Bankers Ins. Co. v. MacIas
10 Fla. L. Weekly 424, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3676 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insured's failure to provide timely notice of a claim to an insurer creates a rebuttable presumption that the insurer was prejudiced by the delay. The burden of proof then shifts to the insured to show that the insurer was not, in fact, prejudiced.
Facts:
- On September 7, 1980, Caridad Macias was injured in an automobile accident.
- At the time, Macias was covered by a personal injury protection (PIP) insurance policy issued by Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers).
- The policy contained a condition requiring Macias to provide timely notice of an accident and proof of claim.
- Macias did not provide notice of the accident or proof of claim to Bankers for approximately two years.
- In 1982, Macias initiated a lawsuit against Bankers regarding a deductible in the policy, which served as Bankers' first notice of the 1980 accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Caridad Macias sued Bankers Insurance Company in a Florida trial court seeking a declaratory judgment regarding her insurance policy.
- Following a nonjury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Bankers.
- The trial court found that Macias's failure to give timely notice created a presumption of prejudice that she failed to rebut.
- Macias, as the appellant, appealed to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The district court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the insurer (Bankers) had the burden to show it was substantially prejudiced by the lack of notice.
- Bankers, as the petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, due to a direct conflict with a prior Supreme Court decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insured's failure to provide timely notice of a claim to their insurer create a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the insurer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McDonald
Yes, an insured's failure to provide timely notice of a claim creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the insurer. The court distinguished between a breach of a notice provision and a breach of a cooperation clause. A notice provision is a condition precedent to a claim, designed to allow the insurer a timely opportunity to investigate the facts. When an insured breaches this provision, prejudice is presumed, and the burden shifts to the insured to show the insurer was not harmed. Conversely, a breach of a cooperation clause, which is a condition subsequent, requires the insurer to prove it was substantially prejudiced. The court declined to abandon this rule, reaffirming its precedent in Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., and holding that the burden to excuse noncompliance with a condition precedent properly rests on the party seeking to avoid it. Because Macias waited two years to notify Bankers, prejudice was presumed, and she failed to present any evidence to rebut that presumption.
Dissenting - Justice Adkins
Justice Adkins dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a significant, pro-insurer, burden-shifting framework in Florida insurance law regarding late notice. By clearly distinguishing the legal effects of breaching a notice provision versus a cooperation clause, the court placed a high burden on policyholders who delay reporting claims. This precedent makes it more difficult for insureds to recover benefits if they fail to provide prompt notice, as overcoming the presumption of prejudice requires them to affirmatively prove a negative—that the insurer's investigation was not hampered by the delay. The court's explicit rejection of the 'modern trend' (requiring the insurer to show prejudice) reinforces Florida's strict adherence to the 'presumption of prejudice' rule.
