AAR’s Legal Team monitors state and federal appellate courts to bring you takeaways from cases that could impact your clients/customers or your business.

11th Circuit Court of Appeals 

Insurance Claims and Delayed Notice 

In Baytree Condominium Section Eight, Inc. v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company, the Eleventh Circuit considered whether an insurer could deny coverage for alleged storm damage because the insured waited nine months to report the claim. The insurance company argued that the delay prevented it from properly investigating the loss and barred coverage under the policy’s prompt-notice requirement. Although the Court agreed the notice was untimely, it held there was still a factual dispute about whether the insurer was actually prejudiced by the delay because the insurer’s own adjusters testified they were still able to inspect the property, determine the cause of the damage, and evaluate the claim.

The opinion demonstrates that delayed notice of property damage can become a primary issue in property insurance disputes, including whether the insurer was able to investigate and evaluate the loss in light of the timing of notice.    

Alabama Supreme Court

Arbitrability 

A recent opinion by the Alabama Supreme Court, TAMKO Building Products, LLC v. Patterson and Patterson, bore a striking resemblance to a case we covered in our last Judicial Update,  Ex parte Smith. The TAMKO case involved a dispute between homeowners and a building product manufacturer regarding allegedly defective shingles. The homeowners filed a lawsuit and TAMKO moved to dismiss the suit and compel arbitration because the warranty for the shingles included a broad arbitration clause. The Circuit Court denied TAMKO’s request.

Just like in Ex parte Smith, the Alabama Supreme Court found that when a contract clearly calls for the issue of arbitrability to be decided by an arbitrator, the Court will uphold that clause. Therefore, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision, giving the Circuit Court instructions to grant TAMKO’s request to compel arbitration.

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Restrictive Covenants and Property Owners Association Approval Requirements 

In Austin Brook and Austin Park Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Nabors, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals considered whether property owners violated subdivision restrictive covenants by installing a partially in-ground pool, patio, and deck without written approval from the property owner’s association architectural-review committee. The Court allowed the pool to remain because the covenant language requiring pools to be “of an in-ground nature” was considered ambiguous, and there was evidence the property owners had discussed the project with the committee and received no response within the subdivision’s 30-day review period. However, the Court required enforcement of the covenants as to the patio and deck additions because the property owners did not obtain the required approvals before construction.

This case emphasizes the importance of written compliance with architectural-review requirements in covenant-restricted communities. Courts will enforce approval requirements where the covenant language is clear, and informal discussions or silence from an association will not necessarily substitute for written approval. At the same time, ambiguous covenant language may be construed against the enforcement, particularly where there is evidence of substantial compliance or committee involvement.

Further Reading

The appellate courts have released other recent opinions that relate to real estate and/or property law, but hinge upon legal procedural issues or other issues outside the scope of this article. These cases can be viewed at the following links: The Bank of New York Mellon v. Peter Ferenc Gedeon (11^th Cir. 2026); Romade Asset Partners, L.P., et. al. v. Prescott Lester and Peter Lester  (11^th Cir. 2026); Zozo Investments, LLC, et. al. v. First Community Insurance Company,(11^th Cir. 2026); U.S. Bank National Association v. Fernando V. Rivabem, Liset Rivabem (11^th Cir. 2026);Marian Tipp v. JPMC Speciality Mortgage, LLC (11^th Cir. 2026); KennethLaddie et al. v. Alaran Construction, Inc. (Ala. 2026); William Parker, Jr. et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon et al. (Ala. 2026); U.S. Bank and Trust Nat’l Assoc. and SN Servicing Corp. v. Marco J. Bonilla (Ala. 2026); Hulsey v. Build Art, LLC (Ala. Civ. App. 2026).