Infinity Auto Insurance Company v. MD Royal Group, LLC
1:21-cv-20868
S.D. Fla.Nov 26, 2024Background
- Infinity Auto Insurance Company issued a commercial auto policy to MD Royal Group for the period covering March 2014–March 2015, insuring against certain property damage claims.
- Allan Nowak hired MD Royal to move his belongings in February 2015; his property was reportedly damaged, lost, or stolen during the move.
- Nowak asserts he sent timely notice of the claim to Infinity in August 2016, but Infinity disputes receipt and authenticity of this notice until years later; Infinity indisputably received notice of a final judgment in November 2019.
- Nowak obtained a state court judgment against MD Royal in August 2019, awarding him over $400,000.
- Infinity filed this declaratory judgment action, seeking a ruling that it has no duty to cover the loss based on alleged late notice and lack of cooperation by MD Royal.
- Both sides moved for summary judgment on the issues of notice, cooperation, and prejudice; the court denied both motions due to disputed material facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy Notice/Cooperation Ambiguity | Policy language is clear and requires notice/cooperation | Terms like "prompt" and "jeopardize" are ambiguous | Policy not ambiguous—no summary judgment |
| Prejudice from Untimely Notice of Claim | MD Royal failed to give timely notice, prejudicing Infinity | Nowak supplied notice and evidence; prejudice not shown | Factual dispute—jury must decide |
| Prejudice from Untimely Notice of Suit | Lack of notice after judgment prejudiced Infinity | Infinity had time to move to set aside judgment; prejudice not automatic | Factual dispute—jury must decide |
| Failure to Cooperate | Total non-cooperation by MD Royal is prejudicial as matter of law | Nowak cooperated; MD Royal's cooperation impracticable | Factual dispute—jury must decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (policy interpretation—ambiguities construed against insurer)
- Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216 (burdens in notice and cooperation defenses under Florida law)
- Ramos v. Nw. Mut. Ins. Co., 336 So. 2d 71 (insurer diligence requirement for denying coverage due to lack of cooperation)
- Haiman v. Federal Ins. Co, 798 So. 2d 811 (total failure to cooperate may justify denial as matter of law)