Update, November 3, 2026: The season produced the kind of single damaging storm NOAA warned about: Hurricane Isaias struck northwest Florida as a Category 2 storm in October, and by late October potential insured losses in Florida had reached $652 million, according to the News Service of Florida. See the follow-up article on the claims now moving toward the dispute phase.

Update, August 10, 2026: NOAA’s August 6, 2026 update maintained the below-normal forecast, raising the chance of a below-normal season to 75 percent and narrowing the ranges to 7 to 13 named storms, 2 to 6 hurricanes and 0 to 2 major hurricanes.

NOAA’s National Weather Service released its outlook for the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season on May 21, at a press conference held at NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center in Lakeland, Florida [1]. Forecasters predict a 55 percent chance of a below-normal season, a 35 percent chance of a near-normal season and a 10 percent chance of an above-normal season [1]. The season runs from June 1 through November 30 [1].

What NOAA is forecasting

NOAA expects 8 to 14 named storms, of which 3 to 6 could become hurricanes, including 1 to 3 major hurricanes of Category 3 or higher, and it has 70 percent confidence in those ranges [1]. An average season produces 14 named storms, seven hurricanes and three major hurricanes [1].

The agency says its forecast reflects influences pulling in opposite directions. Forecasters expect an El Niño to form and strengthen as the season goes on, a pattern that tends to suppress storms, while Atlantic ocean temperatures are expected to be slightly warmer than normal and trade winds weaker than average, conditions that favor a more active year [1].

NOAA was careful to say what the outlook is not. It is a forecast of overall seasonal activity, not a landfall forecast, and it does not indicate where or when storms may strike [1][2]. The Climate Prediction Center adds that hurricane-related disasters can occur in any season, even years with low overall activity, and that “it only takes one hurricane (or tropical storm) to cause a disaster” [2]. National Weather Service Director Ken Graham made the same point: “It only takes one storm to make for a very bad season” [1].

NOAA also announced changes this season, including an improved forecast cone graphic from the National Hurricane Center that will show tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings for inland areas [1].

Why a quieter forecast does not mean fewer disputes

For attorneys, adjusters and policyholders in South Florida, the number that matters is not the seasonal count but whether a storm reaches a particular neighborhood. NOAA’s outlook does not predict activity for any particular location [2], and the Climate Prediction Center urges coastal and near-coastal residents, businesses and agencies to prepare for every season regardless of any outlook [2]. Disputed claims from a single storm can reach the mediation table long after the season ends.

The early weeks of a season are a good time for counsel and carriers to prepare, regardless of the forecast:

• Documentation. Pre-loss photographs, maintenance records and roof inspection reports often become central when causation or the age of damage is contested. Policyholders’ counsel can encourage clients to gather them now.
• Estimates and experts. Mediations move faster when both sides exchange estimates and engineering or causation reports before the session, rather than presenting them for the first time in caucus.
• Authority. Carriers should confirm that the representative attending mediation has settlement authority adequate to the realistic range of the claim. Sessions stall when authority has to be sought by phone.
• Remote logistics. Storm-related claims can involve parties who have relocated or are living in temporary housing. Confirming devices, connections and a quiet place to participate helps a video session run smoothly.

A season of uncertainty

NOAA’s forecast offers some reason for cautious optimism, but the agency itself urged residents to review preparedness plans now and not wait for a storm to threaten [1]. The same advice applies to the legal side of a storm: claims that are organized early tend to resolve more efficiently, whether through negotiation, appraisal, mediation or trial.

Tony Roca is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator who has conducted more than 4,000 mediations. Counsel and adjusters can check his live availability and book a mediation online, by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. NOAA predicts below-normal 2026 Atlantic hurricane season, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2. NOAA 2026 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook, NOAA Climate Prediction Center
3. NOAA maintains prediction for below-normal Atlantic hurricane season, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
4. Federal Disaster Declared for Isaias as Insured Losses Grow, Florida Trend (News Service of Florida)

General information as of November 3, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Three weeks after Hurricane Isaias came ashore near Destin as a Category 2 storm on October 9, the claims picture in Florida is coming into focus, and it points to a busy season for property insurance disputes [2]. As reported by the News Service of Florida on October 29, more than 62,000 claims tied to Isaias had been reported to the Office of Insurance Regulation, with potential insured losses in Florida climbing to $652 million [1]. More than 52,000 of those claims involve residential property [1].

The figure that stands out for claims professionals and counsel is the closure rate. As of that report, nearly 9,300 claims had closed with a payment and just over 15,000 had closed without any payment [1]. A week earlier, the counts were about 3,500 closed with payment and nearly 8,500 closed without payment [2].

Where the claims are

The losses are concentrated in the western Panhandle. Santa Rosa County accounted for almost 29,500 claims, Escambia County just over 19,000, Okaloosa County nearly 6,000, and Walton and Bay counties about 2,300 and 2,200 respectively [1]. A federal disaster declaration now covers the Panhandle counties south and west of Leon County [1].

Private modelers expect the total to grow. Moody’s RMS estimated multistate losses of $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion, and Karen Clark & Company estimated privately insured losses nationally at $3 billion, with National Flood Insurance Program claims estimated separately at about $250 million [2]. For comparison, Hurricane Milton in 2024 produced $5.6 billion in Florida losses from 385,146 claims [2].

Why closed-without-payment claims become disputes

A claim closed without payment is not necessarily a denial on the merits. It can reflect damage below the deductible, a duplicate report, or a loss that falls under a separate flood policy. But each one is also a potential dispute, and several issues tend to recur after a storm like Isaias:

• Wind versus water. A standard homeowners policy generally does not cover flood, and disagreements often arise when a storm produces both wind and surge damage and the parties dispute which caused a particular loss [3].
• Scope and pricing. Many disputes are not about coverage at all, but about the amount needed to repair a roof or interior.
• Documentation. Pre-storm photographs, repair receipts and records of communications with the carrier often decide how quickly a disagreement can be narrowed [3].

The role of mediation

For many homeowners’ claims, the state’s Department of Financial Services runs a mediation program that puts the policyholder and the insurer in front of a neutral mediator, whether the fight is over a denial, what caused the damage or how much the repairs should cost [3]. If the only dispute is what a covered loss is worth, the policy may also allow appraisal [3].

For files that move past the pre-suit stage, court-ordered or stipulated mediation in circuit court will follow. Practitioners preparing for either setting can make sessions more productive by:

1. Exchanging the estimate, photographs and any engineering report before the session rather than at it.
2. Identifying early whether the dispute is causation, scope or price, since each calls for different information in the room.
3. Confirming that the carrier representative attending has authority consistent with the dispute’s value.
4. Planning for remote participation, since many Panhandle policyholders may still be displaced or working on damaged homes.

With roughly 43 percent of residential claims already closed by late October [1], the next several months will show how many of the rest resolve in adjustment and how many move to mediation.

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator, conducts mediations by Zoom statewide. Counsel and adjusters handling storm claims can check his live availability and book a mediation online.

Sources

1. Federal Disaster Declared for Isaias as Insured Losses Grow, Florida Trend (News Service of Florida)
2. Hurricane Isaias Claims Top $580 Million, Florida Trend (News Service of Florida)
3. How homeowners can prepare for Hurricane Isaias and simplify insurance claims, WFTV

General information as of November 3, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Update, October 19, 2026: The Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt these amendments on October 16, 2026, so current Rule 1.700 remains in effect. See the follow-up article.

Florida’s civil mediation rule already allows sessions to be conducted through communication technology, but it has never said whether the participants must actually be seen [2]. A proposal now before the Florida Supreme Court would settle that question. The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee, in Case No. SC2025-2041, has asked the Court to amend Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700, the rule common to mediation and arbitration, so that any court-ordered or stipulated use of communication technology must include both audio and video [1].

What the proposed amendment says

Under the current text, an order of referral or a written stipulation may call for the mediation or arbitration to happen in person, by communication technology (a term that Rule 2.530 of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration defines), or through some mix of both. Absent direction in the order of referral, the proceeding is conducted in person [2].

The proposed rewrite keeps the in-person default. It lets the parties agree, or the judge direct, that the proceeding take place through communication technology, and it then adds a new sentence: “The communication technology must include both audio and video unless all parties stipulate or the judge finds cause” [2].

The amendment also modernizes the rule’s language without changing its basic structure. “Shall” becomes “must” throughout, “pursuant to” becomes “under,” and the 15-day windows for a motion to dispense with or to defer mediation or arbitration remain in place [2]. Mediation or arbitration continues to be tolled while a motion to defer, or a motion to disqualify the mediator or arbitrator, is pending [2].

What it would mean for remote sessions

If the Court adopts the proposal as written, a participant who joins by telephone only would fall outside the rule unless every party has agreed to that arrangement or the court has found cause [2]. The exception is drafted narrowly. It calls for a stipulation of all parties, not only the two sides most directly involved, or a judicial finding [2].

That framing raises planning questions counsel can begin addressing now, before any rule change takes effect:

• Whether an order of referral or a stipulation to mediate remotely should expressly address audio-only participation by a party, an adjuster or a corporate representative who may be traveling or working with limited connectivity.
• Whether each party representative with settlement authority will have a device and a connection that can sustain video for the full length of a session, including time spent in private caucus.
• How interpreters, co-counsel and other attendees will appear, since the proposed sentence speaks to the communication technology used for the proceeding as a whole [2].

None of these questions requires waiting for the Court. A short paragraph in the stipulation or the notice of mediation confirming that cameras will be on, or identifying anyone who has been excused, can prevent a dispute at the start of a session.

Comment period and next steps

The Court has invited all interested persons to comment on the proposal. Comments must be filed on or before May 1, 2026, with a certificate of service on the committee co-chairs and the Bar staff liaison, and the committee chair has until May 22, 2026, to respond to any comments filed [1]. Attorneys in good standing with The Florida Bar must file comments through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, and anyone who wishes to participate in any oral argument the Court may schedule must file a separate request [1]. The full text of the proposed rule, with deletions and additions marked, is reproduced in the Bar’s published notice [2].

Until the Court acts, the existing version of Rule 1.700 controls, and the terms of each order of referral or stipulation remain the best guide to how a particular remote mediation must be conducted [2]. Practitioners and mediators who conduct sessions by video may want to review the proposal and decide whether to comment before the May 1 deadline [1].

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator, conducts mediations by Zoom statewide. Counsel can check his live availability and book a mediation online.

Sources

1. Proposed amendments to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 (Rules Common to Mediation and Arbitration), The Florida Bar News
2. SC2025-2041 Publication Notice: In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700, The Florida Bar

General information as of October 19, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

On October 16, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 that would have required remote mediations and arbitrations to use both audio and video [1]. In a brief disposition, the Court said that, having considered the proposal, the comments, the response to the comments and the oral argument, it “declines to adopt the proposed rule amendments,” and closed the case [1].

The decision leaves the current rule in place. For counsel, adjusters and parties who mediate by Zoom, it also leaves an unresolved practical question: what happens when a participant turns off the camera and goes silent?

What the proposal would have done

The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed the proposal in Case No. SC2025-2041. As published for comment in March (covered in an earlier Insights article), the amended rule would have kept in-person mediation as the default, allowed the judge to order or the parties to stipulate to communication technology, and required that any remote session use both sound and picture “unless all parties stipulate or the judge finds cause” [3].

At oral argument on September 10, committee member Melisa Bodner told the justices that nearly every member of the committee had experienced a participant turning off the camera and muting during a mediation, and that mediators have little real control over a party who does so [2]. She noted that the confidential nature of mediation prevents mediators from reporting that behavior to the court [2].

Why it drew opposition

Two groups opposed the amendment: the Supreme Court’s Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy and The Florida Bar’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Section [2]. Their concerns, as reported by The Florida Bar News, included:

• Connectivity. Participants in rural areas often lack internet service that can reliably support simultaneous audio and video, and the programs warned the requirement could become a barrier to participation [2].
• Limited practical effect. Opponents argued that the rule would mostly affect opening statements, and that more participants now prefer to go directly into private caucus [2].
• Whether a rule is needed at all. Chief Justice John Couriel asked whether the issue had to be addressed by rule, and Justice Adam Tanenbaum questioned how the change would give mediators more authority than they already have [2].

The Florida Bar News also noted that the Bar’s 2022 best practices guidance for remote proceedings already states that cameras should be on and participants visible while conferring with the mediator, unless excused [2].

Practical takeaways for remote mediation

Because the Court did not adopt a statewide video requirement [1], the tools for managing participation are the ones that already exist:

1. Address it in the order or stipulation. Current Rule 1.700 allows the referral order or the parties’ stipulation to provide for mediation through communication technology [3]. Counsel who want cameras on throughout can propose that language when the mediation is scheduled.
2. Confirm attendance expectations in advance. Identifying who will attend, from where, and on what device reduces disputes about whether a party with settlement authority is actually present.
3. Plan for connectivity. For parties with limited broadband, a phone dial-in backup or a location with reliable service avoids losing time mid-session.
4. Use caucus deliberately. If a participant disengages, a private session with that side is often the most direct way to find out why and to re-establish momentum.

Remote mediation remains the norm for much of Florida’s civil docket, and the Court’s decision [1] keeps flexibility in the hands of the parties and the mediator rather than a fixed rule.

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator with more than 4,000 mediations, conducts sessions by Zoom statewide. Counsel can check his live availability and book a mediation online.

Sources

1. In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700, Case No. SC2025-2041 (disposition, declined), Supreme Court of Florida (ACIS docket)
2. Remote mediation rule draws concerns over cameras, connectivity, The Florida Bar News
3. Proposed amendments to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 (Rules Common to Mediation and Arbitration), The Florida Bar

General information as of October 19, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Update, October 7, 2026: On October 1, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt further Rule 1.442 amendments proposed by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, including a new procedure for enforcing accepted proposals, because they appeared to touch on substantive law. As The Florida Bar News reported, the Court left that question to the Legislature, so the rule as amended effective January 1, 2026, remains in place.

Update, July 8, 2026: In Trace Elements, Inc. v. Mackensen, decided July 2, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court held that rule 1.442(c)(3) requires a joint proposal to apportion the settlement amount even when it involves a single, unified claim. Joint proposals that do not apportion the amount risk being found invalid.

On November 13, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 (Proposals for Settlement), along with form 1.902 (Summons) and form 1.938 (Forcible Entry and Detention) [1]. The amendments take effect January 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. [1]. Because proposals for settlement so often shape what happens at mediation, the opinion deserves attention from trial counsel, claims professionals and mediators alike.

How the Amendments Came About

The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed the proposal, and both the Committee and the Court published it for comment [1]. The Florida Bar News carried the publication notice in April 2025 [2]. The Court received one comment, the Committee revised its proposal in response, and the Court adopted the revised version [1]. Many of the changes conform the rule to the Court’s guidelines for rules submissions in Administrative Order AOSC22-78 [1], which is why the familiar “shall” now reads “may” or “must” throughout the rule [1].

Those edits are largely stylistic, but rule language is where proposal disputes are won and lost, so practitioners should work from the amended text as of January 1.

The Timing Rules Still Control

The core deadlines are unchanged in substance. A proposal directed to a defendant cannot be served until 90 days have passed since that defendant was served with process, and one directed to a plaintiff cannot be served until 90 days after the case was commenced [1]. The window closes 45 days before the trial date or the opening of the trial docket, whichever falls first [1].

Acceptance is equally strict. Unless the receiving party delivers a written notice of acceptance within 30 days of being served, the proposal is treated as rejected, and the additional-time provision of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.514(b) does not apply [1]. Under the amended wording, oral communications will not be considered an acceptance, rejection or counteroffer [1].

Mediation Does Not Stop the Clock

For mediation practice, the most important sentence in the rule may be its last. The rule states that mediation has “no effect on the dates during which parties are permitted to make or accept a proposal for settlement” [1]. A proposal served two weeks before a scheduled mediation keeps running through the session, and an impasse does not extend the 30-day acceptance window.

That has practical consequences:

• Calendar the acceptance deadline before the session. Counsel and adjusters should know exactly how many days remain on any outstanding proposal when they arrive at mediation.
• Get authority in writing. Because oral communications do not count as acceptance [1], a verbal “yes” at the table does not accept a pending proposal. Any acceptance should be delivered in writing within the deadline.
• Address fees expressly. A proposal must state whether it includes attorneys’ fees and whether fees are part of the legal claim, and the amended rule ties the requirement that a proposal resolve all damages to that fee provision [1]. Settlement terms negotiated at mediation should be equally clear about fees and costs.
• Keep the proposal and the mediation separate on the record. A court may receive a proposal or its acceptance into evidence only when enforcing an accepted proposal or deciding sanctions [1], and a party seeking sanctions must serve a motion under rule 1.525 [1].

Summons and possession forms. The Court also revised form 1.902 to make clear that a defendant answering a summons in writing can file either with the clerk or through the Florida Courts E-filing Portal, and must list an e-mail address for service unless the clerk has granted an exemption from electronic service [1]. The revised summons refers defendants seeking help to The Florida Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service or local legal aid programs [1]. Form 1.938 now requires the plaintiff to disclose the property’s legal description and address if available, how the defendant obtained possession, and whether the plaintiff owns the property or is otherwise entitled to possession [1].

None of these amendments changes the strategic role a well-timed proposal plays in moving a case toward resolution. They do reinforce that the proposal process runs on its own track, independent of mediation. Parties who coordinate the two, rather than treating them as one, tend to arrive at the table with a clearer view of risk.

Counsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and Forms 1.902 and 1.938, No. SC2025-0045, Supreme Court of Florida
2. Proposed amendments to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 (Proposals for Settlement) and Forms 1.902 (Summons) and 1.938 (Forcible Entry and Detention), The Florida Bar News
3. Trace Elements, Inc. v. Mackensen, No. SC2024-1274 (Fla. 2026), Justia
4. In re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, No. SC2026-0170, Supreme Court of Florida
5. Justices say Legislature should decide settlement enforcement, The Florida Bar News

General information as of October 7, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Court-ordered non-binding arbitration is supposed to be a low-risk step toward resolution. A losing party who wants a trial simply asks for one. Since 2024, however, the way that request is worded has become a trap. On August 21, 2026, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal held in The Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association, Inc. v. Reynolds Ventures, Inc. that a timely request for trial de novo gave adequate notice that the association rejected the arbitration award, even without the words “notice of rejection” [1]. The court certified conflict with decisions of the Third and Fourth Districts [1].

The rule change behind the dispute

In June 2024, the Florida Supreme Court retitled Rule 1.820(h) “Notice of Rejection of the Arbitration Decision and Request for Trial” [2]. Under the amended rule, the arbitration decision counts as rejected only when a party files a “notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial” no more than 20 days after the arbitrator’s written decision is served [2]. The rule also states that no action or inaction, other than filing the notice, will be deemed a rejection [1].

The Fourth District applied that language strictly in People’s Trust Insurance Co. v. Hernandez, holding that a homeowners’ demand for trial de novo was not enough without an express rejection [1]. The Third District followed in Sanchez v. People’s Trust Insurance Co., declining to apply a substantial compliance test [1].

What happened in Waterfront

The association’s Naples condominium was damaged in Hurricane Ian, and it hired Reynolds Ventures for water and mold remediation [1]. When the association refused to pay the final invoice, Reynolds recorded a construction lien and sued for breach of contract, lien foreclosure and unjust enrichment [1]. The case went to non-binding arbitration, and 20 days after the decision, the association filed a “Motion and Request for Trial De Novo” citing section 44.103(5) and Rule 1.820(h), “as to all claims” [1].

The parties then kept litigating. Reynolds amended its complaint, and the association filed counterclaims, an exhibit list and a pretrial statement [1]. At a hearing on a different motion, the trial judge raised the amended rule on her own, ruled that the filing had to be called a rejection, unsealed the award and entered judgment on it [1].

The Sixth District’s reasoning

The Sixth District reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits [1]. Applying textualist principles, the court declined to adopt what it called a “magic-words test” [1]. It noted that the rule requires “a notice,” not a specific form of notice, and that the words “notice of rejection” are not defined, quoted or capitalized in the rule [1]. Using ordinary dictionary meanings, the court concluded that a document requesting trial de novo from a specific award “as to all claims” announced that the association refused to accept the decision [1].

The court emphasized that it was not reviving substantial compliance based on a party’s conduct; its holding turned on the content of a document timely filed under the rule [1]. It also found that the association complied with section 44.103(5), which makes an award final only if a request for trial de novo is not timely filed [1].

What practitioners should do now

The law is unsettled. A proposal pending before the Florida Supreme Court in Case No. SC2026-0040 would require only a written request for trial to reject an arbitrator’s decision and would direct that a timely request “be construed so as to do substantial justice” [3]. Until the Court acts, the safest course is plain:

• Use the full title. Caption the filing with the rule’s full title, “Notice of Rejection of the Arbitration Decision and Request for Trial,” and state both in the body [2].
• Calendar the 20 days from service. The deadline runs from service of the arbitrator’s written decision [2].
• Check the district. Outcomes currently differ between the Third, Fourth and Sixth Districts [1].
• Use the interval wisely. The period after an arbitration decision is often a productive time to mediate, while both sides have a neutral’s view of the merits in hand.

Counsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator for construction, condominium or insurance disputes can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. The Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association, Inc. v. Reynolds Ventures, Inc., Nos. 6D2025-0623, 6D2025-0624, Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal (via CourtListener)
2. In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, No. SC2022-1719, Supreme Court of Florida (via FindLaw)
3. Proposed amendments to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 (Hearing Procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration), Case No. SC2026-0040, The Florida Bar

General information as of August 24, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Florida has long accounted for a share of the nation’s homeowners insurance lawsuits far out of proportion to its share of claims. The latest data from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) shows that gap narrowing quickly. As reported by Insurance Business on July 23, Florida’s share of nationwide homeowners insurance lawsuits dropped from 79 percent in 2020 to 41 percent in 2025, while its share of national homeowners claims fell to under 5 percent [1].

The figures come from OIR’s semiannual Property Insurance Stability Report dated July 1, 2026, which tracks litigation practices, premiums, profitability and reinsurance in the residential market [2]. For mediators, defense counsel, policyholder counsel and adjusters, the report offers a useful look at where disputes are going and where they are still concentrated.

Fewer new suits, but litigation is not gone

OIR’s preliminary 2025 market conduct data shows 41.29 percent of nationwide homeowners suits opened in Florida, down from 73.15 percent in 2024 [2]. Personal residential lawsuits served on property insurers through the Department of Financial Services fell 23 percent from 2023 to 2024 and 25 percent from 2024 to 2025, and the first five months of 2026 showed a further 25 percent decline compared with the same period a year earlier [2]. Assignment-of-benefits suits have nearly disappeared from the data [2].

OIR attributes the change to the Legislature’s reforms, including SB 76 (2021), SB 2-A (2022) and HB 837 (2023), which repealed the one-way attorney fee statutes with limited exceptions and restricted contingency fee multipliers [2].

Still, the claims lifecycle data shows litigation remains a significant cost. Of 456,200 claims closed in 2025, 53,413 were litigated, about 12 percent [1][2]. Average loss adjustment expense on a litigated claim was $15,257, compared with $2,044 on a non-litigated claim [1].

South Florida remains the outlier

The regional split matters for practitioners in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. According to the report’s figures, those three counties recorded a 27.27 percent litigated claims rate, compared with 8.16 percent in the rest of the state [1]. Among all perils, windstorm and hail claims ended up in litigation most often, at a rate of 16.44 percent [1].

In other words, the statewide decline has not erased the South Florida litigation pipeline. Files already in suit, and new disputes over roof damage, causation and scope of repairs, continue to need a path to resolution.

Implications for mediation practice

Several points stand out for counsel and claims professionals preparing for mediation in the current market:

• The economics favor early resolution. A roughly sevenfold difference in average adjustment expense between litigated and non-litigated claims [1] gives both sides a concrete reason to resolve disputes before discovery costs accumulate.
• Fee leverage has shifted. With one-way fees largely repealed [2], policyholder counsel and insurers are evaluating settlement value with different fee assumptions than in prior years. Mediators can help parties test those assumptions in caucus.
• Market stability affects authority. OIR reports a pooled combined ratio of 83 percent for domestic property insurers in 2025, the lowest in more than a decade, and 21 new companies approved to write residential policies since the reforms [2]. A healthier market may make carriers more willing to resolve aged inventory, though authority still varies widely by company.
• Pre-suit tools remain available. Notices of intent to initiate litigation, which must precede a property insurance suit, continued to decline through April 2026 [2], which suggests more disputes are being handled, or abandoned, before a complaint is filed.

With hurricane season underway, the volume of new claims later this year will test whether these trends hold. Either way, a substantial number of South Florida property disputes will continue to land at the mediation table.

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator, conducts mediations by Zoom statewide. Counsel and adjusters can check his live availability and book a mediation online.

Sources

1. Florida homeowners insurance lawsuit share drops to 41% after reform push, Insurance Business
2. Property Insurance Stability Report, July 1, 2026, Florida Office of Insurance Regulation

General information as of July 28, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

On March 12, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.710, the rule that lists which appellate matters may never be sent to mediation [1]. The change is small in text but practical in effect: petitions seeking certiorari review of quasi-judicial decisions by local governments can now be referred to appellate mediation [1]. The amendment takes effect July 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. [1].

What Changed

Rule 9.710 allows a court to refer any case to mediation at its discretion, except for listed categories [2]. One of those categories has been extraordinary writ petitions [2]. As amended, subdivision (b) now carves out petitions filed under rule 9.100(c)(2) from that prohibition [1]. The Court also deleted the reference to habeas corpus in subdivision (b) as superfluous [1].

The other categories that cannot be referred remain: criminal and postconviction cases, civil or criminal contempt, involuntary civil commitments of sexually violent predators, collateral criminal cases, and other matters specified by administrative order [2].

The amendment came from The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee, responding to a letter in which the Court asked the Committee to consider whether any subset of certiorari cases has unique justifications for referral to appellate mediation [2]. The Court published the proposal for comment, with comments due December 1, 2025 [2]. A supporting comment came from the Court’s Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy, and the Court adopted the amendment as proposed [1].

Which Cases Are Affected

Rule 9.100(c)(2) governs certiorari petitions challenging quasi-judicial decisions made by local government agencies, boards and commissions, where general law provides no direct appeal from the decision [3]. Those petitions must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order under review [3].

These petitions challenge decisions that local boards and commissions make while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, where no other route of appeal is provided by general law [3]. Disputes of this kind can involve a property owner, neighbors and a local government, each with interests that a single up-or-down ruling on the petition may not fully address. A negotiated outcome, such as revised conditions on an approval, can sometimes resolve what a certiorari ruling cannot.

How Appellate Mediation Works

The appellate mediation rules reach every level of appellate review: the Supreme Court, the district courts of appeal, and circuit courts when they sit in an appellate capacity under rule 9.030(c) [3]. Key features:

• Referral. The court may refer a case on its own motion or a party’s motion at any time, and a party’s motion must certify that the movant consulted the other side and state whether it objects [3].
• Timing. The first conference must begin within 45 days of referral, unless the parties agree to wait until briefing ends, and mediation must be completed within 30 days of the first conference, subject to court order [3].
• Tolling. Unless otherwise ordered, appellate deadlines are tolled from referral until mediation ends [3].
• Public entities. A public entity that must conduct business under chapter 286, Florida Statutes, appears through the physical presence of a representative with full authority to negotiate and to recommend settlement to the entity’s decision-making body [3].
• Mediator. Once a case is referred, the parties may stipulate to a certified appellate mediator, or the court will appoint one [3].

Practical Takeaways

The public entity rule deserves attention in these cases. Because a local government’s representative can only recommend a settlement to its governing body, any agreement will likely need a later public vote [3]. Counsel should plan for that step, including the timing of the next available commission meeting, when proposing terms.

Counsel should also think about settlement before the petition is filed. The appellate rules do not stop parties from pursuing resolution with a mediator of their choosing before a referral order [3]. With a 30-day filing window [3], early discussion with the local government’s attorney can help frame what a mediated outcome might look like.

For land use, code enforcement and other local government disputes still at the trial level or before a petition is filed, counsel can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.710, No. SC2025-1415, Supreme Court of Florida
2. Proposed amendments to Rule 9.710 (Eligibility for Mediation), The Florida Bar News
3. Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (January 1, 2019 edition), The Florida Bar, hosted by Florida Courts

General information as of March 12, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.