a reviewing court must ascertain (1) whether the Legislature clearly expressed its intent that the statute have retroactive application; and if so, (2) whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles. See Old Port Cove Holdings, Inc. v. Old Port Cove Condo. Ass’n One, 986 So.2d 1279, 1284 (Fla.2008) (quoting Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Hous. Corp., 737 So.2d 494, 499 (Fla.1999)); see also Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 35 So.3d 873, 877 (Fla.2010). With respect to the first prong, the Legislature did not clearly express an intent that section 1012.795(l)(n) apply retroactively. Substantive statutes are presumed to apply prospectively, absent a demonstrated legislative intent to the contrary. See Metro. Dade County, 737 So.2d at 499 (<HOLDING>); see also Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
holding that statutory language is conclusive in absence of clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary  holding that a patent is presumed valid until the contrary is shown holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law holding that the narrowing of the use of parnar claims only applies absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary and citing to hrs  37869 as an example of such legislative intent holding the general rule is that in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary a law affecting substantive rights liabilities and duties is presumed to apply prospectively