People's Trust Insurance walked away with two Florida appellate wins on the same day – both turning on homeowners who skipped a procedural step.
On May 13, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal and the Fourth District Court of Appeal each ruled for the carrier in property insurance disputes brought by homeowners.
The first case, Yasmani Sanchez v. People's Trust Insurance Company, began as a breach of contract claim over an alleged wind loss on a homeowner's policy. The trial court sent the dispute to non-binding arbitration. The arbitrator sided with the insurer, finding that People's Trust owed Sanchez nothing.
Two days later, Sanchez filed a motion for trial de novo, asking for a full court trial. But the motion cited an outdated version of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h) and left out the one thing the amended rule now requires – an explicit notice rejecting the arbitration decision.
Two months before the arbitrator ruled, the Florida Supreme Court had rewritten Rule 1.820(h). The new version, retitled to reflect both a notice of rejection and a request for trial, demands both pieces in the same document, filed within 20 days of the arbitrator's written decision. The rule is blunt – nothing else counts as a rejection. Only the filing of the notice itself.
Sanchez's motion did not include any rejection language. An amended motion adding it landed on January 14, 2025, well past the 20-day window. People's Trust moved to enter the arbitrator's decision as final judgment. The trial court agreed.
On appeal, Sanchez argued substantial compliance – her motion cited both the rule and section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes, which she said left no doubt about her intent. Judge Lindsey, writing for the Third DCA panel, said that argument directly contradicted the rule's text. The court leaned on a strict reading of the statute and joined the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which had already rejected the same argument in another People's Trust case, Hernandez, 413 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
The court added that Sanchez did not provide a transcript of the hearing that produced the trial court's ruling, which on its own makes reversal hard. In the court's view, the amended rule is a bright line that homeowners are expected to follow.
The second case, Yarima Moreno v. People's Trust Insurance Company, turned on a different statute but the same theme. Moreno filed a property damage claim, sent the required presuit notice of intent to litigate under section 627.70152(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and then filed suit. She later voluntarily dismissed that suit for reasons unrelated to the appeal.
Then she refiled an identical lawsuit. She did not send a second presuit notice.
People's Trust moved to dismiss, arguing the statute is suit-specific – a new notice is required for each new suit. Moreno argued the statute is claim-specific, and one notice covers the claim no matter how many times it goes to court. The trial court dismissed the second suit without prejudice. Moreno appealed.
The Fourth DCA framed the question at the top of the opinion – when does a homeowner have to comply with a presuit notice of intent? The answer: any time the homeowner files a new suit.
Judge May, writing for the panel, walked through the statute. Section 627.70152(3)(a) makes presuit notice a condition precedent to filing a property insurance lawsuit. The notice has to include a presuit settlement demand itemizing damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
That itemization is the hinge. A notice filed before the first suit cannot include the attorney's fees from the first suit. A second demand would necessarily include any damages, fees, and costs racked up after the first lawsuit was filed. Accepting Moreno's reading, the court said, would let plaintiffs refile without giving insurers a fresh look at an updated demand – which is the whole point of the statute.
The court distinguished Kuper v. Perry, 718 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a sovereign immunity case where a refiled suit did not require a new notice. The difference came down to wording - that statute targets the claim itself, while section 627.70152 is built around the presuit settlement demand, which changes from one suit to the next.
For carriers, the two rulings line up neatly. Both treat the procedural requirements as bright lines. Both reject the softer compliance arguments that would let plaintiffs slide past the text. Both give Florida property insurers a clean basis to push for dismissal or final judgment when policyholders cut corners on procedure.
One thing to watch from the Sanchez decision – the Florida Supreme Court is weighing another amendment to Rule 1.820 in case SC2026-0040 that, if adopted, would likely loosen the rule back toward its earlier form.
For now, both rulings stand. So do the judgments for People's Trust.
