Presuit Notice After Hughes: What Carriers Need to Know About Which Property Policies Qualify

October 23, 2026

For carriers defending Florida property claims, the presuit notice requirement in section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021), has been one of the most useful tools in the box — a mandatory step that gives insurers an early window to resolve claims and a clean basis for dismissal when policyholders skip it. The Florida Supreme Court has now defined the outer edge of that tool.

In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hughes, No. SC2024-0025 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2026), the Court held that the presuit notice requirement does not apply to suits arising under property policies issued before the statute’s July 1, 2021, effective date — regardless of when the suit is filed. For defense counsel, the headline is not a setback so much as a bright line: the requirement is alive and well going forward, and Hughes tells you exactly which policies it reaches.

A New Hurdle Collides With an Old Policy

The dispute began with an ordinary coverage problem — water damage under a 2019 homeowners policy. When the insured sued in August 2021 without first serving the presuit notice that newly enacted section 627.70152 required, the insurer moved to dismiss. The trial court agreed and tossed the case, reasoning that the notice requirement governed because the suit was filed after the effective date.

The Sixth District reversed: a notice requirement enacted in 2021 could not be imposed on a policy issued in 2019.

Florida’s appellate courts were split on the question. The Third and Fourth Districts applied the requirement retroactively. The First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Districts did not.

Why “All Suits” Fell Short

The insurer leaned on the statute’s own text. Section 627.70152(1) declares that it applies to “all suits” arising under residential or commercial property insurance policies, carving out only suits by assignees. “All suits,” the argument went, must mean all suits — including those on older policies.

The court was unpersuaded.

Under the two-step retroactivity framework articulated in Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010), the threshold question is whether the Legislature clearly intended the provision to reach backward. Only if it did does the constitutional analysis follow. Here, the Court found no such command.

“All suits,” the Court explained, marks out which kinds of property coverage litigation the notice requirement covers — not when those suits may have accrued. Labeling the notice a condition precedent did not change that. And the Court flatly rejected the insurer’s fallback: that the Legislature would have carved out existing policies if it meant the requirement to apply only going forward. That reasoning flips the rule on its head. Silence is not intent. The presumption runs against retroactivity, and only an affirmative statement can overcome it.

Procedural in Name, Substantive in Reality

The insurer had a second theory: presuit notice is just procedure, so it applies to any coverage suit filed after enactment.

The Court read the requirement in the context of the whole statute — and saw far more than a notice step. Section 627.70152 delayed an insured’s right to sue. It handed insurers a fresh window to resolve claims before litigation. It mandated dismissal for noncompliance. And, under a since-repealed 2022 fee provision, it stripped away attorney’s fees incurred before dismissal. Those are not housekeeping rules. They reshape the parties’ rights and obligations under the policy itself. A notice provision that does all of that, the Court agreed with the Sixth District, is substantive.

A Concurrence Worth Watching

Justice Tanenbaum agreed with the result but charted a different route — one that may matter in future presuit disputes. He would have skipped the Menendez analysis entirely. Section 624.21, Florida Statutes, already provides that amendments to the Insurance Code apply prospectively unless the Legislature says otherwise. Under that provision, the absence of a retroactivity directive ends the inquiry on its own.

It is a reminder of a second, often-overlooked guardrail — one likely to resurface the next time a new coverage-litigation requirement is applied to older policies.

What It Means for Property Insurers and Policyholders

By approving the Sixth District and disapproving the Fourth District’s contrary decision in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), the Supreme Court has set a single, statewide rule for the 2021 presuit notice requirement.

The takeaways for property coverage litigation:

• Watch the policy’s issuance date. Not the date of loss. Not the filing date. For section 627.70152, the issuance date is what determines whether presuit notice is required at all.
• Pre-July 2021 policies are outside the requirement. Suits arising under policies issued before the effective date need not clear the presuit notice hurdle, even if filed well after it.
• Dismissals already entered on that ground are vulnerable. Insureds whose coverage suits were dismissed for failing to serve notice on older policies now have a clear basis to challenge that result.

Hughes resolves the status of this one presuit requirement, but it does so decisively — and its reasoning will guide how courts treat any similar condition the Legislature adds to property coverage litigation without an express retroactivity directive.

The bottom line: Section 627.70152’s presuit notice requirement governs property coverage suits on policies issued on or after July 1, 2021 — and only those. For older policies, the presuit notice requirement simply does not apply.