Affirmed. See Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 343 So. 3d 140, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The question of whether an insureds untimely reporting of loss is sufficient too result in the denial of recovery under the policy implicates a two-step analysis. If the insured breaches the notice provision, prejudice to the insurer will be presumed, but may be rebutted by ashowing that the insurer has not been prejudiced by the lack of notice.” (internal citations omitted)); LoBello v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“[I]f the undisputed evidence will not support a finding that the insured gave notice to the insurer as soon as practicable, then a finding that notice was timely given is unsupportable.”); Hope v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 114 So. 3d 457, 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding the record did not set forth evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the insurer resulting from the homeowners delayed notice of loss; the evidence was “merely conclusory and fails to rebut the presumption of prejudice to [the insurer] where the passage of time has rendered [the insurer] unable to determine exactly what current damage is directly attributable to Hurricane Wilma, and thus a covered loss.”).
PER CURIAM.