Perez v. Public Service Mutual Insurance (755 So. 2d 168, 2000)

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the ruling of the trial court which directed a verdict for the defendant insurer at the conclusion of all of the evidence, jury issues are presented of whether timely notice was given to the carrier and whether, even if not, the carrier was prejudiced as a result. Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 222 So.2d 206 (Fla.1969); Wolfson v. Insurance Co., 451 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 458 So.2d 272 (Fla.1984). Therefore, the judgment below is reversed for jury determination.

. The trial judge may have based his decision in parL upon a supposed breach of the cooperation clause by the insured. On the present record we do not believe that the defendant raised even a jury question on this point. See Ramos v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 336 So.2d 71 (Fla.1976); Tri-State Ins. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 593 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).