Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a statute may not be applied retroactively if it impairs a vested substantive right and that a statutory right to attorney fees is such a substantive right
• explaining that courts will reject retroactive application of new statutory enactments where the new statute “impairs a vested right, creates a new obligation, or imposes a new penalty” (emphasis added)
• providing that legislative intent for retroactive application must be \clearly expressed\
• collecting Florida caselaw and holding that a statutory amendment did not apply retroactively because it allowed “an insurer to avoid an award of attorneys’ fees, which constitutes a substantive change to the statute in effect at the time the insureds’ insurance policy was issued”’
• “[T]he statutory right to attorney’s fees is not a procedural right, but rather a substantive right.”
• “Based on our above analysis, we conclude that the statutory presuit notice provision is not ‘procedural’ and should not be given retroactive application.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).