Wenzel v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Fla. 4th DCA, 4D2023-0088, Apr. 24, 2024
Following a jury trial, the circuit court entered a directed verdict for the insurer and set aside the jury’s verdict, concluding the insured failed to provide the insurer with prompt notice of the loss. The reviewing court determined that the evidence submitted to the jury was susceptible to different reasonable inferences as to whether the insurer was prejudiced by the delay in reporting the loss. Because a trial court may direct a verdict only when the evidence and all reasonable inferences fail to prove a plaintiff’s case, the trial court incorrectly entered the directed verdict for the insurer. Instead, because the evidence was conflicting, the issue of whether or not the notice was prompt should have been submitted to the jury as a question of fact, not passed upon by the judge as a matter of law. The reviewing court reversed the circuit court’s order for directed verdict for the insurer and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict.
