In Vision I v. Aspen & James River, a federal court held that, when considering multiple issues of disputed facts on a late notice defense to policy coverage, summary judgment was not appropriate. The federal court's findings were based on Florida law. Vision, a homeowners association, sued for damages said to have occurred during an October 24, 2005, hurricane. The dispute centered on Vision's June 14, 2006, (22 months after the occurrence) written notification of damage to certain units, and then a disputed July 2006 notification of damage to the total property. Vision pointed to a line of Florida cases that argued prompt notice meant within a reasonable time in light of all the facts and circumstances, and argued that residents did not know of the damage until the roofs leaked during a June 2006 rain. The court held that "prompt notice," much like the requirement of notice "as soon as practicable," was a question of fact for the jury, and that there were a number of disputed case specific facts that were not appropriate for summary judgment on a late notice defense.

Aspen also claimed that Vision did not comply with the policy provisions by failing to submit to an EUO (or provide a representative knowledgeable to all the claims) and by not providing requested documents. Vision argued that the representative they provided complied with Aspen's policy provision. Again, the federal court, relying on Florida law, held that summary judgment was not appropriate as material issues of fact existed. Aspen did, however, win summary judgment against Vision when the court held that Vision did not give Aspen notice of intent to claim replacement cost coverage within 180 days as required by the policy.

* * *

For more information on this topic, you may send an email to Terry L. Kors at .