Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hughes, Case No. SC2024-0025 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2026)
The Florida Supreme Court held that the presuit notice requirement in section 627.70152, Florida Statutes, does not apply retroactively to suits for breach of property insurance policies issued before the statute’s July 1, 2021 effective date.
Rebecca Hughes held a Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”) homeowners policy issued in April 2019 and filed a water damage claim, disputing the amount Universal paid. In August 2021, she sued Universal without first providing the notice of intent to litigate that the new statute requires, and the trial court dismissed her complaint without prejudice.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding no clear evidence that the Legislature intended the statute to apply retroactively. That decision conflicted with Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., in which the Fourth District (later joined by the Third District) held that the statute applied to existing policies. The First, Second, and Fifth Districts sided with the Sixth District.
The Florida Justice Reform Institute, joined by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida, filed an amicus brief in support of Universal. The amici argued that the statute’s plain text, as confirmed by its legislative history, applies to all suits filed on or after July 1, 2021, and that the notice requirement is procedural and does not impair policyholders’ substantive rights.
Applying its two-step retroactivity test from Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., the Court found no clear legislative command for retroactivity in the statute’s text, explaining that neither the “all suits” language nor the notice provision addresses pre-existing policies and that legislative silence is not clear evidence of retroactive intent. The Court also rejected Universal’s argument that the requirement is merely procedural, agreeing with the Sixth District that the statute as a whole “significantly alters an insurer’s obligation to pay and an insured’s right to sue.” Thus, the Court approved the Sixth District’s decision and disapproved Cole. Justice Tanenbaum concurred, reasoning that section 624.21, Florida Statutes, independently requires insurance code amendments to operate prospectively.
The Florida Justice Reform Institute was represented by William W. Large and by Kara Rockenbach Link and Daniel M. Schwarz of Link & Rockenbach, P.A.
