Extending coverage for a property damage claim is not always open and shut. In some cases, the insured may request additional money to repair the covered damage (“reopened claim”). In other cases, additional damage is discovered, which the insurer didn’t have the chance to investigate when it initially adjusted the claim (“supplemental claim”). Under either situation, the insurer is entitled to notice of the additional claim for recovery.

Notice Requirements
Most insurance policies include language requiring notice of claims within a specific period of time after the damage-causing event. With the enactment of Section 627.70132 (effective June 1, 2011), Florida law began requiring supplemental or reopened claim notices within a set timeframe. In doing so, Section 627.70132 created a uniform, bright-line rule that packs a hefty punch. If notice of a supplemental or reopened claim comes too late, the claim is time-barred. The rationale behind the statute makes sense: as time passes after the loss, it becomes harder for insurers to investigate, assess their rights, and guard against fraud. See American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Collura, 163 So. 2d 784, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).

While the timing of a supplemental or reopened claim is relatively straightforward, the content of the notice—namely, what information it must contain to sufficiently inform the insurer of the supplemental or reopened claim—is not. This brings us to the conflict in the case law.

What Constitutes Valid Notice
The issue of what qualifies as valid notice for a supplemental or reopened claim first came up in the case Goldberg v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). The case involved a Hurricane Irma damage claim where Universal initially paid $8,158.43. The insured later indicated he had a higher damage estimate but did not provide specific details or an amount for additional damages. The attorney retained by the insured also failed to provide details when they contacted Universal. Universal’s corporate representative testified that they did not receive any estimate, inventory, or specific claim amount from the insured, and they couldn’t make additional payments without guessing the amount. Universal argued that the insured did not file a supplemental claim according to the policy requirements. The Court ruled that under Universal’s policy and Florida law a supplemental claim requires notice including specific amount. The Court also concluded that since Goldberg had not submitted an additional claim or estimate, the breach of contract suit he filed was premature.

In other words, under Goldberg, there is no “additional claim for recovery” within the meaning of the statute if there is no indication as to the amount of additional benefits sought. Goldberg was the only Florida case to really tackle this issue until the Third District Court of Appeal entered the fray with Patios West One Condominium Association, Inc. v. American Coastal Insurance Company, 388 So. 3d 893, (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).

Patios West like Goldberg involved damage from Hurricane Irma, where American Coastal Insurance (ACIC) initially covered part of the damage but did not issue payment as it was below the deductible. Three years later, Patios West sent a notice of supplemental claim without a damages estimate. ACIC replied that the claim was late but agreed to investigate the reason for the delay without requesting any damage documentation. The trial court initially ruled that the notice was insufficient because it lacked an estimate, but the Third DCA reversed this, holding that Section 627.70132 does not require an estimate, only compliance with policy terms.

The court held Patios West’s notice met the requirements of Section 627.70132 as it, asserted compliance with section 627.70132, described the damage the supplemental claim related to, was specifically addressed to the insurer, referenced the damage-causing event, requested document preservation, and concluded by stating: “[C]onsider yourself on notice with respect to the full extent of Patios West’s Hurricane Irma claim.”. ACIC has appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that this decision conflicts with Goldberg. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction on August 20, 2024.

While we wait to receive guidance from the Supreme Court on this issue, claims professionals and practitioners alike need to be aware of the conflict, as well as the current state of the law.

Section 627.70132 Amendments
Section 627.70132 has been amended four times in the last three years, with the latest version going into effect on July 1, 2024. These amendments include:

• Shortening the notice periods for supplemental and reopened claims: to two years for reopened claims and three years for supplemental claims (effective July 1, 2021), then to one year for reopened claims and 18 months for supplemental claims (effective Dec. 16, 2022);
• Revising the definitions of supplemental and reopened claims (effective July 1, 2021); and
• Expanding the statute’s application from hurricane and windstorm claims, to losses caused by “any peril” (effective July 1, 2021).

Know Your Statute Version, District, and Policy Language
Ultimately, it is crucial you know which version of the statute applies to your policy and claim, as well as the district where you are located. Counties under the Fourth District Court of Appeal are still bound by Goldberg, while those in the Third District are bound by Patios West. No other appellate court has weighed in on the issue yet, so in other districts, application of either case can be argued.

Careful attention is required to the factual circumstances surrounding the notice of a supplemental or reopened claim, as well as the language of the specific insurance policy. The policy language in particular was something that was painstakingly examined in both Goldberg and Patios West, because at the end of the day, Section 627.70132 requires notice “in accordance with the terms of the policy.” The Third District in Patios West emphasized that the plain language of the statute did not require an estimate, and if the policy is likewise silent about the required content of the notice, insurers and attorneys may face an uphill battle arguing that the notice is legally insufficient. A practical way to avoid bare bones notices of supplemental and reopened claims is to include language in the policy that specifically requires information about the additional amounts sought.