Case Law Update: Florida Supreme Court Rules 2021 Presuit Notice Not Retroactive

Background: The Retroactivity Question Behind Section 627.70152

Before the sweeping 2022 reforms reshaped Florida property insurance litigation, the Legislature spent years trying to rein in the volume of property claim lawsuits. One of those efforts, enacted in 2021 through Senate Bill 76, created section 627.70152, Florida Statutes. The statute requires a policyholder to give the Department of Financial Services, which then notifies the insurer, written notice of intent to initiate litigation at least 10 business days before filing suit, giving the carrier a second opportunity to resolve the claim without a lawsuit.

The statute took effect on July 1, 2021. A question lingered almost immediately: does the presuit notice requirement apply to policies issued before that date, or only to policies issued afterward? All six Florida district courts of appeal weighed in on the retroactivity of the statute, splitting four to two: the Third and Fourth Districts found it retroactive, while the First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Districts did not.

The Conflict Between the 4th and 6th Districts

In 2023, the Sixth District Court of Appeal decided Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 374 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). The court concluded that section 627.70152 did not apply retroactively and that the homeowner was not required to provide presuit notice, even though her lawsuit was filed about a month after the statute took effect. Her policy period ran from 2019 to 2020.

That holding conflicted directly with a 2023 decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), which had held that the presuit notice requirement applies to policies that were in effect when the law took effect. The Sixth District asked the Florida Supreme Court to resolve the conflict.

The Florida Supreme Court's Holding

On October 22, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court approved the Sixth District's decision and disapproved the Fourth District's ruling in Cole. The Court's reasoning rested on legislative silence. Senate Bill 76 contained no language requiring retroactive application. In the Court's words, "on its face, no provision of section 627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute's effective date. And nothing in our precedent demands that we disturb that silence."

The Court added that "the correct answer is to respect the Legislature's choice not to clearly require retroactive application of the statute."

Key Takeaways from the Holding

• Policy issuance date controls. The presuit notice requirement of section 627.70152 does not reach policies issued before July 1, 2021.
• Silence is not retroactivity. Absent clear legislative language, the Court will not read a retroactivity mandate into the statute.
• The district split is resolved. The Fourth District's contrary 2023 ruling in Cole has been disapproved, and the Third District's Cantens decision, which adopted Cole's reasoning, rests on the analysis the Court rejected.

Reactions From the Bar

Matthew Danahy of Tampa, lead plaintiffs' counsel on appeal, said the decision settles the conflict strongly in favor of policyholders. He noted that insurers pushed the retroactivity argument to further limit access to court despite policies issued before the effective date and the absence of express retroactivity language.

Another plaintiffs' attorney, Clausen Lozier, observed that the years-long delay in resolving the issue caused many policyholders to lose the right to timely pursue their claims because their cases were dismissed for failure to file a notice of intent.

Practical Impact on Public Adjusters and Policyholders

The ruling may affect relatively few pending cases. Litigation volume has fallen markedly over the past three years after the turbulent early 2020s, when ten Florida property insurers became insolvent in large part due to soaring litigation costs. Attorneys on both sides have said few remaining claims involve policies in effect before the 2021 law. Still, for those claims, the decision matters.

What Public Adjusters Should Do

• Confirm the policy period. Identify the policy inception and effective dates early in every file, particularly for older losses.
• Flag pre-July 1, 2021 policies. For these, the statutory presuit notice is not a prerequisite to suit under this ruling.
• Do not abandon caution. If dismissals on notice grounds occurred in older matters, discuss with counsel whether any remedy remains available.
• Document dates carefully. Keep declarations pages, renewal records, and loss dates organized in the claim file.
• Coordinate with counsel early. Where policy dates are close to the cutoff or involve renewals, legal review prevents avoidable procedural errors.

Why This Matters Beyond the Immediate Case

The decision reinforces a straightforward interpretive principle: when the Legislature does not clearly say a statute applies to existing contracts, Florida courts will not supply that instruction. Policyholders and adjusters should expect the same reasoning to be raised in other disputes about the temporal reach of Florida's insurance reforms.

How Louis Law Group Can Help

Louis Law Group represents Florida policyholders in property damage disputes, including claims involving older policies and procedural questions such as presuit notice. If you are a public adjuster or policyholder with a claim that may turn on the policy issuance date, our team can review the file and advise on next steps. Call us at (833) 657-4812 for a consultation.

Source: Insurance Journal - Florida's 2021 Presuit Notice Law Is Not Retroactive, State Supreme Court Says