Delsia Bryan-Wilson, et al. v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
DELSIA BRYAN-WILSON, MARVIN WILSON,
and DELSIA GRANT,
Appellants,
v.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee.
No. 4D2024-1547
[December 17, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-20-
010756.
Mark 	A. 	Nation 	and 	Paul 	W. 	Pritchard 	of 	The 	Nation 	Law 	Firm,
Longwood, for appellants.
Kara Rockenbach Link and David A. Noel of Link & Rockenbach, PA,
West Palm Beach, for appellee.
GERBER , J.
After a jury found the homeowners had failed to provide prompt notice
of a loss event, and that such failure had prejudiced the insurer’s claim
investigation, the circuit court entered final judgment in the insurer’s
favor. 	On appeal, the homeowners primarily argue the insurer failed to
present any evidence proving the lack of prompt notice had prejudiced the
insurer’s claim investigation, and thus the circuit court erred in denying
the homeowners’ directed verdict motion on that affirmative defense. 	We
agree with the homeowners’ primary argument, and thus reverse and
remand for a new trial on the homeowners’ claimed loss amount.
We present this opinion in four sections:
1. the policy, the loss event, and the claim;
2. the pre-trial litigation;
3. the trial; and
4. our review.

2
1. The Policy, the Loss Event, and the Claim
The following facts are undisputed. 	The homeowners purchased an
insurance policy from the insurer to cover their home. The policy included
the following “Duties After Loss” clause:
In case of a loss to covered property, we have no duty to
provide coverage under this policy if the [homeowners’] failure
to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us. 	These
duties [include]:
1. 	Give prompt notice to us or our agent; . . . .
(emphases added).
On September 1, 2019, while the policy was in effect, the homeowners’
toilets and bathtub overflowed, causing damages throughout the home.
The homeowners did not immediately notify the insurer of the loss, take
any damage photos or videos, or hire anyone to repair or mitigate the loss.
Instead, a few weeks after the loss event, the homeowners contacted an
attorney. The attorney, in turn, hired an investigator who, on October 14,
2019, photographed the homeowners’ damaged property.
On 	October 	29, 	2019, 	fifty-eight 	days 	after 	the 	loss 	event, 	the
homeowners filed a damages claim with the insurer. 	Three days later, on
November 1, 2019, the insurer’s field adjuster inspected the property.
After concluding the inspection, the field adjuster tendered the insurer’s
$9,286.43 check to the homeowners.
Three 	days 	later, 	on 	November 	4, 	2019, 	the 	insurer 	sent 	the
homeowners a written coverage determination letter. 	The letter identified
the 	“Date 	of 	Loss” 	as 	“9/1/2019,” 	the 	“First 	Notice 	of 	Loss” 	as
“10/29/2019,” and stated: “We have completed our review of your claim.”
The letter also indicated the insurer had accepted coverage, valued the
damage at $13,972.64, and, after applying the applicable deductible and
recoverable depreciation, determined the total payment amount to be
$9,286.43. 	The letter further stated: 	“[The insurer] reserves all rights
under the policy provisions to raise additional coverage defenses as [those
defenses] become known to us in the future.” 	Attached to the letter was
the 	field 	adjuster’s 	line-item 	estimate 	calculating 	the 	$13,972.64 	in
damages. 	The 	estimate 	did 	not 	include 	any 	costs 	which 	would 	be
necessary to tear out portions of the property to determine the loss event’s
cause and then replace those torn-out portions of the property.

3
2. The Pre-Trial Litigation
In July 2020, ten months after the loss event, the homeowners sued
the insurer for breach of contract. 	The homeowners alleged the insurer
was unwilling to cover the costs which would be necessary to tear out
portions of the property to determine the loss event’s cause and then
replace those torn-out portions of the property. 	The homeowners further
alleged the estimated tear-out and replacement costs totaled $77,363.98.
The insurer’s answer raised several affirmative defenses, including that
the homeowners had failed to provide prompt notice of the loss as required
under the policy’s “Duties After Loss” clause, and that such failure had
allegedly prejudiced the insurer’s claim investigation. 	The insurer also
alleged the homeowners’ costs estimate was excessive.
During 	discovery, 	the 	homeowners 	deposed 	the 	insurer’s 	first-
designated 	corporate 	representative. 	The 	first-designated 	corporate
representative conceded the insurer’s field inspector had not attempted to
determine 	the 	loss 	event’s 	cause, 	or 	perform 	any 	plumbing 	tests 	or
moisture readings, before tendering the insurer’s $9,286.43 check to the
homeowners. 	When the homeowners’ counsel asked the first-designated
corporate representative whether the insurer had been prejudiced in its
claim investigation, the first-designated corporate representative’s answer
apparently surprised the homeowners’ counsel:
Q. 	Is it [the insurer’s] position that it was prejudiced in the
investigation of this claim?
A. 	I don’t know.
Q. 	What was that?
A. 	I don’t know.
Q. 	Okay. 	So as the designated corporate representative on
behalf of [the insurer], you are unaware of whether or not [the
insurer’s] position is it was prejudiced in the investigation of
this claim?
A. 	Yeah. I don’t know if [the investigation] was prejudiced or
not. We came out to do the inspection and also an issue about
payment, so.
….

4
Q. 	… Did [the insurer] ever request to inspect the property
but was not allowed to inspect by [the homeowners] or any of
[their] representatives?
A. 	Not what the file reflects. 	… 	[T]he field adjuster was able
to come out to the inspection.
Q. 	Understood. 	And then [the insurer] never requested a
second inspection, correct?
A. 	Not what the file reflects, no.
Q. 	And 	[the 	insurer] 	was 	able 	to 	render 	a 	coverage
determination, right?
….
A. 	Based off the field adjuster coming out to inspect it and
then issue payment.
(emphases added).
When the homeowners’ counsel then asked what facts supported the
insurer’s affirmative defense that the homeowners’ lack of prompt notice
had 	allegedly 	prejudiced 	the 	insurer’s 	claim 	investigation, 	the 	first-
designated corporate representative responded: “In the policy, it basically
states that insured needs to promptly notify the insurance regarding
damages to the property and the insured basically reported the claim
within 	like 	58 	days.” 	However, 	the 	first-designated 	corporate
representative did not testify how, if at all, the 58-day delay had allegedly
prejudiced the insurer’s claim investigation.
3. The Trial
At trial, the parties agreed the homeowners’ policy covered any costs
which would be necessary to tear out portions of the property to determine
the loss event’s cause and then replace those torn-out portions of the
property. 	However, the parties disagreed as to whether the homeowners’
lack of prompt notice had prejudiced the insurer’s claim investigation, and
the amount of tear-out and replacement costs.

5
a. 	The Homeowners’ Witnesses
The homeowners presented testimony from three witnesses: 	(1) the
homeowner wife; (2) a plumber; and (3) a general contractor.
The homeowner wife testified that, sometime before November 2018,
water started backing up from the drain behind their washing machine.
The homeowners hired a handyman who rerouted the plumbing system,
which stopped the leak. 	Soon thereafter, water started backing up and
leaking 	under 	the 	kitchen 	sink. 	Rather 	than 	have 	further 	repairs
performed, the homeowners cleaned up the water as that leak occurred.
The 	homeowner 	wife 	further 	testified 	that 	ten 	months 	later, 	on
September 1, 2019, water started overflowing from their master bathroom
toilet and bathtub. 	That was the first time the homeowners had a
plumbing issue occur in their master bathroom. The homeowners did not
notify the insurer on the loss event date because they did not know if they
could file an insurance claim, and feared the insurer would drop their
coverage or raise their premiums. 	Instead, the homeowners contacted an
attorney, who filed their October 29, 2019, claim for that loss.
The homeowner wife further testified that when the insurer’s field
adjuster 	had 	inspected 	the 	property, 	she 	gave 	the 	field 	adjuster
unrestricted access to the property, and answered all of the field adjuster’s
questions. 	The insurer did not request any further information or send
anyone else to further inspect the property.
The plumber testified he had reviewed four years of videos showing the
plumbing’s interior. 	The plumber opined the plumbing’s drainage system
had failed and caused the overflows in the master bathroom in September
2019. 	The plumber testified the first draining system failure likely had
been the pipe connecting the kitchen and laundry room in November 2018,
which had resulted in the leaks in those locations at that time. 	The
plumber further opined that to access and repair the drainage system, the
homeowners would need to tear out and replace portions of the property.
The general contractor testified as to the estimated costs to tear out
and replace the torn-out property.
b. 	The Insurer’s Witnesses
The insurer presented testimony from two witnesses: 	(1) a plumber;
and (2) a second-designated corporate representative.

6
The insurer’s plumber testified the insurer had hired him in October
2023—four years after the loss event—to inspect the property’s plumbing
system. 	The insurer’s plumber opined the overflows were caused by a
“back-pitch” in the sewer line located underneath the home’s bathrooms.
The plumber testified the sewer line would need to be replaced, which
would 	entail 	removing 	the 	foundation 	and 	trenching 	the 	hallway
bathroom’s floor. The plumber opined the cost to access the back-pitched
sewer line would be $5,500, which did not include the cost of returning
the property to its pre-loss condition.
The insurer then sought to have a new, second-designated corporate
representative testify regarding the insurer’s affirmative defense that the
homeowners’ lack of prompt notice had allegedly prejudiced the insurer’s
claim investigation. 	The homeowners’ counsel objected that the insurer
was 	bound 	by 	the 	testimony 	of 	its 	first-designated 	corporate
representative, who did not know how the insurer’s claim investigation had
been prejudiced. The insurer’s counsel responded that its first-designated
corporate representative’s testimony had occurred early in discovery, and
the insurer’s second-designated corporate representative was in a better
position to testify as to how the insurer’s claim investigation had been
prejudiced.
The circuit court asked the insurer’s counsel to proffer the testimony
to which the second-designated corporate representative would testify.
According 	to 	the 	insurer’s 	counsel, 	the 	second-designated 	corporate
representative would testify that during the 58-day delay between when
the loss event had occurred and the insurer’s field adjuster’s inspection,
the 	property’s 	condition 	could 	have 	changed, 	thus 	prejudicing 	the
insurer’s 	claim 	investigation. 	The 	circuit 	court 	asked 	whether 	such
testimony would be speculative, and whether the insurer had any evidence
that the property’s condition had changed during the 58-day delay. 	The
insurer’s counsel responded, “We don’t[.]” 	The circuit court overruled the
homeowners’ objection.
After 	the 	circuit 	court 	overruled 	the 	homeowners’ 	objection, 	the
following direct examination occurred between the insurer’s counsel and
its second-designated corporate representative:
Q. 	Okay. 	Is it fair to say that this claim was reported to [the
insurer] 58 days after the alleged loss?
A. 	Yes. We were told the date of loss was September 1, 2019,
and we … weren’t told about it until October 29, 2019.

7
Q. 	… [H]ow was … 	[the insurer] prejudiced by that late
reporting?
….
A. 	Because during those 58 days that we weren’t told of the
loss, [the homeowner wife] had someone out there at the
property, taking photos of the property as of October 14, 2019,
and we have no idea … what else happened within that time
span of those 58 days, which prejudiced our investigation
because we’re not aware if the damages we’re seeing at the
time that we’re out there are actually in fact from what she’s
saying happened on September 1st.
c. 	The Directed Verdict Motions on the Insurer’s Prejudice Defense
After the insurer rested, the homeowners moved for a directed verdict
on the insurer’s affirmative defense that the homeowners’ lack of prompt
notice of the September 1, 2019, loss event had allegedly prejudiced the
insurer’s claim investigation. The homeowners argued no reasonable jury
could find the insurer had been prejudiced, based on the insurer having
investigated the claim, determined a direct physical loss had occurred
during the policy period, and paid the claim. 	The circuit court deferred
ruling on the homeowners’ motion.
Immediately thereafter, the insurer also moved for a directed verdict on
the same affirmative defense. The insurer relied on its second-designated
corporate representative’s testimony that the insurer’s claim investigation
had been prejudiced due to the 58-day delay between the September 1,
2019, loss event and the homeowners’ claim on October 29, 2019. 	The
circuit court denied the insurer’s motion.
d. 	Jury Instructions and Closing Arguments
Before closing arguments, the circuit court read the jury the following
stipulated instruction on the insurer’s prejudice defense:
According to [the insurer], [the homeowners’] claim was
untimely because the September 1st, 2019, claim was not
reported until October 29th, 2019.
The homeowners’ closing argument reiterated this jury instruction:

8
According to [the insurer], the [homeowners’] claim was
untimely because the September 2019 claim, not the 2018
issue, was not reported until 10-29-19.
[The 	September 	2019 	claim 	is] 	the 	claim 	[which 	the
insurer’s defense] is talking about. That is the claim that this
defense is focused on.
(emphases added).
The insurer did not object to this argument. 	In fact, the insurer’s
closing also relied on the September 1, 2019, loss event date in arguing
how the 58-day delay in reporting that loss event had allegedly prejudiced
the insurer’s claim investigation:
Think 	about 	those 	58 	days, 	what 	happened. 	[The
homeowner wife] didn’t call any remediation company, no
plumber. She called [her counsel’s investigator], and then [the
insurer] was called about 15 days after that.
.…
58 days, 58 days after not documenting what happened,
not showing [the insurer] a plumbing report, calling out [the
investigator]. Just like she called [the investigator], she could
have called [the insurer]. 	58 days, but yet [the homeowner
wife] sits here on the stand before you and say[s] [the insurer]
wasn’t prejudiced because [the insurer] made a payment of
$9,200 on November 1st.
e. 	The Jury Verdict and the Homeowners’ Post-Trial Motions
The jury ultimately found for the insurer on the insurer’s affirmative
defense that the homeowners’ 58-day delay in reporting the September 1,
2019, loss event had prejudiced the insurer’s claim investigation.
Following the verdict, the homeowners filed a motion renewing their
directed verdict motion and seeking to set aside the verdict and receive a
new trial.
The insurer’s response argued the homeowners’ post-trial motion “must
be denied because there was ample evidence from which the jury could
reasonably find that [the homeowners’] 58-day delay in reporting the loss

9
was not prompt notice, and prejudiced [the insurer’s] investigation of the
loss.”
The 	circuit 	court 	entered 	a 	written 	order 	summarily 	denying 	the
homeowners’ post-trial motion. 	Thereafter, consistent with the jury’s
verdict, the circuit court entered final judgment for the insurer. 	The
homeowners then appealed.
4. Our Review
The homeowners summarize their primary argument—seeking reversal
of the circuit court’s denial of their directed verdict motion—as follows:
[The insurer] was not prejudiced as a matter of law—it
investigated the claim, concluded its investigation, came to a
coverage determination, and stipulated that the water damage
it paid for was that water damage which [the homeowners]
reported on October 29. 	[The insurer] was not prejudiced for
the Tear Out coverage claim because [the insurer] never tried
to investigate the cause of loss and need for Tear Out, and the
passage 	of 	58 	days 	did 	not 	prevent 	[the 	insurer] 	from
determining the cause of loss or the damages attributable to
it. 	…
….
The only potential prejudice from the delay in notice was a
speculative increase in the water damage which was not an
issue or disputed[;] it was stipulated and agreed there was
direct physical loss during the policy period, and the amount
[the 	insurer] 	paid 	for 	was 	that 	water 	damage 	that 	[the
homeowners] claimed on September 1, 2019 and reported on
October 29, 2019. 	A speculative increase in the [s]tipulated
[w]ater [d]amage is not prejudice regarding the issues before
the jury ….
The insurer summarizes its response, in pertinent part, as follows:
By reporting their claim late, [the homeowners] deprived
[the insurer] of the opportunity to see the damage as it existed
… 	on 	September 	1, 	2019, 	immediately 	after 	the 	alleged
backups and leaks. 	This in turn hindered [the insurer’s]
investigation into whether [the homeowners’] damage was
caused by the September 1, 2019, backup, or by the prior

10
2018 backups or the ongoing kitchen leak. [The homeowners’]
late notice deprived [the insurer] of the opportunity to evaluate
and 	assert 	potential 	coverage 	defenses 	like 	the 	repeated
seepage exclusion.
“The standard of review on appeal of [a] trial court’s ruling on a motion
for directed verdict is de novo.” 	People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Kidwell Grp., LLC,
363 So. 3d 1108, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (citations omitted). “A motion
for directed verdict should not be granted unless the trial court, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for the non-
moving party.” 	Id. (citation omitted).
The “failure to comply with policy conditions requires prejudice to [the]
insurer in order for that failure to constitute a material breach and permit
an insurer to deny coverage for a claim.” 	Arguello v. People’s Tr. Ins. Co.,
315 So. 3d 35, 41–42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). 	Consistent with the jury
instructions given in this case, prejudice in the context of late notice
generally means the insurer was deprived of the opportunity to investigate
the facts of the claim and determine the cause and extent of the damage.
See You Restorations LLC v. First Protective Ins. Co., 417 So. 3d 358, 367
(Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (“The insurer can be prejudiced by the lack of timely
notice in its ability to investigate the facts and determine the cause of the
damage and thus whether the loss is covered. The delay may also prevent
the insurer from evaluating the extent of the damages. 	If the delay has
added to the repair cost, the insurer has been prejudiced.”) (internal
citations omitted).
In Perez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 345 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2022), which involved policy language identical to the policy language
here—“we have no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the
[homeowners’] failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to
us”—we held such “policy language places the burden on the insurer to
prove prejudice.” 	Id. at 896. 	But see Arce v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 388
So. 3d 205, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (certifying conflict with Perez’s holding
that the aforementioned policy language places the initial burden on the
insurer to prove prejudice).
Here, the insurer did not meet its burden of proof on its affirmative
defense that the homeowners’ 58-day delay in reporting the September 1,
2019, loss event had allegedly prejudiced the insurer’s claim investigation.
As the insurer’s first-designated corporate representative’s testimony
established, the loss event had occurred on September 1, 2019, and the

11
homeowners reported the loss event to the insurer on October 29, 2019.
The insurer’s field adjuster inspected the property three days later, was
able to determine the property had sustained direct physical loss caused
by 	a 	water 	backup 	during 	the 	policy 	period, 	and 	issued 	payment
consistent with the field adjuster’s estimate.
As 	the 	homeowner 	wife’s 	unrebutted 	testimony 	established, 	the
insurer’s adjuster had full, unrestricted access to the property during his
inspection, and all of his questions were answered. 	The field adjuster did
not 	request 	any 	documentation 	from 	the 	homeowners 	during 	the
inspection, and the insurer did not send a plumber to the property
following the inspection. 	Instead, three days after the inspection, the
insurer sent the homeowners a coverage determination letter listing the
“Date 	of 	Loss” 	as 	“9/1/2019” 	and 	the 	“First 	Notice 	of 	Loss” 	as
“10/29/2019,” and advising that it had “completed our review of your
claim.” In other words, the insurer—despite knowing the homeowners had
not filed their claim until fifty-eight days after the loss event—was still able
to 	investigate 	the 	claim 	to 	its 	apparent 	satisfaction 	and 	determine
coverage. 	As the homeowners correctly argue: 	“It is incompatible to then
find [the insurer] was deprived of the opportunity to investigate.”
The insurer’s prejudice claim at trial was based on mere speculation.
When the insurer’s second-designated corporate representative was asked
how the homeowners’ 58-day delay in reporting the September 1, 2019,
loss event had prejudiced the insurer’s claim investigation, she answered:
Because during those 58 days that we weren’t told of the
loss, [the homeowner wife] had someone out there at the
property, taking photos of the property as of October 14, 2019,
and we have no idea … what else happened within that time
span of those 58 days, which prejudiced our investigation
because we’re not aware if the damages we’re seeing at the
time that we’re out there are actually in fact from what she’s
saying happened on September 1st.
Stated differently, the insurer alleged it was prejudiced because it had “no
idea what happened” during those fifty-eight days, and therefore the
property’s condition could have changed between the loss event date and
the field adjuster’s inspection. However, the insurer presented no evidence
indicating the property’s condition may have changed during those fifty-
eight 	days. 	As 	revealed 	during 	the 	discussion 	on 	the 	homeowners’
objection to the insurer’s second-designated corporate representative’s
testimony, when the circuit court asked if the insurer had any evidence
that the property’s condition had changed during the 58-day delay, the

12
insurer’s counsel responded: 	“We don’t.” 	As such, the insurer’s second-
designated 	corporate 	representative’s 	testimony 	was 	insufficient 	to
establish any prejudice as a matter of law. 	See Tiedtke v. Fid. & Cas. Co.
of N.Y., 222 So. 2d 206, 209 (Fla. 1969) (“Mere speculation that prejudice
may exist will not suffice when lack of prejudice is clearly demonstrated.”);
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Phelps, 294 So. 2d 362, 365 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1974) (“Where lack of prejudice is demonstrated, mere speculation
that prejudice may exist as a result of late notice will not suffice to relieve
an insurer of its liability.”).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the circuit court’s final judgment for
the insurer. 	We remand for the circuit court to grant the homeowners’
directed verdict motion on the insurer’s affirmative defense, and conduct
a new trial on the sole factual issue of the homeowners’ claimed loss
amount. Our decision moots the homeowners’ other arguments on appeal.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
MAY and C ONNER , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.