First District Court of Appeals Rules Florida Property Insurance Property Cannot Be Applied Retroactively

By Zachary D. Sonenblum

In Priest v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., No. 1D2024-1577, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 3879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held that Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 cannot be applied retroactively, siding with the Second, Fifth, and Sixth Districts. See Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 374 So. 3d 900, 906 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); Smith v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 396 So. 3d 860, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (each holding that Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 cannot be applied retroactively).

In Priest, the First DCA found no clear legislative intent for retroactive application and explained as follows:

The Legislature’s choice of the word “suits” rather than “policies” as the operative noun further supports this reading. As noted above, Menendez requires courts to look at the date the policy was issued, not the date the suit was filed, when assessing retroactivity in the insurance context. 35 So. 3d at 876. The Legislature is presumed to know this rule. Potter v. Potter, 317 So. 3d 255, 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“[T]he Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of relevant judicial decisions when enacting statutes.”). If it had intended the statute to reach policies already in existence at the time of enactment, the natural way to express that intent would have been to reference “policies,” as it did in the closely related section 627.7152, which expressly limits its application to policies “issued on or after” specified dates. § 627.7152(2)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2022); § 627.7152(13), Fla. Stat. (2022). However, the Legislature did not choose this route.

                                […]

Because of the structure of the provision in question here—the context surrounding the phrase “all suits,” the existence of an effective date, and the Legislature’s choice of “suits” rather than “policies” as the operative noun—section 627.70152 does not contain evidence clearly expressing any legislative intent of retroactive application. Because this provision fails the first prong of the retroactivity test, “we need not and should not determine whether retroactive application of the statutory provision[] at issue passes constitutional muster.” Hughes, 374 So. 3d at 913 (White, J., concurring). Consequently, section 627.70152 does not govern Appellant’s insurance policy, and so we find that she was not bound by the pre-suit notice requirement.

The Priest court further 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 Co., 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). The Cantens and Cole decisions alternatively found that the statute could be applied retroactively.

The issue is still before the Florida Supreme Court, which has certified to resolve the conflict between Hughes and Cole in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hughes (Case No. SC2024-0025). Oral argument was held on February 5, 2025, but a decision has not yet been issued.