When a storm damages a home and the homeowner and insurer disagree about the outcome, Florida law sets up steps that must happen before a lawsuit begins. One of those steps is a written presuit notice that tells the state and the insurer that litigation may be coming.
A recurring question is how far that requirement reaches. Does it apply to every kind of lawsuit involving the policy, or only to lawsuits that demand money? That distinction matters to homeowners, insurers, and anyone trying to understand what has to be done before a courtroom door opens.
This issue came up in a dispute over an appraisal form after a hurricane claim. The homeowner filed a lawsuit asking only for a court to clarify his rights — not for damages — and argued that the presuit notice rule did not apply. The insurer disagreed.
These questions were addressed in Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Nekouee, a decision from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaway
The court read the statute’s phrase “all suits” broadly. It held that the presuit notice requirement in section 627.70152 applies even to a declaratory judgment lawsuit that seeks no money, as long as the suit arises under a residential property insurance policy.
The question is more specific:
- Does a lawsuit that asks only for clarification of policy rights still count as a “suit” under the statute?
- Does such a lawsuit “arise under” the insurance policy?
What happened in this case?
Citizens insured a homeowner’s property. After hurricane damage, the homeowner filed a claim. Following an inspection, the insurer concluded the loss was less than the policy deductible and denied the claim.
The homeowner hired his own adjuster, who reached a different conclusion, and then demanded appraisal under the policy. Each side hired an appraiser, and the appraisers agreed on the amount of loss.
The homeowner then refused to sign the appraisal award form, objecting to its language and claiming it added conditions beyond the policy. Rather than sue for damages, he filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit asking a court to determine his rights and whether the form was enforceable.
What was the legal dispute?
Citizens moved to dismiss, arguing the homeowner had not provided the written presuit notice that the statute treats as a condition precedent to filing suit. The homeowner responded that presuit notice was not required because he sought only clarification and no money, and he argued his lawsuit did not arise under the policy.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning in part that no monetary damages were requested and that it was unclear whether a genuine dispute even existed. The insurer asked the appellate court to review that ruling.
Why an appeals court could step in early
Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy used only in limited situations. The court explained that an order excusing a party from a statutory presuit step can qualify, because the point of presuit screening is to avoid the lawsuit in the first place — something a later appeal cannot fully undo.
How did the court read the words of the statute?
The court focused on the statute’s text. Section 627.70152 states that it applies to all suits arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy, and it makes written presuit notice a condition precedent to filing such a suit.
The court emphasized that general words like “all” are meant to have general coverage. It reasoned that a declaratory judgment action is still a “suit,” pointing to how courts routinely describe declaratory actions that way. Because the statute says “all suits,” the court concluded it does not carve out an exception for lawsuits that seek only a declaration of rights.
The court also addressed the notice contents required by the statute, including a description of the insurer’s acts or omissions, an estimate of damages where applicable, and information relevant to settlement such as attorney’s fees and costs. It found those requirements could still apply meaningfully here, where the loss involved an agreed-upon but unpaid appraisal amount.
Did the lawsuit “arise under” the policy?
The homeowner argued that even if his case was a “suit,” it did not arise under the policy. He pointed to how courts interpret similar phrases in arbitration contracts, urging a narrow reading.
The court was not persuaded. It noted that the complaint itself alleged a genuine controversy over the policy’s terms, and that resolving the dispute over the appraisal form would require interpreting the policy. Because interpretation of the policy terms was central to the case, the court concluded the lawsuit did arise under the policy.
Why does this matter to homeowners and insurers?
The decision signals that, in this appellate district, the presuit notice requirement is read broadly. A lawsuit does not escape the requirement simply because it asks a court to interpret or clarify policy rights rather than to award money.
The court also distinguished an earlier case the homeowner relied on, explaining that it involved a different statute governing personal injury protection benefits, not the property insurance statute at issue here. The court ultimately granted the petition and quashed the order denying dismissal, with the statute providing that such a suit is dismissed without prejudice.
For anyone navigating a property insurance dispute, the practical lesson is that the label placed on a lawsuit may not control whether presuit steps apply. What matters is what the statute’s words say and how they fit the facts.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.