The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed summary judgment in favor of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, ruling that a nearly five-year delay in providing insurance notice violated the policy's timing requirements as a matter of law.
In *A.B. v. David Jacobs Barrow*, decided Jan. 7, 2026, the three-judge panel examined whether notice provided 58 months after an underlying incident could satisfy an insurance policy's requirement that written notice be given "as soon as reasonably possible." Circuit Judge Lagoa, writing for the court, concluded it could not.
The case stems from conduct that allegedly occurred in 2013 involving a minor plaintiff, identified as A.B., who sued through her parent J.B. as next friend. The defendants include David Jacobs Barrow and his insurance carrier, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. Despite the incident occurring in 2013, Nationwide did not receive notice of the potential claim until November 2018.
"This appeal turns on whether notice given nearly five years after an occurrence can satisfy an insurance policy's requirement that written notice be given 'as soon as reasonably possible,'" Judge Lagoa wrote in the published opinion. The panel, which also included Chief Judge William Pryor and Circuit Judge Kidd, heard oral arguments before reaching its decision.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama initially ruled that the 58-month delay was untimely as a matter of law and granted summary judgment in favor of Nationwide. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit.
Insurance notice requirements have long been a source of litigation, particularly in cases involving delayed discovery of harm or incidents involving minors. Insurance policies typically require policyholders to provide written notice of potential claims "as soon as reasonably possible" or within a specified timeframe after an incident occurs or the policyholder becomes aware of it.
The "as soon as reasonably possible" standard creates a fact-intensive inquiry that courts must resolve case by case. However, delays measured in years rather than months often face heightened scrutiny from courts, particularly when the delay appears unreasonable under the circumstances.
In this case, the nearly five-year gap between the 2013 incident and the November 2018 notice to Nationwide proved fatal to the plaintiff's coverage claim. The district court's determination that such a delay was untimely "as a matter of law" suggests the court found no reasonable factual dispute about the unreasonableness of the delay.
The Eleventh Circuit's affirmance reinforces the principle that insurance notice provisions serve important purposes for carriers. Prompt notice allows insurers to investigate claims while evidence and witness recollections remain fresh, and enables carriers to make informed decisions about coverage and potential settlement.
Cases involving minors often present unique challenges for notice timing, as legal guardians may not immediately recognize the need to notify insurers, particularly in sensitive matters. However, the court's decision indicates that even in such circumstances, nearly five years exceeds what could be considered reasonable.
The opinion references prior proceedings in the case, noting that an earlier iteration came before the Eleventh Circuit previously. The reference to *Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow* suggests this litigation has a complex procedural history spanning multiple years and court proceedings.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide indicates the court found the notice delay so unreasonable that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.
The decision serves as a reminder to policyholders and their counsel about the critical importance of timely insurance notice. While "as soon as reasonably possible" provides some flexibility compared to rigid deadlines, it does not excuse extended delays without compelling justification.
For insurance practitioners, the case underscores the need to carefully evaluate notice timing issues early in potential coverage disputes. While each case turns on its specific facts, delays approaching five years face an uphill battle in most jurisdictions.
The published nature of the opinion signals the court viewed the decision as having precedential value for future cases involving similar notice timing disputes. Published opinions carry more weight than unpublished decisions and establish binding precedent within the Eleventh Circuit's jurisdiction, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
The case also highlights the intersection of insurance law with sensitive legal matters involving minors. While courts may show some flexibility in notice timing when children are involved, the decision demonstrates that such considerations have limits when delays become excessive.
With the Eleventh Circuit's affirmance now final, the plaintiff would need to seek review from the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, though the Court accepts only a small percentage of petitions for review each year.