Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Jada Griffin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 4D2024-1332

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (50)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,

v.

JADA GRIFFIN,
Appellee.

No. 4D2024-1332

[February 25, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Gerard J. Curley Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No.
502022CA001699XXXXMB.

David A. Noel and Kara Rockenbach Link of Link & Rockenbach, P.A.,
West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert C. Hubbard and George A. Vaka of Vaka Law Group, P.L.,
Tampa, for appellee.

MAY, J.

Water damage and an insurance claim create the issues in this appeal.
An insurer appeals a final judgment in favor of the insured. The insurer
argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying its motion
to dismiss for failure to plead or provide pre-suit notice of intent to initiate
litigation, and in failing to give requested jury instructions. We agree in
part and reverse.

• The Facts

The case arose from a first-party property insurance dispute over a
plumbing leak. The insured’s home was insured under an all-risks policy
issued by the insurer for the period January 22, 2020, to January 22,
2021. Within the policy period, the insured discovered significant water
inside the home. After searching the house, the insured noticed water
gushing from a seam in the dining room tiles.
The insured undertook initial cleanup efforts and turned off the water.
She later retained a public adjuster and hired a plumber for temporary re-
piping. The public adjuster reported the loss to the insurer on November
4, 2020.

The insurer inspected the property on November 19, 2020. In
December, the field adjuster prepared and submitted an estimate, but the
insurer did not pay the claim. Instead, the insurer initially sent document
requests to an incorrect email address, finally sending them to the correct
email address on January 21, 2021.

The public adjuster requested additional time to submit proof of loss.
The insurer denied the extension request and coverage on March 1, 2021,
citing failure to comply with post-loss obligations. In September 2021, the
insured submitted the requested documents, including a sworn proof of
loss statement. The insurer did not withdraw its denial of the extension
request or pay the claim.

The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract. Soon thereafter,
the insurer issued a $4,979.34 payment based on the field adjuster’s
initial estimate. On March 29, 2022, the insurer moved to dismiss the
complaint, arguing the insured “fail[ed] to strictly comply with pre-suit
notice requirements in violation of [Florida Statute section 627.70152].”
The trial court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss on May 31, 2022.

On May 3, 2023, we issued our decision in Cole v. Universal Property &
Casualty Insurance Co., 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). There, we
held that section 627.70152’s pre-suit notice requirement applies
retroactively. 1

On October 17, 2023, the insurer renewed its motion to dismiss, citing
the newly published Cole decision. After a hearing, the trial court denied
the insurer’s renewed motion to dismiss.

At trial, the insured sought to prove the insurer breached the insurance
policy by failing to pay the full amount of the covered loss. The insurer
sought to prove the insured failed to comply with her post-loss obligations
and that it was prejudiced by her non-compliance.

During the charge conference, the insurer argued that the insured’s
failure to use reasonable means to save and preserve property after the

1
The statute became effective on July 1, 2021.

2
time of loss fell within the policy’s neglect exclusion. The neglect exclusion
provided, in relevant part:

SECTION I – EXCLUSIONS
A. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by
any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any
other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any
sequence to the loss. These exclusions apply whether or not
the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a
substantial area.

---

1. Neglect Neglect means neglect of any “insured” to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of a loss.

The insurer cited the insured’s actions in turning the water back on “at
least three times” after discovering the water damage and argued that
neglect resulted in further damage to the property. To the extent there
was any damage caused by the insured’s neglect, the insurer insisted the
neglect exclusion in conjunction with the anti-concurrent cause provision
barred coverage for her entire claim. The insured responded that those
provisions did not act as a complete bar to coverage and applied only to
damage the insurer proved was caused by her neglect.

The trial court ultimately instructed the jury to deduct the amount of
damage caused by the insured’s neglect from any potential award:

If [the insurer] proves by the greater weight of the evidence
that part of [the insured’s] loss was caused by her neglect to
use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at or
after the time of the loss, then the amount of damages from
the loss attributable to neglect should be deducted from
[the insured’s] damages, if any damages are found.

(Emphasis added).

The jury found the insurer breached the insurance contract, and
despite the insured’s failure to substantially comply with one or more of
her post-loss obligations, the insurer was not prejudiced as a result. The
jury awarded the insured $50,000 in covered damages. The trial court
entered a final judgment for $42,520.66, representing the jury’s verdict
($50,000), less the policy’s deductible ($2,500) and the insurer’s prior
payment (4,979.34).

3
The insurer moved post-trial to set aside the verdict and asked the trial
court to enter a dismissal, or alternatively to grant a new trial. The trial
court denied the insurer’s motion. From the judgment, the insurer now
appeals.

• The Analysis

o Cole’s Application to this Case

The insurer first argues the trial court erred by denying its motion to
dismiss based on the insured’s failure to give pre-suit notice of intent to
initiate litigation as required by section 627.70152, Florida Statutes
(2021). The insurer argues our Cole decision requires a reversal with
instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. Cole, 363 So. 3d at
1092.

The insured responds that Cole is factually distinguishable.
Alternatively, the insured asks us to recede from Cole and follow the Sixth
District’s holding in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance
Co., 374 So. 3d 900, 910 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), review granted, No. SC2024-
0025, 2024 WL 1714497 (Fla. Apr. 22, 2024). Lastly, the insured argues
independent grounds require us to affirm. We agree with the insurer on
this issue.

“The question of whether a statute applies retroactively or prospectively
is a pure question of law; thus, our standard of review is de novo. . . . We
also review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss.” Cole,
363 So. 3d at 1091 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:

(3) Notice.—
(a) As a condition precedent to filing a suit under a property
insurance policy, a claimant must provide the department
[Florida's Department of Financial Services] 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 . . .
(5) Dismissal of suit.-- A court must dismiss without
prejudice any claimant’s suit relating to a claim for which a

4
notice of intent to initiate litigation was not given as required
by this section . . .

§ 627.70152(3)(a), (5), Fla. Stat. (2021) (emphasis added).

In Cole, we held that section 627.70152’s pre-suit notice requirement
applies retroactively to suits filed under policies that predate the statute’s
enactment on July 1, 2021. Cole, 363 So. 3d at 1095. There, we affirmed
the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiff’s complaint for
failure to file a pre-suit notice under section 627.70152 even though the
plaintiff’s policy had issued before the statute’s effective date. Id.; see also
Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 388 So. 3d 242, 243
(Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (agreeing with Cole).

Here, the insurance policy also predated the effective date of section
627.70152, Florida Statutes. It is undisputed that the insured did not
provide a pre-suit notice of intent to initiate litigation. The insurer timely
moved to dismiss the complaint based on this deficiency. But the trial
court denied the motion, reasoning that section 627.70152 did not apply
because the policy was not in existence when the statute became effective.

The insured argues this case is distinguishable from Cole because the
policy here not only predated section 627.70152’s effective date but also
expired before the effective date. Relying on our language in Cole, the
insured suggests that “because the presuit notice requirement of section
627.70152 applies retroactively as a procedural provision, it applies [only]
to existing policies in effect at the time of enactment.” Cole, 363 So. 3d
at 1095 (emphasis added). From this language, the insured argues the
policy was not “existing” at the time of the statute’s enactment and thus
falls outside our holding and the statute’s reach.

The insurer responds this is a distinction without a difference. The
insurer suggests two reasons why this distinction does not alter the
outcome. First, the insured’s argument reads Cole too narrowly. Second,
even under the insured’s framing, the policy was “in existence” for
purposes of section 627.70152. Although the policy period had expired,
the policy applied to losses that occurred during the policy term.

The trial court’s ruling runs afoul of Cole. The insured’s failure to
comply with the statute required dismissal without prejudice under
subsection (5). Cole, 363 So. 3d at 1093. Accordingly, we must reverse
and remand the case for dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. 2

2
We see no merit in the other issues raised and affirm as to them.

5
We reverse and remand the case for entry of a dismissal without
prejudice, pursuant to Cole.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

CONNER and LOTT, JJ., concur.

---

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.

6