Michael Shifrin prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in favor of our client First Protective Insurance Company (Frontline).
The Insureds/Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that Frontline breached the parties’ insurance contract by failing to afford coverage and pay to repair the damage suffered to their Property. During Frontline’s investigation of the claim, it determined that the Insureds did not fully comply with the Policy’s duties after loss such as giving prompt notice, retaining the damaged property, and allowing inspection of the damaged property prior to its removal. Collectively, these actions and omissions prejudiced Frontline’s ability to evaluate the cause, origin and duration of the loss so it denied coverage for the Insureds’ claim.
After years of litigation, the Court heard arguments from the parties and agreed with Shifrin that the loss event was of sufficient consequence to trigger the Insureds’ duty to provide notice and that the Insureds delay in reporting the loss was untimely, unjustifiable and not prompt as a matter of law. The Court also agreed that the Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence sufficient to rebut the prejudiced evinced by Frontline to its investigation. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of Frontline.