Source: https://www.propertyinsurancecoverageinsights.com/category/late-notice/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 21:00:32+00:00

Document:
Most property insurance policies require that the insured notify the insurer of a loss promptly. The timeliness of an insured’s notice is generally treated by courts as a question of law. Determining whether a notice of loss requirement has been satisfied requires establishing when the loss occurred. While losses typically occur on a known date, property damage caused by more gradual processes that may not be apparent to an insured until after damage began can raise more difficult, fact-intensive issues. Analysis of the nature and timing of the damage, along with investigation into the insured’s knowledge of the damage, may be appropriate. Some courts have held that the notice obligation is triggered upon “manifestation” of the loss, namely the date on which the insured could reasonably have concluded the property sustained a loss. See Atl. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Northway Pool Serv., 649 F. Supp. 2d 78, 82 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Am. Ins. Co. v. Evercare Co., 699 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2010). For more on this subject, see the Trigger page of our blog.
Failure to promptly notify an insurer of a loss may constitute grounds for denial of coverage. Some courts have held that untimely notice alone, without a showing of prejudice, is sufficient for denial of coverage. See Bolivar County Bd. of Supervisors v. Forum Ins. Co., 779 F.2d 1081, 1084 (5th Cir. 1986) (under Mississippi law, holding that insurer properly denied coverage based on notice provision absent a showing of prejudice); AMTRAK v. Lexington Ins. Co., 445 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 2006) (holding that actual prejudice is “not a necessary element” of an insurer’s untimely notice defense).
Other courts have, however, held that an untimely notice of loss will not result in forfeiture of coverage unless the insurer was prejudiced as a result of the insured’s delay. See Shell Oil Co. v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 845 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1993) (“California law is settled that a defense based on an insured’s failure to give timely notice requires the insurer to prove that it suffered substantial prejudice.”); Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. NCNB Nat’l Bank, 517 So. 2d 59, 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1987) (requiring insurer to demonstrate prejudice from the insured’s failure to give timely notice); East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System v. Lexington Ins. Co., 575 F.3d 520, 530 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that insurer must have been prejudiced as a result of insured’s late notice to deny coverage on that ground under Texas law).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.