The Association did not report the 2014 loss to PIIC until June 1, 2016, approximately 21 months after the hail loss.

On May 28, 2015, when the Association no longer was insured by PIIC, the Association allegedly incurred another hail loss.

From May 15, 2015 to May 15, 2016, the Association had an insurance policy with American Alternative Insurance Company ("AAIC"). The Association did not report the 2015 loss to AAIC until July 28, 2016, approximately 14 months after the hail loss.

After coverage was denied, the Association sued the insurers, contending that they had breached their respective policies by failing to cover the Association's hail damage claims.

The insurers moved for summary judgment.

The District Court's Decision

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers.

In its decision, the district court explained that the insurance policies required the Association to provide the insurers "prompt notice" of any loss. The district court agreed with the insurers that the Association's failure to comply with the prompt notice provisions precluded the Association's recovery – without the insurers having to demonstrate that they had been prejudiced by the delayed notifications.

The district court concluded that:

an insured's failure to comply with his or her first-party insurance policy's prompt notice provision prevents the insured's recovery. No showing of prejudice to the insurer is necessary for the insurer to be relieved of its contractual duties.

The district court was not persuaded by the Association's argument that, to the extent its notices were unreasonable, it had a justifiable excuse – that the Association was a nonprofit corporation governed by volunteers, many of whom were unsophisticated with respect to insurance, claims, and legal matters, and that it had "always acted in good faith" and had "never consciously acted in a dilatory manner with respect to this dispute." In the district court's view, these "conclusory statements based merely on conjecture, speculation, or subjective belief" did not constitute "competent summary judgment evidence."

The Association, the district court concluded, was barred from recovery as a matter of law.

The case is Cherry Grove East II Condominium Ass'n v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-02687-CMA-KHR (D. Colo. Dec. 20, 2017). Attorneys involved include: For Cherry Grove East II Condominium Association, Inc., Plaintiff: Jonah Galen Hunt, Orten Cavanagh & Holmes, LLC, Denver, CO. For Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant: Jerad A. West, Lelia Kathleen Chaney, Lambdin & Chaney, LLP, Denver, CO. For American Alternative Insurance Corporation, Defendant: Gregory R. Giometti, John David Mereness, Michael D. Bellamy, Gregory R. Giometti & Associates, P.C., Denver, CO.