Case Corner – Amy Moore v. People’s Trust Insurance Company

Jurisdiction: Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Circuit (Lee County)
Case No.: 25-CA-002711
Judge: Alane Laboda
Date: July 11, 2025
Parties: Amy Moore (Plaintiff) v. People’s Trust Insurance Company (Defendant)
Counsel: Jason D. Spiller, Kevin Weisser, Sapir Elazar for Plaintiff; Michael B. Greenberg for Defendant

Overview

The court dismissed without prejudice a homeowner’s property insurance suit for failure to comply with Florida’s presuit notice statute, § 627.70152. Two independent grounds supported dismissal:

1. The plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation failed to “state with specificity” the alleged acts or omissions of the insurer, as required by § 627.70152(3)(a)2.
2. An indispensable party the estate of the named insured and sole property owner on the date of loss never served a presuit notice and thus could not be joined later, mandating dismissal under § 627.70152(5).

Because dismissal issued under subsection (5), the court also held the insurer is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in securing the dismissal under § 627.70152(8)(b), with the amount reserved for later hearing.

Key Facts

• Policy incepted June 1, 2022 → the second version of § 627.70152 (effective May 26–Dec. 15, 2022) controls (see Hughes v. Universal, 374 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)).
• The plaintiff sent a presuit notice alleging generalized claims handling failures (e.g., “failing to acknowledge and act promptly,” “denying claims without reasonable investigations”)no claim-specific facts.
• The named insured/sole owner as of the loss, James D. Moore, is deceased; no notice was submitted on behalf of his estate. Public records show current title vested in his unknown heirs.

Issues Presented

1. Can a court decide compliance with § 627.70152 at the motion to dismiss stage given § 627.70152(6)’s evidentiary limitation?
2. Did plaintiff’s notice strictly comply with the statute’s specificity requirement?
3. Does the absence of a presuit notice from an indispensable party (the estate) require dismissal?

Holdings

• Yes compliance is a threshold legal issue appropriate on a motion to dismiss. The statute commands courts to “dismiss without prejudice” for noncompliance (§ 627.70152(5)). The Third DCA’s Citizens v. Walden, 395 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), confirms the presuit requirement is enforceable pre-judgment.
• No the notice did not strictly comply. The statute uses mandatory language (“must state with specificity”), with no “substantial compliance” safe harbor. Generalized grievances about claims handling are insufficient (see Talat, 753 So. 2d 1278; Doral Collision, 341 So. 3d 424; Burton, 362 So. 3d 311).
• Yes the estate was indispensable (named insured; sole owner at loss). Each “claimant” must serve their own presuit notice, and a suit relating to a claim must be dismissed where “a notice … was not given as required” (§ 627.70152(3)(a), (5)). Because the estate did not serve a notice, and cannot be joined later without it, dismissal is required (see Marson, New Port Largo).

Court’s Reasoning

1) Presuit Compliance Is Decided Upfront

Although § 627.70152(6) limits how notices are used as evidence (attorney’s fees proceedings), § 627.70152(5) explicitly instructs courts to dismiss suits lacking compliant notice. Reading the statute as a whole, trial courts can and should resolve compliance at the pleading stage otherwise the presuit gatekeeping function would be thwarted (Walden).

2) Strict, Not Substantial, Compliance

The statute’s verbs (“must … state with specificity”) and lack of prejudice language make strict compliance the rule. Vague, boilerplate allegations about “claims” and “investigations” don’t tell the insurer what, exactly, it allegedly did wrong on this claim. That’s not enough to trigger litigation under this version of the statute.

3) Every “Claimant” Must Serve a Notice

The text is grammatical and deliberate: “a claimant … must provide” notice; “any claimant’s suit … must [be] dismiss[ed]” without compliant notice. The estate (a separate legal person from any individual acting as PR) held the key insurable interest and was therefore indispensable but never noticed. Because joinder later would still run afoul of (5), the court dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend in this action.

4) Fees Flow from Dismissal

Under § 627.70152(8)(b) (applicable version), when a non assignee claimant’s suit is dismissed under (5), the court may award the insurer its reasonable fees and costs associated with securing dismissal. The court reserved jurisdiction to set the amount.

Practical Takeaways

• Get the version right. Which § 627.70152 controls depends on the policy effective date. The May 26–Dec. 15, 2022 version is strict on specificity and fees.
• Be specific or be dismissed. Your presuit notice should itemize claim specific acts/omissions (dates, decisions, communications, inspections, coverage positions) and tie them to this loss. Avoid boilerplate.
• Notice every claimant. Estates, PRs, trustees, co-insureds each “claimant” must serve their own compliant notice in their capacity (e.g., as PR), or dismissal under (5) looms.
• Indispensable parties matter. If an indispensable party cannot be joined later due to lack of notice, the whole case can be dismissed.
• Defense playbook: Raise notice defects by motion to dismiss; seek fees under (8)(b) when dismissal issues under (5).
• Plaintiff playbook: Audit notices before filing. If an estate is involved, open the estate and serve notice as PR not just individually.

Notable Authorities

• § 627.70152(3)(a), (5), (6), (8)(b) (2022 version) notice content, dismissal mandate, evidentiary limit, fee shifting.
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Walden, 395 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) presuit compliance is a legal, pretrial issue; certiorari granted.
• Hughes v. Universal, 374 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) version applicability by policy date.
• Talat Enterprises v. Aetna, 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000) strict compliance where statute says “must” and lacks prejudice exceptions.
• Dean Wish, LLC v. Lee Cnty., 326 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) grammatical canons; legislators mean what they write.
• Marson v. Comisky, 341 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); New Port Largo indispensable party not joinable → dismissal.

For Policyholders & PRs

• Before suing, confirm:
  • The proper version of § 627.70152.
  • The exact coverage decision and alleged acts/omissions then detail them in the notice.
  • All claimants/indispensable parties (e.g., estates) have served compliant notices in the right legal capacity.

Helpful primers from Boltz Legal:

• What to Expect During a Lawsuit
• Ways Insurance Companies Try to Avoid Paying
• Some Homeowners Insurance Laws You Need to Know

Bottom Line

Strict, specific presuit notice is a condition precedent under the applicable § 627.70152. If any claimant including an indispensable estate fails to give a compliant notice, the court must dismiss the suit without prejudice and may award the insurer its fees and costs for securing that dismissal.

Today’s Insight

“In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”

— Albert Einstein

In Florida property claims, the presuit notice is that engine fuel it with specifics, or don’t expect to leave the garage.