.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Fifth District Sides with the Sixth District and Finds SB-2A Does Not Apply Retroactively

Blumberg v. Security First Insurance Company, Fla. 5th DCA, No. 5D2024-1214, LT Case No. 2023-37546-COCI, August 28, 2025

September 1, 2025

by Michael A. Packer

The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s ruling that had retroactively applied statutory changes which eliminated an insured’s right to recover attorney’s fees in a first-party property damage case under what has become known as SB-2A.

The underlying case involved a property damage claim which arose out of a loss in the summer of 2022. The policy was issued in March 2022, prior to the enactment of SB-2A. However, the lawsuit at issue was not filed until July 2023, several months after SB-2A was passed. 

After settlement of the contractual damages, the parties disputed whether the insured was entitled to attorney’s fees under Florida Statute 627.428, which was abolished by SB-2A. While the District Court recognized a conflict between the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)) and the Sixth District Court of Appeal (Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 374 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)), it followed the Sixth District Court’s decision in Hughes and agreed that, under the Florida Supreme Court case of Mendez v. Progressive Express Insurance, 35 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2010), the changes to the law under SB-2A are substantive and may not be retroactively applied. 

In support of its decision, the Fifth District Court looked at the Supreme Court’s finding that the proper analysis looks “at the date the insurance policy was issued and not the date the suit was filed or the accident occurred, because ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’” Id. at 876. 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – September 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.