Case Law Update: Universal Property & Casualty v. Bell — Second DCA Won't Apply Presuit Notice Retroactively

On August 14, 2026, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal decided Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Bell, No. 2D2025-1483 — an appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County (Judge Susan Barthle) in which the carrier was the appellant and policyholders William and Denise Bell were the appellees. The panel affirmed in a short per curiam opinion resting on the line of cases holding that section 627.70152, Florida Statutes — the presuit notice of intent requirement — does not apply retroactively to policies that existed before the statute took effect. The court also certified conflict with three decisions from the Third and Fourth Districts, and the opinion states that it is “subject to revision prior to official publication.”

What the Second District Decided

The opinion is a per curiam affirmance: it does not recite the facts of the underlying claim or the trial court's reasoning. What it does is name the ground. The panel affirmed “See Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins., 394 So. 3d 738, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024),” quoting that decision's holding that “[a]ccepting the presumption that enforcement of section 627.70152[, Florida Statutes,] in this case constitutes retroactive application of the statute, we conclude, as did the Sixth District, that the requisite legislative intent for such retroactive application is lacking.”

The panel strung three more citations behind Buis: Priest v. State Farm Fla. Ins., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1014, D1015 (Fla. 1st DCA May 20, 2026); Smith v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins., 396 So. 3d 860, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024); and Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins., 374 So. 3d 900, 910 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), in which the Sixth District held that “Florida Supreme Court precedent requires us to hold that section 627.70152 does not apply retroactively to insurance policies entered into before the statute’s effective date . . . .” Judges Silberman, Atkinson, and Guard concurred.

Why the Effective Date Is the Whole Fight

Section 627.70152 was added to Chapter 627 with an effective date of July 1, 2021. Chapter 2021-77, § 12, Laws of Florida. It makes a written notice of intent to initiate litigation, filed with the Department of Financial Services on the department's form, a condition precedent to filing suit under a property insurance policy. Miss that step and an insurer can move to dismiss no matter how strong the claim is.

The dispute is what happens to a policy already in force on June 30, 2021. As the First District explained in Priest, the Legislature wrote express date limits elsewhere — section 627.7152 applies to policies “issued on or after” specified dates — but did not do so here, and an effective date is itself “evidence rebutting intent for retroactive application of a law.” Four districts have landed in the same place: absent a clear legislative statement, the notice requirement does not reach back to older policies.

The District Split Is Now Explicit

The Second District did not stop at affirming. As it did in Buis, it certified conflict with Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 388 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), and Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), and added a certification of conflict with Universal Property & Casualty Insurance v. Griffin, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D352 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 25, 2026), conflict certified, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D850 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 22, 2026).

The Florida Supreme Court granted review in Hughes, No. SC2024-0025, on April 22, 2024. As of this article's date, no merits decision in that case appears in the public opinion databases, so the answer still depends on where a suit is filed. A ruling would resolve it statewide; nothing here predicts how that comes out.

What This Means If You Have a Florida Property Insurance Claim

A few practical points, all fact-dependent:

• The policy date matters as much as the loss date. Whether a policy was entered into before or after July 1, 2021 drives this issue. Locate the declarations page and the original inception date before anyone argues about notice.
• Venue changes the analysis. The Second District's view is not the Third or Fourth District's, and the certified conflicts say so out loud. Where a suit is filed can change whether the argument is available at all.
• Sending the notice is often the safer path anyway. Winning a retroactivity argument is not the same as avoiding the fight. For a post-July 2021 policy the requirement plainly applies; for older policies, the notice is a defense you never have to litigate. Our notice of intent request page explains what information is needed to prepare one.
• The statute is being litigated on more than one front. The Second District held the same day, in a separate case, that presuit notice is required even for a declaratory judgment suit seeking no money. Scope and retroactivity are moving independently.

For background on how a first-party property claim moves from reporting through denial and suit, see our Florida property insurance claim guide. If a claim has been denied or underpaid, our team offers a free case evaluation to talk through where things stand.

What the Ruling Does Not Decide

The Second District did not decide whether the Bells' loss is covered, what it is worth, or whether Universal handled the claim properly. It affirmed on a threshold procedural question, and because the opinion is subject to revision before publication and the certified conflict may be taken up, its effect can still change.

Article published August 20, 2026, and based on the opinion in Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Bell, No. 2D2025-1483 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 14, 2026). Court decisions can be revised or reviewed, and how one applies depends on the facts of a particular claim. This is general information about a court ruling, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading it.