CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company appeals an
adverse final judgment in a negligence action it brought—as subrogee of
its insureds, Virgilio and Sirkka Perez—against Laguna Riviera
Condominium Association. We affirm because the trial court properly
applied section 627.714(4), Florida Statutes (2022), in entering judgment
for the Association.
I.
In January 2021, Universal issued a property insurance policy to
the Perezes, owners of a unit within the Laguna Riviera Condominiums.
The policy was for a term ending in January 2022....
...The complete policy
is not in the record, but it undisputedly contains a provision that
subrogates Universal to the rights of the Perezes to the extent of any
payment made under the policy.
After Universal issued the policy, the legislature amended the
insurance code and added the following language to section 627.714(4):
If a condominium association's insurance policy does not
provide rights for subrogation against the unit owners in the
association, an insurance policy issued to an individual unit
owner in the association...
...It then filed a negligence complaint against
the Association, as subrogee of the Perezes, alleging that the
Association's failure to inspect, maintain, test, or repair the main pipe
caused the loss. The Association answered the complaint and asserted
section 627.714(4) as an affirmative defense....
...The Association also
attached a copy of its insurance policy to its pleading, showing that the
Association's insurer had "waive[d] [its] rights to recover payment from
any unit-owner" through the policy it issued to the Association.
2
Based on this waiver and the language of section 627.714(4) as
amended, the Association moved for judgment on the pleadings....
...Servs., Inc.,
134 So. 3d 477, 479 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2013)).
II.
Universal argues, as it did below, that its subrogation rights vested
in January 2021 when it issued its policy and that the July 2021
amendment to section
627.714(4) does not and cannot apply
retroactively to impair its vested contract rights....
...n July 13, 2021—after the
amendment's effective date—and that the trial court properly applied the
statutory amendment prospectively. Thus, the dispositive question is
whether Universal had a vested subrogation right against the Association
when section 627.714(4) became effective on July 1, 2021.
Our decision in R.A.M....
...There, we
considered whether a statutory amendment barred an unlicensed
contractor's claims even though the claims would have been viable under
the version of the statute in effect when the contractor signed its
1 In doing so, the trial court expressed an "eager[ness] for appellate
guidance with regard to section 627.714," which we now provide.
3
contract....
...were contingent on a future event—namely Universal's payment of a
covered loss—and its rights were expectant because they depended on
the law not changing during Universal's policy period. It is of course
beyond dispute that the legislature had the authority to amend section
627.714(4)....
...v. Radio
Station WQBA,
731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999). Thus, while the precise
date of Universal's payment to its insureds is not in the record, we still
may conclude that Universal's right to sue in subrogation arose after the
legislature amended section
627.714(4).
5
of action Universal pursued here did not accrue until the pipe failed and
damaged the Perezes' unit. See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane,
565 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 1990). Thus, Universal, standing in the
Perezes' shoes, did not have a vested right to sue the Association until
July 13, 2021—after the amendment to section
627.714(4) became
effective....
...6
of subrogation comes into existence only when insurer pays claim of
insured.").
At bottom, neither Universal's subrogation rights nor its right to
sue in negligence vested before the legislature amended section
627.714(4).3 As we explained in R.A.M., "[a] statute does not operate
'retrospectively' merely because it is applied in a case arising from
conduct antedating the statute's enactment." 869 So....
...While that event certainly vested
contractual rights between the contracting parties, Universal's
subrogated right to sue the Association was not one of them. That right
did not vest or become fixed until the completion of additional events, all
of which occurred after the amendment to section 627.714(4).
We therefore hold that the trial court properly applied the
amendment prospectively in entering judgment for the Association, and
3 Further, Universal's cause of action did not accrue, and the
statute of limitations did not begin to run, until the date the Perezes
suffered the loss at issue....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company appeals an
adverse final judgment in a negligence action it brought—as subrogee of
its insureds, Virgilio and Sirkka Perez—against Laguna Riviera
Condominium Association. We affirm because the trial court properly
applied section 627.714(4), Florida Statutes (2022), in entering judgment
for the Association.
I.
In January 2021, Universal issued a property insurance policy to
the Perezes, owners of a unit within the Laguna Riviera Condominiums.
The policy was for a term ending in January 2022....
...The complete policy
is not in the record, but it undisputedly contains a provision that
subrogates Universal to the rights of the Perezes to the extent of any
payment made under the policy.
After Universal issued the policy, the legislature amended the
insurance code and added the following language to section 627.714(4):
If a condominium association's insurance policy does not
provide rights for subrogation against the unit owners in the
association, an insurance policy issued to an individual unit
owner in the association...
...It then filed a negligence complaint against
the Association, as subrogee of the Perezes, alleging that the
Association's failure to inspect, maintain, test, or repair the main pipe
caused the loss. The Association answered the complaint and asserted
section 627.714(4) as an affirmative defense....
...The Association also
attached a copy of its insurance policy to its pleading, showing that the
Association's insurer had "waive[d] [its] rights to recover payment from
any unit-owner" through the policy it issued to the Association.
2
Based on this waiver and the language of section 627.714(4) as
amended, the Association moved for judgment on the pleadings....
...Servs., Inc.,
134 So. 3d 477, 479 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2013)).
II.
Universal argues, as it did below, that its subrogation rights vested
in January 2021 when it issued its policy and that the July 2021
amendment to section
627.714(4) does not and cannot apply
retroactively to impair its vested contract rights....
...n July 13, 2021—after the
amendment's effective date—and that the trial court properly applied the
statutory amendment prospectively. Thus, the dispositive question is
whether Universal had a vested subrogation right against the Association
when section 627.714(4) became effective on July 1, 2021.
Our decision in R.A.M....
...There, we
considered whether a statutory amendment barred an unlicensed
contractor's claims, even though the claims would have been viable
under the version of the statute in effect when the contractor signed its
1 In doing so, the trial court expressed an "eager[ness] for appellate
guidance with regard to section 627.714," which we now provide.
3
contract....
...were contingent on a future event—namely Universal's payment of a
covered loss—and its rights were expectant because they depended on
the law not changing during Universal's policy period. It is of course
beyond dispute that the legislature had the authority to amend section
627.714(4)....
...damaged the Perezes' unit. See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane,
565 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 1990). Thus, Universal, standing in the
Perezes' shoes, did not have a vested right to sue the Association until
July 13, 2021—after the amendment to section
627.714(4) became
effective....
...interest in rights that its insured has against third party, insurer's right
of subrogation comes into existence only when insurer pays claim of
insured.").
At bottom, neither Universal's subrogation rights nor its right to
sue in negligence vested before the legislature amended section
627.714(4).2 As we explained in R.A.M., "[a] statute does not operate
2 Further, Universal's cause of action did not accrue, and the
statute of limitations did not begin to run, until the date the Perezes
suffered the loss at issue....
...While that event certainly vested
contractual rights between the contracting parties, Universal's
subrogated right to sue the Association was not one of them. That right
did not vest or become fixed until the completion of additional events, all
of which occurred after the amendment to section 627.714(4)....
