Florida Supreme Court Bars Retroactive Property Insurance Presuit Notice Requirement

Florida Supreme Court Bars Retroactive Property-Insurance Presuit Notice Requirement

Case: Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Rebecca Hughes
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Date: October 22, 2026
Docket: SC2024-0025

Facts

Rebecca Hughes held a Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company homeowners policy from April 24, 2019, through April 24, 2020. She reported a water-damage claim on May 29, 2019. Universal investigated and issued payment, but Hughes maintained that the amount was insufficient and relied on three repair bids in demanding additional benefits.

Florida section 627.70152 became effective July 1, 2021. Among other things, the statute required a claimant to send the Department of Financial Services a notice of intent to litigate at least 10 business days before filing a property-insurance lawsuit. Hughes sued Universal on August 4, 2021, without submitting that notice. Universal moved to dismiss. Hughes argued that the new requirement could not govern a dispute under her 2019 policy. The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, but the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed. That ruling conflicted with decisions from the Third and Fourth Districts, while the First, Second, and Fifth Districts agreed with the Sixth.

Ruling

The Florida Supreme Court held that section 627.70152 does not apply retroactively to an action arising from a property-insurance policy issued before the statute's effective date. The Court approved the Sixth District's decision, leaving its reversal of the trial court's dismissal in place, and disapproved the Fourth District's contrary decision in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

Applying the two-step retroactivity test from Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., the Court first asked whether the Legislature clearly commanded retroactive application. It found no such command. The phrase “all suits” identified the types of cases covered; it did not extend the law to policies issued before July 1, 2021. Legislative silence was insufficient, and the stated effective date weighed against retroactivity. Because the first step was not satisfied, the Court did not reach the constitutional second step.

The Court also rejected Universal's characterization of the notice provision as merely procedural. Viewed as a whole, the statute delayed suit, required dismissal for noncompliance, gave insurers extra time and a safe harbor to pay, and affected attorney-fee recovery. Those consequences significantly changed an insured's right to sue and an insurer's payment obligations. The slip opinion notes that it is not final until the rehearing period expires and any rehearing motion is resolved.

Takeaway for Public Adjusters and Claims Professionals

For claims tied to policies issued before July 1, 2021, failure to comply with the 2021 version of section 627.70152's presuit-notice process is not a valid basis for retroactive dismissal under Hughes. The policy's issuance date—not merely the loss date or lawsuit date—is therefore critical. Public adjusters should preserve the declarations page, loss and claim dates, carrier payments, estimates, and competing bids so counsel can evaluate which legal framework governs. The decision does not eliminate contractual duties or other applicable presuit requirements.

How Louis Law Group Can Help

Louis Law Group represents Florida policyholders in underpaid and denied property-insurance claims. We can review the policy timeline, carrier payment, estimates, and litigation prerequisites to determine how Hughes affects the claim. Call (833) 657-4812 to discuss your matter.

Citation: Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hughes, No. SC2024-0025 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2026).

Source: View Full Opinion on CourtListener

← Back to All Case Law Updates