An insurer is asking a federal court to void a $29 million Hurricane Ian claim it says was deliberately delayed and fraudulently inflated.
The Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company filed the action on March 26, 2026, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Aspen FM, LLC, the owner of an apartment complex in Fort Myers, Florida. According to the filing, Aspen waited 728 days after Hurricane Ian made landfall before notifying Princeton of the loss - submitting its claim just three days before the statutory deadline under Florida law.
What makes this case stand out is not just the delay. Princeton alleges that during those two years, Aspen was anything but idle. According to the filing, Aspen's representatives walked the property shortly after the September 28, 2022 storm and observed damage to screens, landscaping, and roofs. Between late September and mid-December 2022, Aspen documented more than 46 hurricane-related repairs. It retained a contractor, Restore Masters, LLC, to assess damages as early as December 2022 and brought in multiple public adjusters. By March 2024, Aspen had in hand an estimate from Restore Masters totaling $29,173,704.13 in replacement cost value.
Yet when Aspen finally reported the claim in September 2024, it told its insurance agent that "it has not yet estimated damages," according to the filing.
Princeton also points to what it describes as a pattern of misrepresentation. In June 2023 - months after dozens of repairs had been completed and a contractor retained - Aspen's director signed a form certifying that all damage from Hurricane Ian had been fully repaired. When asked about that certification during a December 2025 examination under oath, the same director responded, "[o]bviously not," according to the filing.
The insurer further alleges that the sworn proof of loss submitted by Aspen included more than $2,000,000 for modified bitumen roofs that do not exist on the property, and over $1 million for HVAC replacements that Aspen later admitted were not damaged. Princeton also alleges that the Xactimate file eventually produced had been heavily modified, with dozens of line items deleted and prices manually altered from the version supporting the sworn proof of loss.
On the coverage side, Princeton is leaning on two policy provisions. The first is the loss conditions clause, which required prompt notice, complete damage inventories, cooperation with the investigation, and access to books and records. The second is the concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud provision, which voids coverage entirely if the insured intentionally conceals or misrepresents material facts related to the policy or a claim.
Princeton's forensic engineering firm, Grindley Williams, PLLC, noted in its reports that the extended delay impeded its ability to assess the cause and scope of damage - a problem compounded by the passage of Hurricanes Helene and Milton through the region before Princeton could inspect the property.
No determination on the merits has been made. The case remains in its earliest stages.
