ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Mark Hamilton, has filed a motion for rehearing. We grant the motion, withdraw the previous opinion, and substitute the following in its place.

Hamilton contends in his motion that pursuant to Whistler's Park, Inc. v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 90 So.3d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), review granted, 123 So.3d 557 (Fla. 2013), we should reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the Appellee, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, was prejudiced by Hamilton's alleged breach of the pertinent policy provisions. Specifically, Hamilton contends that remand is appropriate because "the facts in this case presented at least a disputed issue as to whether State Farm was prejudiced by an alleged failure to comply." In the alternative, Hamilton contends that we withdraw our prior opinion and wait until the Florida Supreme Court renders its opinion in Whistler's Park. Upon further review, we conclude that because we are bound by Whistler's Park, further proceedings in the trial court to determine whether State Farm was prejudiced by the alleged breach are appropriate. Therefore, we reverse the order under review and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.

BERGER, J., dissents, with opinion.

BERGER, J., dissenting.

I disagree with the majority that Whistler's Park, Inc. v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 90 So.3d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), review granted, 123 So.3d 557 (Fla. 2013),1 requires us to remand for the purpose of determining whether State Farm was prejudiced by Hamilton's breach of pertinent provisions of his insurance policy.2 Because Hamilton breached a condition precedent to filing suit, State Farm's prejudice was presumed. See Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1985) (holding a presumption of prejudice to an insurer arises when the insured breaches a notice provision). Accordingly, it was Hamilton's burden to show lack of prejudice, especially in light of the fact that his failure to file a sworn proof of loss3 and failure to provide the findings of his expert prior to filing suit4 impeded a full investigation of his claim by State Farm. Id. at 1218 ("The burden should be on the insured [seeking an avoidance of a condition precedent] to show lack of prejudice where the insurer has been deprived of the opportunity to investigate the facts and to examine the insured."). Below, Hamilton failed to overcome, or even address, the presumption of prejudice to State Farm in his affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgment,5 and his argument that State Farm suffered no prejudice is without merit.

I would also note that the purpose of a motion for rehearing is not to re-argue the merits of the case, but to bring to the court's attention something it overlooked or misapprehended. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330. Because the arguments made in Hamilton's motion were already heard and rejected by this court through a per curiam affirmance, his request for the proverbial "do over" should be rejected as well.6