Baytree, Condominium, Section Eight, Inc. v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company

── Baytree, Condominium, Section Eight, Inc. v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-10889 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 1 of 22 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10889 ____________________ BAYTREE, CONDOMINIUM, SECTION EIGHT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CLEAR BLUE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cv-02041-ACC-EJK ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and BRASHER, Cir- cuit Judges. LUCK, Circuit Judge: A powerful storm hit Winter Springs, Florida, in April 2021. Nine months later, Baytree, Condominium, Section Eight, Inc. filed a claim for roof damage from the storm with its insurance USCA11 Case: 24-10889 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 2 of 22 2 Opinion of the Court 24-10889 company, Clear Blue Specialty. When the claims process stalled, Baytree sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to an appraisal, and damages for breach of the insurance policy. The lawsuit proceeded in two phases. First, Baytree moved for summary judgment on its appraisal claim, which the district court denied. Then, Clear Blue moved for summary judgment on both the appraisal and breach-of-insurance-policy claims. The district court granted that motion, and, while doing so, excluded an un- timely supplemental opinion from one of Baytree’s experts. After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the denial of Baytree’s summary-judgment motion on the appraisal claim in the first phase of the case. And we affirm the exclusion of the supplemental opinion by Baytree’s expert. But we reverse the summary judgment for Clear Blue during the second phase because there’s a jury issue about whether Baytree’s late no- tice of the roof damage prejudiced Clear Blue in investigating the loss. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Insurance Policy Baytree is made up of four buildings numbered 80, 90, 100, and 110. In 2021, it purchased a year-long insurance policy for the four buildings beginning on April 1. The policy included three relevant provisions: the coverage provision; the appraisal provision; and the notice provision. First, the coverage provision required Clear Blue to “pay for direct USCA11 Case: 24-10889 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 3 of 22 24-10889 Opinion of the Court 3 physical loss of or damage to [c]overed [p]roperty at the premises . . . caused by or resulting from any [c]overed [c]ause of [l]oss.” The “[c]overed [p]roperty” included Baytree’s four buildings. And windstorms and hail were covered causes of loss under the policy. Second, the appraisal provision offered the parties a process for resolving “disagree[ments] on the value of the property or the amount of loss”: [E]ither [party] may make written demand for an ap- praisal of the loss. In this event, each party will select a competent and impartial appraiser