Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 (2025)

Suits arising under a property insurance policy.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

627.70152 Suits arising under a property insurance policy.—

(1) APPLICATION.—This section applies exclusively to all suits arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy, including a residential or commercial property insurance policy issued by an eligible surplus lines insurer.

(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Claimant” means an insured who is filing suit under a residential or commercial property insurance policy.

(b) “Disputed amount” means the difference between the claimant’s presuit settlement demand, not including attorney fees and costs listed in the demand, and the insurer’s presuit settlement offer, not including attorney fees and costs, if part of the offer.

(c) “Presuit settlement demand” means the demand made by the claimant in the written notice of intent to initiate litigation as required by paragraph (3)(a). The demand must include the amount of reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs incurred by the claimant, to be calculated by multiplying the number of hours actually worked on the claim by the claimant’s attorney as of the date of the notice by a reasonable hourly rate.

(d) “Presuit settlement offer” means the offer made by the insurer in its written response to the notice as required by subsection (3).

(3) NOTICE.—

(a) 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. Notice to the insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. The notice must state with specificity all of the following information:

1. That the notice is provided pursuant to this section.

2. The alleged acts or omissions of the insurer giving rise to the suit, which may include a denial of coverage.

3. If provided by an attorney or other representative, that a copy of the notice was provided to the claimant.

4. If the notice is provided following a denial of coverage, an estimate of damages, if known.

5. If the notice is provided following acts or omissions by the insurer other than denial of coverage, both of the following:

a. The presuit settlement demand, which must itemize the damages, attorney fees, and costs.

b. The disputed amount.

Documentation to support the information provided in this paragraph may be provided along with the notice to the insurer.

(b) A claimant must serve a notice of intent to initiate litigation within the time limits provided in s. 95.11. However, the notice is not required if the suit is a counterclaim. Service of a notice tolls the time limits provided in s. 95.11 for 10 business days if such time limits will expire before the end of the 10-day notice period.

(4) INSURER DUTIES.—An insurer must have a procedure for the prompt investigation, review, and evaluation of the dispute stated in the notice and must investigate each claim contained in the notice in accordance with the Florida Insurance Code. An insurer must respond in writing within 10 business days after receiving the notice specified in subsection (3). The insurer must provide the response to the claimant by e-mail if the insured has designated an e-mail address in the notice.

(a) If an insurer is responding to a notice served on the insurer following a denial of coverage by the insurer, the insurer must respond by:

1. Accepting coverage;

2. Continuing to deny coverage; or

3. Asserting the right to reinspect the damaged property. If the insurer responds by asserting the right to reinspect the damaged property, it has 14 business days after the response asserting that right to reinspect the property and accept or continue to deny coverage. The time limits provided in s. 95.11 are tolled during the reinspection period if such time limits expire before the end of the reinspection period. If the insurer continues to deny coverage, the claimant may file suit without providing additional notice to the insurer.

(b) If an insurer is responding to a notice provided to the insurer alleging an act or omission by the insurer other than a denial of coverage, the insurer must respond by making a settlement offer or requiring the claimant to participate in appraisal or another method of alternative dispute resolution. The time limits provided in s. 95.11 are tolled as long as appraisal or other alternative dispute resolution is ongoing if such time limits expire during the appraisal process or dispute resolution process. If the appraisal or alternative dispute resolution has not been concluded within 90 days after the expiration of the 10-day notice of intent to initiate litigation specified in subsection (3), the claimant or claimant’s attorney may immediately file suit without providing the insurer additional notice.

(5) DISMISSAL OF SUIT.—A court must dismiss without prejudice any claimant’s suit relating to a claim for which a notice of intent to initiate litigation was not given as required by this section or if such suit is commenced before the expiration of any time period provided under subsection (4), as applicable.

(6) ADMISSIBILITY OF NOTICE AND RESPONSE.—The notice provided pursuant to subsection (3) and, if applicable, the documentation to support the information provided in the notice:

(a) Are not admissible as evidence in any proceeding.

(b) Do not relieve any obligation that an insured or assignee has to give notice under any other provision of law.

(7) TOLLING.—If a claim is not resolved during the presuit notice process and if the time limits provided in s. 95.11 expire in the 30 days following the conclusion of the presuit notice process, such time limits are tolled for 30 days.

History.—s. 12, ch. 2021-77; s. 16, ch. 2022-268; s. 17, ch. 2022-271.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 68 cases (68 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: Arlen House Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arlen House Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). · cites it 62× “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 . On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in state court.”

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). · cites it 57× “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

Oceania III Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). · cites it 44× “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 (3)(b) Fla. Stat. § 627.”

Herman Cole v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). · cites it 39× “The month before appellant filed suit, the legislature enacted section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021), which included a required presuit notice of intent to litigate as a condition precedent to filing suit.”

Dozois v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (M.D. Fla. 2022). · cites it 30× “6), to which Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. 9), and Hartford replied (Doc.”

Peterson & Young v. Jewelers Mut. Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2024). · cites it 30× “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 . Such notice “must be given at least 10 business days before filing suit” and “must state with specificity” certain information as further described below.”

Nery Villar v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2024). · cites it 23× “The Court has reviewed the Motion, the supporting and opposing submissions, the record, and is otherwise fully advised.”

John Sulzer & Jeanette Roberts Sulzer v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). · cites it 22× “1 The Appellants, John Sulzer and Jeanette Roberts Sulzer (“the Insureds”), purchased a property insurance policy from Appellee, American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida (“the Insurance Company”), prior to the enactment of Section 627.”

Williams v. Foremost Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2022). · cites it 22× “]” Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 (5). The statute also both limits the availability of attorney's fees in certain circumstances and alters the calculation of an award of attorney's fees.”

Fernando Cantens & Ana Marie Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). · cites it 20× “2022) (disagreeing with Art Deco and concluding that because section 627.70152 penalizes insureds who do not comply with presuit notice and provides insurers additional time to accept coverage, the statute was substantive in nature and could not be applied retroactively); Dozois…”

Cardelle v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2022). · cites it 20× “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, therefore, failed to comply with all conditions precedent prior to filing the lawsuit, and that the Court must dismiss the case without prejudice pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 . See id. at 4 . Plaintiffs respond that the Court should not…”

Knorpel v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). · cites it 19× “See Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 ; Mot. at 4; see also oral argument [ECF No.”

Show all 68 citing cases →

— 627.70152(1) — 11 cases

Priest v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. (Fla. 1st DCA 2026).

Herman Cole v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). “The month before appellant filed suit, the legislature enacted section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021), which included a required presuit notice of intent to litigate as a condition precedent to filing suit.”

Denise Blumberg v. Sec. First Ins. Co. (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

Buis, Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).

— 627.70152(3) — 21 cases

Fernando Cantens & Ana Marie Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). “2022) (disagreeing with Art Deco and concluding that because section 627.70152 penalizes insureds who do not comply with presuit notice and provides insurers additional time to accept coverage, the statute was substantive in nature and could not be applied retroactively); Dozois…”

Arlen House Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 . On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in state court.”

Dozois v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (M.D. Fla. 2022). “6), to which Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. 9), and Hartford replied (Doc.”

Nery Villar v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2024). “The Court has reviewed the Motion, the supporting and opposing submissions, the record, and is otherwise fully advised.”

— 627.70152(3)(a) — 17 cases

Yarima Moreno v. People's Trust Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).

Arlen House Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 . On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in state court.”

Pearson v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Priest v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. (Fla. 1st DCA 2026).

— 627.70152(3)(a)(5) — 1 case

Pauly v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (M.D. Fla. 2024).

— 627.70152(3)(b) — 3 cases

Arlen House Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 . On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in state court.”

Oceania III Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 (3)(b) Fla. Stat. § 627.”

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

— 627.70152(4) — 8 cases

Oceania III Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 (3)(b) Fla. Stat. § 627.”

Arlen House Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 . On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in state court.”

Dozois v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (M.D. Fla. 2022). “6), to which Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. 9), and Hartford replied (Doc.”

Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Elizabeth Diaz (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).

— 627.70152(4)(a) — 3 cases

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

Oceania III Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 (3)(b) Fla. Stat. § 627.”

— 627.70152(4)(a)(3) — 1 case

Dozois v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (M.D. Fla. 2022). “6), to which Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. 9), and Hartford replied (Doc.”

— 627.70152(4)(b) — 4 cases

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

Feliciano v. Aventus Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Graves v. Great Lakes Ins. SE (M.D. Fla. 2023).

— 627.70152(5) — 11 cases

Dozois v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (M.D. Fla. 2022). “6), to which Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. 9), and Hartford replied (Doc.”

Alma Sanchez v. Sec. First Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

— 627.70152(6)(a)(i) — 1 case

Boyle & Boyle, Inc. v. Allied Ins. Co. of Am. (M.D. Fla. 2024).

— 627.70152(7) — 1 case

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

— 627.70152(8) — 6 cases

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

Denise Blumberg v. Sec. First Ins. Co. (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).

John Sulzer & Jeanette Roberts Sulzer v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). “1 The Appellants, John Sulzer and Jeanette Roberts Sulzer (“the Insureds”), purchased a property insurance policy from Appellee, American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida (“the Insurance Company”), prior to the enactment of Section 627.”

— 627.70152(8)(3)(a)(5) — 1 case

Knorpel v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “See Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 ; Mot. at 4; see also oral argument [ECF No.”

— 627.70152(8)(a) — 1 case

Williams v. Foremost Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2022). “]” Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 (5). The statute also both limits the availability of attorney's fees in certain circumstances and alters the calculation of an award of attorney's fees.”

— 627.70152(8)(b) — 3 cases

Dozois v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (M.D. Fla. 2022). “6), to which Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. 9), and Hartford replied (Doc.”

Rebecca Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). “Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes (2021) When the Insured filed her lawsuit in August 2021, section 627.”

— 627.70152(a) — 2 cases

Oceania III Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 (3)(b) Fla. Stat. § 627.”

Jesus Rock Ministries Inc. v. Scottdale Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023).

— 627.70152(b)(3) — 1 case

Arlen House Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2023). “Fla. Stat. § 627.70152 . On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in state court.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.