Robinson v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
718 So. 2d 1283, 1998 WL 719523, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12957 (1998)
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 creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the insurer. The insured may overcome this presumption by showing the insurer was not prejudiced, and the loss of the insurer's subrogation rights due to an expired statute of limitations is not, by itself, conclusive prejudice as a matter of law.
Facts:
- In March 1991, Katherine Robinson was involved in an automobile accident with another driver who was allegedly at fault.
- The other driver had an Allstate insurance policy providing $10,000 in bodily injury liability coverage.
- Robinson did not make a claim against the other driver within the applicable four-year statute of limitations for negligence, which expired in March 1995.
- In November 1995, nearly five years after the accident, Robinson gave notice of her uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) claim to her own insurer, Auto Owners Insurance Company.
- Robinson's policy with Auto Owners required her to notify them 'as promptly as practicable' and to do nothing to prejudice the insurer's right of subrogation.
Procedural Posture:
- Katherine Robinson sued Auto Owners Insurance Company in the circuit court (trial court) to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) benefits.
- Auto Owners filed a third-party claim against the original tortfeasor for subrogation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the tortfeasor on the third-party claim, ruling it was barred by the statute of limitations.
- Auto Owners then moved for summary judgment on Robinson's UM claim, arguing it was prejudiced by her late notice.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Auto Owners.
- Robinson, as the Appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, with Auto Owners as the Appellee.
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 notice of an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim until after the statute of limitations on the underlying tort claim has expired automatically prejudice the insurer as a matter of law, thereby forfeiting the insured's right to benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Northcutt, J.
No. An insured's delay in notifying their insurer of a claim creates a presumption of prejudice, but this presumption can be rebutted by the insured. The court reasoned that late notice does not automatically bar a claim. The insured has the opportunity to demonstrate that the insurer was not, in fact, prejudiced by the delay. In this case, Robinson provided substantial information—including the accident report, depositions, photos, and extensive medical records—which created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Auto Owners' ability to investigate was truly hampered. Regarding the loss of subrogation rights, the court held that the expiration of the statute of limitations against the tortfeasor is not, by itself, sufficient prejudice to warrant summary judgment. Citing precedent, the court noted that an insured is not required to sue the tortfeasor as a precondition to receiving UM benefits unless the policy explicitly requires it. Robinson's policy contained only general language about protecting subrogation rights, which was insufficient to create a duty to file suit.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that prejudice to an insurer from an insured's breach of a notice provision is a factual inquiry, not a foregone legal conclusion. It clarifies that even the complete extinguishment of an insurer's subrogation rights is not considered prejudice per se. The ruling places the burden on insurers to either demonstrate actual, tangible prejudice from late notice or to draft policy language that explicitly requires the insured to take specific actions, such as filing suit against the tortfeasor, to preserve subrogation rights. Consequently, insurers cannot rely on an insured's procedural misstep regarding a third party to automatically deny a first-party claim without a showing of actual harm to their own investigation and defense.
