## Facts

- Katherine Robinson was injured in a March 1991 automobile accident caused by another driver who had limited liability coverage.
- Robinson carried uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage with Auto Owners Insurance Company.
- Robinson did not sue the at-fault driver within Florida’s four-year negligence statute of limitations.
- About four-and-a-half years after the accident, Robinson notified Auto Owners of a UM claim and later filed a UM benefits action against Auto Owners within the five-year contract limitations period.
- Auto Owners filed a third-party subrogation action against the at-fault driver; the driver obtained summary judgment because the tort statute of limitations had expired.
- Auto Owners sought summary judgment against Robinson, asserting (1) delayed notice that prejudiced investigation/defense and (2) forfeiture of coverage based on loss of subrogation rights caused by Robinson’s failure to timely sue the tortfeasor.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Auto Owners.

## Issues

1. Whether delayed notice to a UM carrier, given within the UM contract limitations period, conclusively establishes prejudice permitting summary judgment for the insurer.
2. Whether the insured’s failure to sue the tortfeasor within the tort limitations period—thereby time-barring the insurer’s subrogation claim—automatically bars the insured’s UM claim under cooperation/subrogation provisions.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- Late notice creates a presumption of prejudice, but the presumption is rebuttable; the record did not conclusively establish actual prejudice to Auto Owners, so prejudice was a fact question.
- The loss of subrogation rights due to expiration of the tort limitations period did not, as a matter of law, bar Robinson’s UM claim; the policy did not expressly require the insured to sue the tortfeasor as a condition of UM coverage.

## Legal Principles

- Untimely notice to an insurer raises a rebuttable presumption of prejudice; summary judgment is improper if record evidence permits a genuine dispute on actual prejudice.
- In Florida UM cases, an insured is not required to sue the tortfeasor as a precondition to UM recovery absent an explicit policy provision imposing that requirement.
- Impairment or loss of subrogation rights may be relevant to prejudice, but it does not automatically defeat UM coverage on summary judgment without conclusive proof of actual prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court held that Auto Owners was not entitled to summary judgment because late notice and the asserted loss of subrogation rights did not conclusively establish actual prejudice, and the insured’s failure to sue the tortfeasor within the negligence limitations period did not automatically forfeit UM benefits under the policy or Florida law.


Robinson v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 718 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)