When Florida changes its insurance laws, do the new requirements apply to policies already issued? In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hughes, the Florida Supreme Court answered that question for the property insurance presuit notice statute: no.
The Court held that section 627.70152’s notice requirement does not apply to policies issued before July 1, 2021, even when the lawsuit was filed after that date.
Hughes disputed Universal’s payment on a water damage claim under her 2019 homeowners’ policy. She filed suit in August 2021 without submitting the notice of intent to initiate litigation required by the newly enacted statute. The trial court dismissed her complaint, but the Sixth District reversed. The Supreme Court agreed with the Sixth District and rejected the Fourth District’s contrary interpretation in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
The Court explained that the Legislature had not directed the statute to apply to older policies. It also rejected the argument that presuit notice was simply a procedural step. The statute delayed an insured’s ability to sue, gave insurers another opportunity to resolve claims before litigation, and imposed consequences for failing to provide notice. Those effects changed the parties’ substantive rights.
Justice Tanenbaum’s concurrence added a point that may reach beyond this statute. He relied on section 624.21, which directs that Insurance Code amendments operate prospectively unless the Legislature specifies otherwise. In his view, that existing statutory rule independently resolved the issue.
What should insurers take from the decision?
First, identify the policy governing the loss before relying on the statutory notice requirement. Pending motions and defenses involving policies issued before July 1, 2021, should be reassessed, including those based on Cole. For those policies, insurers cannot rely on section 627.70152 to provide an additional opportunity to resolve the dispute before suit.
Second, expect the reasoning to appear in disputes over other recent insurance reforms. The majority reaffirmed the general rule that the law in effect when a policy is issued governs substantive issues under that policy. Justice Tanenbaum’s concurrence supplies an additional argument against applying later changes to earlier policies.
Hughes does not decide how every insurance reform applies but it reinforces a practical point: applying a new insurance law requires more than checking when the lawsuit was filed.
For additional information, please contact Bryan Ashlock, bashlock@national-law.com.