Background
Homeowners Endrina Maria Montilva Davila and Rafael Molina sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company over an insurance claim. Universal moved to dismiss under section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021), arguing that the homeowners had not provided the Department of Financial Services with written notice of their intent to litigate at least ten business days before filing suit.
The circuit court did not dismiss the action and ultimately entered a final judgment awarding the homeowners $139,560.58. Universal appealed, maintaining that the statute required dismissal without prejudice because the homeowners failed to satisfy the presuit-notice requirement.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the final judgment. Relying on Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., the court explained that the amendments to section 627.70152 effective July 1, 2021, applied to insurance policies in existence on that date and required dismissal without prejudice when the statutory notice of intent to litigate was not given.
The homeowners argued that Cole did not control because their policy had expired one month before the amendments took effect. The court held that it had already rejected that argument in Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Griffin. Bound by Cole and Griffin, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the homeowners’ case without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to provide the presuit notice required by section 627.70152 required dismissal of the homeowners’ lawsuit without prejudice.
- The Fourth District treated its decisions in Cole and Griffin as controlling despite the homeowners’ argument that their policy expired before the statute’s July 1, 2021 effective date.
- The court reversed the homeowners’ $139,560.58 final judgment and directed the circuit court to dismiss the case without prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Fourth District’s application of section 627.70152’s presuit-notice requirement and confirms that, under its precedent, expiration of the policy shortly before the amendments’ effective date does not avoid dismissal.
For property-insurance litigants in the Fourth District, compliance with the statutory notice procedure can be outcome-determinative even after a homeowner has obtained a substantial final judgment.