Florida Supreme Court rules 2021 pre-suit notice law is not retroactive, Florida Phoenix reports

The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday in Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Rebecca Hughes that a 2021 law requiring notice before a property insurance suit does not apply retroactively, the Florida Phoenix reported. According to the Phoenix, the decision was unanimous and was written by Justice John D. Couriel.¹ The case number is SC2024-0025.²

The Phoenix reported that Couriel relied on the principle that legislative silence is not “clear evidence of retroactive intent.” Justice Adam Tanenbaum agreed with the result in a separate opinion that cited a requirement that amendments to the insurance code “shall be construed to operate prospectively,” according to the Phoenix. The outlet did not report any dissent.¹

The notice law

Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes, applies to suits arising under residential or commercial property insurance policies. It makes written notice of intent to litigate, filed with the Department of Financial Services on a department form, a condition that must be met before suing. The notice must be given at least 10 business days before a suit is filed and not before the insurer has made a coverage determination. A court must dismiss without prejudice a suit filed without it. The statute’s history note cites chapter 2021-77, Laws of Florida, with amendments in 2022.³

How the case got there

In a Nov. 22, 2023, per curiam opinion, the Sixth District Court of Appeal said Hughes had a Universal property policy and that her alleged loss occurred before the statute was enacted. She sued for breach of the policy in August 2021 without giving the notice, and Collier County Circuit Judge Elizabeth V. Krier dismissed the complaint on that ground.⁴ The Phoenix reported that the law took effect July 1, 2021, and that the claim dated to 2019.¹

The Sixth District reversed and sent the case back. Relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., it held that the statute “does not apply retroactively to insurance policies entered into before the statute’s effective date.” Chief Judge Traver and Judge Nardella joined that opinion; Judge White concurred in the result in a separate opinion that rested only on the absence of clear legislative intent for retroactive application. The court certified conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., which had reached the opposite conclusion.⁴

The Phoenix reported that the Supreme Court agreed in January 2024 to resolve the split, and that the First, Second and Fifth districts had treated the requirement as prospective while the Third District treated it as retroactive.¹ The justices heard oral argument Feb. 5, 2025, according to The Florida Channel’s video archive.²

Reaction

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, told the Phoenix he was disappointed but said the ruling should settle future retroactivity disputes: “if it’s not clearly stated in the legislation, it’s not going to be retroactive.” The Phoenix reported that the institute, joined by insurance industry groups, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Universal.¹

What the records do not show

• SignalData could not open the Supreme Court’s opinion: the court’s document server refused the request. The ruling’s date, author, vote, concurrence and holding come only from the Phoenix, as republished by WLRN, and were not checked against the opinion.
• What disposition the court ordered on the Sixth District decision, and whether its holding is framed around the policy’s issue date or the date of the loss.
• Whether the opinion is final or a rehearing motion has been or will be filed.
• How many pending suits involve policies issued before July 1, 2021.
• What happens next in Hughes’ underlying claim.