Representative Image of a split scene showing a water-damaged house alongside a stack of legal documents (AI-generated image)
Florida water-damage claim dispute: How the Rebecca Hughes case reached the Supreme Court
On October 22, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the presuit-notice requirement introduced in 2021 cannot be applied retroactively to property insurance policies issued before the law took effect. The case involved Rebecca Hughes, whose homeowners policy with Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company ran from April 24, 2019, to April 24, 2020. After disputing the insurer’s payment for water damage, Hughes sued in August 2021 without giving the notice required under the new law. SC2024-0025 (Fla. 22, 2026), the Supreme Court approved the Sixth District’s decision and rejected a conflicting ruling from the Fourth District. All 7 justices agreed with the outcome, with Justice Tanenbaum writing a separate concurring opinion. She obtained 3 repair bids and sought additional payment from the insurer, according to the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion. On July 1, 2021, section 627.70152 of the Florida Statutes took effect as part of a broader overhaul of property insurance law. It introduced a requirement for claimants to give the Florida Department of Financial Services written notice of their intention to sue at least 10 business days before filing a lawsuit. Under subsection (5), a court must dismiss without prejudice a suit involving a claim for which the required notice was not given. On August 4, 2021, Hughes sued Universal over the disputed payment without submitting the new notice. The dispute reached the state’s highest court to resolve a conflict among the district appeals courts over whether the new requirement applied to policies issued before July 1, 2021. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), the Fourth District had concluded that the notice requirement applied retroactively to existing policies. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hughes’s case on February 5, 2025. The court examined whether the Florida Legislature had clearly stated that section 627.70152 should apply to policies issued before July 1, 2021.
It considered the phrase “all suits” in section 627.70152(1), which describes the lawsuits covered by the provision, but concluded that the wording did not establish that the law extended to suits involving policies issued before its effective date. A Florida homeowner’s dispute over a water-damage payment has clarified when a state law requiring notice before suing a property insurer applies. The trial court dismissed her complaint, but the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Rebecca Hughes, No. Oct. Universal reviewed the claim and made a payment, but Hughes considered the amount insufficient. The statute covers lawsuits arising under residential or commercial property insurance policies, subject to its terms and exceptions. A dismissal without prejudice does not, by itself, prevent the claimant from bringing the case again. Universal asked the trial court to dismiss her complaint, arguing that the notice requirement applied. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case without prejudice. Hughes appealed, and Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal. In Cole v. The Third District later adopted that interpretation in a separate case, while the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Districts concluded that the statute did not apply retroactively. The recording is available through The Florida Channel. Chief Justice Couriel authored the majority opinion. Under the court’s established two-step test, it first looks for a clear legislative intention to make a law retroactive. Only if that intention is established does it consider whether retroactive application would violate constitutional principles. The court found no clear command in the statute.