Priest v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company

── Priest v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2024-1577 _____________________________ MARY PRIEST, Appellant, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County. George Micah Wright, Judge. May 20, 2026 PER CURIAM. Appellant Mary Priest, a homeowner in Starke, Florida, entered into a homeowner’s insurance policy with Appellee State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”), which she renewed on January 6, 2021. Her property sustained wind and water damage a few months later, after which she filed a claim with State Farm for property damage. A dispute arose between Appellant and State Farm regarding coverage and the amount of the loss. Appellant then filed suit for breach of contract and declaratory relief. However, the trial court dismissed the case because Appellant did not first file a pre-suit notice of intent to initiate litigation. See § 627.70152(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021). Her insurance policy had already existed before this statutory pre-suit notice requirement had come into effect. Since there is no clear legislative expression of retroactive intent, we conclude that the statutory pre-suit notice requirement does not apply to Appellant’s policy and reverse. Section 627.70152 was added to Chapter 627 of the Florida Statutes with an effective date of July 1, 2021. Chapter 2021-77, § 12, Laws of Fla. It reads as follows: As a condition precedent to filing a suit under a property insurance policy, a claimant must provide the department with written notice of intent to initiate litigation on a form provided by the department. Such notice must be given at least 10 business days before filing suit under the policy, but may not be given before the insurer has made a determination of coverage under s. 627.70131. § 627.70152(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Subsection (1) of 627.70152 provides that it “applies exclusively to all suits arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy . . . .” § 627.70152(1), Fla. Stat. State Farm interprets this language as saying the provision applies to all suits regardless of whether the policy was issued before or after its enactment, which would mean the provision was intended to apply retroactively. A conflict exists among the district courts of appeal regarding whether this provision applies retroactively. The Fourth District held that section 627.70152 clearly expresses an intent of retroactive application. For the Fourth District, “all suits” includes “those [insurance contracts] already in existence at the time of the statute’s effective date.” Cole v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 363 So. 3d 1089, 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Similarly, the Third District found that the phrase “all suits” was a clear expression of intent of retroactivity, since the phrase encompasses “all claims, regardless of when the policy was incepted.” Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 388 So. 3d 242, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). 2  On the contrary, the Sixth District concluded that section 627.70152 did not clearly express intent of retroactive application, because “all suits” is not sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate intent of retroactivity. Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 374 So. 3d 900, 906 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), review granted, No. SC2024-0025, 2024 WL 1714497 (Fla. Apr. 22, 2024). ∗ The phrase “all suits” could just as well refer to the category or class of suit governed by the provision rather than to the provision’s temporal reach. Id.; see also 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). In addre