global reported the claim to its insurer, Scottsdale, on October 19, 2021. Prior to reporting the claim, Global hired a handyman to inspect the property and then demolished the damaged area and repaired the bathroom.

The policy required Global to give Scottdale prompt notice of any loss or damage to property. The parties agreed that Scottsdale was deprived of the opportunity to inspect the property in the condition in which it was in the immediate aftermath of the loss because of the demolition and repair undertaken by Global.

Scottsdale agreed to a limited payment for damage in the bathroom. Unhappy with this result, Global filed suit. Scottsdale moved for summary judgment arguing Global did not provide timely notice of the loss.

Under Florida law, “prompt” meant as soon as practicable, immediate, or within a reasonable time. The court first determined that it could resolve the prompt-notice issue on summary judgment. The record was undisputed that the damage occurred from a discrete known event, and Global learned of the damage on the day it occurred. Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to wait for a factfinder to help decide whether Global gave prompt notice. There was no genuine dispute of material fact as to when Global received notice of the damage or when it gave notice to Scottsdale. Therefore, the court could determine the promptness of Global’s notice at summary judgment.

No reasonable juror could find that Global gave notice to the insurer as soon as practicable. Scottsdale was deprived of the opportunity to effectively inspect the property. Accordingly, notice was not prompt as a matter of law.

Global argued there was a question of fact as to whether Scottsdale was substantially prejudiced. But Global not only failed to rebut the prejudice presumption with any evidence, but the record unambiguously supported Scottsdale’s prejudice contentions.

Therefore, Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment was granted.