Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Devon Neighborhood Ass'n
67 So. 3d 187
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Devon submitted a sworn proof of loss after Wilma; Southern Family insured Devon’s condo policy, later insolvent; FIGA assumed responsibility and paid excess losses; Devon sought appraisal of the loss under the 2004 policy’s appraisal provision; 2005 amendments to 627.7015 added mediation notice requirements and penalties for noncompliance; Fourth District held amendments retroactive to 2004 policy and barred appraisal; Florida Supreme Court granted review to address retroactivity method.
- The 2005 amendments to 627.7015 require insurer notice of mediation and bar appraisal if notice not given; policy contained an appraisal clause; Devon argued retroactive application barred appraisal; FIGA argued retroactive application was permissible.
- The court noted FIGA’s argument and Devon’s counter, and framed the retroactivity issue as a two-prong test: first, whether there is clear legislative intent for retroactive application; second, if so, whether retroactive application is constitutional.
- Court analyzed Chase Federal, Old Port Cove, and Menendez to reaffirm a two-prong test; concluded there is no clear legislative intent to apply 2005 amendments retroactively to the 2004 policy; accordingly, retroactive application is not permitted.
- Court held the Fourth District misapplied the two-prong test by skipping prong one and determined retroactivity cannot be assumed without clear legislative intent; quashed the Fourth District’s decision, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of 2005 amendments to 627.7015 | FIGA argues amendments apply retroactively to 2004 policy | Devon argues no clear legislative intent for retroactivity | Not retroactive; language shows no clear intent for retroactivity |
| Proper retroactivity test application | FIGA asserts two-prong test required | Court must apply two-prong test; district erred | Two-prong test required; district misapplied it |
| Legislative intent evidence | Legislature intended broad reform; retroactivity implied | No explicit intent to apply to preexisting contracts | No clear legislative intent for retroactivity found |
| Effect of retroactivity on appraisal right | Retroactivity would bar FIGA from enforcing appraisal | Retroactivity would unfairly impair contracts | Not reached due to lack of retroactivity; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase Federal Housing Corp. v. Dade County, 737 So.2d 494 (Fla. 1999) (two-prong retroactivity test: legislative intent, then constitutionality)
- Old Port Cove Holdings, Inc. v. Old Port Cove Condominium Ass'n One, Inc., 986 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 2008) (retroactivity requires clear legislative intent; if none, second prong not reached)
- Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 35 So.3d 873 (Fla. 2010) (Legislature clearly intends retroactivity but may still be substantive with penalties)
- Laforet v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 658 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1995) (two-step retroactivity framework; consider legislative intent and constitutionality)
- Memorial Hosp.-W. Volusia, Inc. v. News-Journal Corp., 784 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2001) (retrospective effect depends on statute’s nature and intent)
- Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condo., Inc., 378 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1979) (acknowledges balancing approach to contract impairment)