if there is no reasonable excuse offered for a delay in giving notice, the issue may be decided as a matter of law. Id. at 882-83. Here, it is the injured party, by way of a judgment against the insured, that claims a hypothecated interest in proceeds from a policy instead of the insured claiming coverage benefits against the insurer. Under the circumstances of this case, however, we do not find the distinction meaningful, and we hold that these propositions apply to the Hastons. The length of the delay between the Hastons’ default judgment and their motion to reach and apply insurance proceeds was over two years. The Hastons have offered no excuse for the delay, reasonable or otherwise. Therefore, we must conclude that the delay was unreasonable as a matter of law. See Pharr, supra (<HOLDING>); Southern Guaranty, supra, (holding that a
holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law holding that a five month delay was unreasonable holding threeyear delay without mitigating circumstances was unreasonable holding that an eightmonth delay without excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law holding inability to locate attorney who would prosecute infringement suit inadequate as matter of law to excuse delay