Florida Property Insurance Presuit Notice Rule Cannot Apply Retroactively

Case Overview

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Rebecca Hughes, Supreme Court of Florida, decided October 22, 2026, No. SC2024-0025, addresses whether Florida’s 2021 property-insurance presuit notice requirement applies to lawsuits arising from policies issued before the statute took effect.

Facts

Rebecca Hughes held a homeowners insurance policy issued by Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company for the period from April 24, 2019, through April 24, 2020. On May 29, 2019, Hughes submitted a claim for water damage. Universal investigated the claim and issued payment, but Hughes maintained that the amount was insufficient. She relied on three contractor bids when demanding additional policy benefits.

Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes, became effective on July 1, 2021. The 2021 statute required a claimant to submit a written notice of intent to litigate through the Florida Department of Financial Services at least 10 business days before filing a property-insurance lawsuit. It also required dismissal without prejudice when a claimant failed to provide the notice.

Hughes sued Universal for breach of the 2019 policy on August 4, 2021, without submitting the statutory notice. Universal moved to dismiss. The trial court agreed that the statute applied and dismissed Hughes’s complaint without prejudice. The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the Legislature had not clearly directed retroactive application. That holding conflicted with decisions from the Third and Fourth Districts.

Ruling

The Florida Supreme Court approved the Sixth District’s decision and disapproved the Fourth District’s contrary decision in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. The Court held that section 627.70152 did not apply to Hughes’s lawsuit because her insurance policy was issued before the statute’s July 1, 2021 effective date. The trial court’s dismissal therefore could not stand.

Applying the two-step retroactivity test from Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., the Court first examined whether the Legislature had clearly expressed an intent for the statute to operate retroactively. It found no such command. The phrase “all suits” identified the types of property-insurance cases covered by the statute; it did not expressly extend the statute to policies predating its enactment. Legislative silence likewise could not establish retroactive intent.

The Court also rejected Universal’s argument that the notice requirement was merely procedural. Viewed as a whole, the statute altered substantive rights and obligations by delaying an insured’s ability to sue, requiring dismissal for noncompliance, giving insurers another opportunity to resolve claims, and providing additional time to pay benefits. The governing date was therefore the date the policy was issued—not the date the lawsuit was filed.

Takeaway for Public Adjusters and Claims Professionals

The decision resolves a significant conflict among Florida’s appellate districts. For claims governed by the 2021 version of section 627.70152, professionals must identify the policy’s issuance date before deciding whether that statute’s presuit procedure applies. A lawsuit filed after July 1, 2021 does not, by itself, make the notice requirement applicable to an earlier-issued policy.

Public adjusters should preserve the declarations page, policy period, loss documentation, carrier payment records, estimates, and contractor bids. Those materials may establish both the governing policy framework and the factual basis for disputed benefits.

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

How Louis Law Group Can Help

Louis Law Group represents Florida policyholders in water-damage claims, underpayment disputes, claim denials, and property-insurance litigation. For help evaluating the applicable presuit requirements or pursuing unpaid benefits, call (833) 657-4812.

Source: View Full Opinion on CourtListener

← Back to All Case Law Updates