Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

The changes to Florida's pre-suit provisions, enacted in 2001, cannot be applied retroactively as the changes were substantive and not procedural.

July 1, 2010
Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 35 Fla. L. Weekly S. 222 (Fl. April 22, 2010)

The insured sued the insurer for failing to pay personal injury protection (PIP) benefits after she was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The issue on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court was whether the pre-suit provision of Fla. Stat. § 627.736(11)(a) (2001), which was enacted after the accident, was applicable. The pre-suit notice provisions instituted several amendments to the PIP law. It required an insured to provide a pre-suit notice of intent to initiate litigation and provided an insurer additional time to pay an overdue claim. The amendment also mandated that the payment from the insurer include interest and penalties not exceeding $250. If an insurer paid within the additional time provided by the statute, the payment precluded an insured from bringing suit for late payment or nonpayment and shielded the insurer from a claim for attorneys' fees. Further, the amendment tolled the applicable statute of limitations. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held that the pre-suit notice provision could not be applied retroactively because it constituted a substantive change to the statute, as it was a substantive and not a procedural change, because it imposed a penalty, implicated attorneys' fees, granted an insurer additional time to pay benefits, and delayed an insured's right to file suit. Accordingly, the Court found that the appellate court erred in its conclusion that § 627.736 was procedural and given retroactive application.

Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2010

Affiliated Attorney

Practice Areas

Please read the following disclaimer:

Thank you for your interest in our firm. The information contained on this Website contains statements, videos and other content about the type and quality of services offered by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, as well as past results and testimonials about the firm. This information has not been reviewed nor approved by the Florida Bar.

  • The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and/or testimonials have been provided.
  • All results of cases handled by the firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.
  • The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by any individual attorney or by the firm nor of the experience of all clients or others with the firm. Every case is different, and each client's case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.


Please acknowledge that you have read the above disclaimer by clicking on one of the two links below.

YES I have read and understand the above statements. I am interested in learning more about Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. NO I do not want to view the information.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."