notice does not contravene such a requirement if the insured offers a valid justification for the delay. See id. (“Because [the insured] provides no other reasonable explanation for the four-month delay at issue, the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that it violated the provision of the policies requiring that ... [notice] be immediately [given] to [the insurer].”). An insured bears the burden of establishing a justification for the delay. See Kay-Lex Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 286 Ga.App. 484, 649 S.E.2d 602, 606 (2007). Here, Longleaf did not notify QBE of the damage caused by the hailstorm until nine months after the storm. Absent a reasonable explanation, this delay clearly violated the “prompt notice” requirement in Longleafs policy. See Advocate Networks, 674 S.E.2d at 619 (<HOLDING>); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. J.B. Forrest & Sons,
holding that notice requirement for malfunctioning vehicles innocuous as it is violated the commerce clause holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient holding that a notice recommending termination of an employee to the board without notice to the employee of employees right to attend and dispute the claims violated due process holding that a fourmonth delay without justification violated the policys notice requirement