In a win for Florida homeowners battling insurance companies over property damage claims, a state appeals court has ruled that recent legislative changes limiting attorney’s fees cannot be applied retroactively to policies issued before their effective date. This decision directly impacts Security First Insurance Co., a major player in Florida’s volatile property insurance market, preventing the insurer from dodging responsibility for covering a policyholder’s legal costs in a dispute stemming from 2022 storm damage. For American families facing rising premiums and claim denials amid hurricane season, this ruling underscores the importance of policy dates in protecting consumer rights against retroactive insurer-friendly laws. As Florida grapples with its insurance crisis—where premiums have surged over 40% in recent years—this case highlights ongoing tensions between homeowners and carriers, potentially influencing how thousands of “old claims” are resolved and offering relief to U.S. policyholders navigating similar disputes nationwide.
The ruling, issued by Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal on August 28, 2025, reverses a lower court decision and remands the case for fee calculation, emphasizing that substantive rights under insurance contracts cannot be altered after the fact without clear legislative intent. In an era of economic pressures from inflation and natural disasters, this outcome could ease the financial burden on everyday Americans, ensuring they aren’t left footing the bill for litigation forced by insurer delays or denials.
Background on Security First Insurance and the Florida Insurance Crisis
Security First Insurance Co., based in Ormond Beach, Florida, is one of the state’s largest homeowners insurers, serving approximately 140,500 policies as of 2025. The company specializes in property insurance for single-family homes and has been at the forefront of Florida’s turbulent insurance landscape, marked by frequent hurricanes, litigation surges, and insurer insolvencies. Florida’s property insurance market has been dubbed the “worst in the nation” by experts, with average annual premiums exceeding $6,000—more than double the national average—due to factors like climate risks and abusive lawsuits.
The root of many disputes lies in the “one-way attorney’s fees” provision under Florida Statute §627.428, which historically allowed prevailing policyholders to recover legal fees from insurers in claims disputes, but not vice versa. This incentivized insurers to settle valid claims promptly to avoid costly litigation. However, in response to industry complaints of “runaway litigation,” Florida lawmakers passed Senate Bill 2-A in December 2022, overhauling the system by repealing the one-way fee provision for property insurance policies and imposing stricter claim-filing deadlines and litigation limits. The changes aimed to stabilize the market but raised questions about retroactivity—whether they apply to policies issued or losses occurring before March 24, 2023, when the bill took effect.
Security First, like many carriers, has aggressively invoked these reforms to limit liability, arguing that post-2022 claims and lawsuits fall under the new rules. This case challenges that strategy head-on, focusing on whether the reforms can retroactively strip homeowners of established rights.
Case Details: Blumberg v. Security First Insurance Co.
The dispute centers on Denise Blumberg, a Daytona Beach resident and 2024 Teacher of the Year at Mainland High School, whose home suffered hail and wind damage in 2022. Blumberg filed a claim with Security First under her homeowner’s policy, issued in early 2022, but the insurer declined to pay the full amount, prompting her to sue for breach of contract in July 2023. The parties settled in 2023, with the settlement agreement leaving the issue of attorney’s fees unresolved.
Blumberg’s attorney, Chad Barr—a prominent Florida plaintiff’s lawyer known for challenging insurer tactics—moved for fees under the pre-2022 version of §627.428, arguing the policy and loss predated the reforms. Security First countered that the claim denial and lawsuit occurred in 2023, post-reform, and thus no fees were owed. A Volusia County circuit court sided with the insurer, denying the motion.
On appeal, the 5th District Court of Appeal, in an opinion authored by Judge Jordan Pratt, overturned the ruling. The court applied the Florida Supreme Court’s two-pronged retroactivity test from Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co. (2010): First, does the Legislature clearly intend retroactive application? Second, does it impair vested rights or violate due process?
Under the first prong, the court found no language in SB 2-A implying retroactivity, especially for policies issued beforehand. For the second, it held that attorney’s fees are a substantive right “incorporated into” the insurance contract at issuance, and retroactive application would unconstitutionally alter Blumberg’s vested expectations. Citing a recent 1st District Court of Appeals decision in Vo v. Scottsdale Insurance (2025), which barred retroactivity for bad-faith claims limits, the panel remanded for fee determination.
Key timeline elements:
| Event | Date | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Policy Issued | Early 2022 | Establishes substantive rights under old law |
| Property Damage (Hail/Wind) | 2022 | Loss occurs pre-reform |
| Claim Filed | January 2023 | Post-reform, but tied to pre-reform policy |
| Lawsuit Filed | July 2023 | Insurer argues applicability here |
| Settlement Reached | 2023 | Fees left open; prevailing party status implied |
| Appeals Court Ruling | August 28, 2025 | Reverses denial, mandates fees |
This framework ensures that “old claims” like Blumberg’s—rooted in pre-reform policies—retain fee recovery protections, blocking insurers from “dodging” payments through timing arguments.
Expert Opinions and Public Reactions
Legal experts praise the decision as a safeguard for consumer rights. Chad Barr, Blumberg’s attorney, hailed it as “a critical victory for Florida homeowners,” noting in interviews that it prevents insurers from exploiting legislative timing to erode protections. Insurance litigator Matthew S. Sackel of Shutts & Bowen LLP, while representing carriers in similar cases, acknowledged the ruling aligns with constitutional precedents, potentially exposing insurers to millions in back fees for legacy claims.
The insurance industry, represented by attorneys like Ashley Jay Arends and Joseph Jacquot for Security First, expressed disappointment, arguing in briefs that the breach occurred upon claim denial in 2023, post-reform. Groups like the Insurance Information Institute have long criticized one-way fees as fueling “abusive litigation,” but this ruling tempers their post-2022 gains.
Public reactions on social media and forums reflect homeowner relief amid Florida’s insurance woes. On X (formerly Twitter), users under hashtags like #FloridaInsuranceCrisis shared stories of claim denials, with one viral post stating, “Finally, a court saying no to insurers gaming the system—hope for us storm victims!” No formal polls exist, but sentiment analysis from Insurance Journal indicates strong support among policyholders, with 70% viewing the reforms as insurer-biased. Consumer advocates, including the Florida Justice Association, predict appeals but see this as bolstering similar challenges.
Impact on U.S. Readers and the Broader Economy
For U.S. readers, particularly those in hurricane-prone states like Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, this ruling has ripple effects. Economically, it reinforces contract stability, potentially stabilizing premiums by discouraging frivolous denials while holding insurers accountable—Florida’s market instability has driven up national reinsurance costs, affecting policies nationwide. Homeowners could recover tens of thousands in fees, easing post-disaster financial strain and supporting recovery in affected communities.
Lifestyle-wise, it empowers families like Blumberg’s to pursue claims without fear of unaffordable legal costs, tying into broader American concerns over housing affordability amid climate change. Politically, it challenges Florida’s pro-insurer reforms under Gov. Ron DeSantis, influencing national debates on insurance regulation and consumer protections—similar battles rage in California and New York.
Technologically, while not direct, robust fee recovery encourages adoption of AI-driven claims processing to reduce disputes. In entertainment and sports, it indirectly aids Florida’s tourism economy by ensuring property owners can rebuild faster after events like hurricanes, maintaining venues for MLB spring training and theme parks.
Risks remain: Insurers may pass costs to premiums or exit markets, but experts like those at Insurance Journal foresee a balanced outcome, with fewer “old claims” litigation but fairer resolutions.
Conclusion: A Victory for Policyholder Rights and Future Implications
The 5th District Court of Appeal’s decision in Blumberg v. Security First Insurance Co. firmly stops the insurer from evading attorney’s fees on pre-2022 claims, affirming that SB 2-A’s reforms do not apply retroactively and protecting vested contractual rights. This ruling not only awards Blumberg her fees but sets a precedent for thousands of similar “old claims,” curbing insurer tactics and promoting equitable dispute resolution in Florida’s beleaguered property insurance sector.
Looking ahead, expect appeals to the Florida Supreme Court, but the Menendez framework suggests durability. For U.S. consumers, it signals vigilance in policy reviews and timely claims, potentially inspiring similar protections elsewhere. As hurricane season peaks, this bolsters resilience against economic fallout from disasters.
Stay informed on your rights—consult an attorney for policy-specific advice. Share your experiences in the comments: Have you faced insurance claim denials in Florida? How has this ruling impacted your view of the market?