Florida Justice Reform Institute

Term Limits for Supreme Court, Appeals Judges Clear the House, if Barely

/in

 

Term limits for Supreme Court, appeals judges clear the House, if barely

MICHAEL MOLINE March 29, 2017, 4:23 pm

A proposed constitutional amendment to impose term limits on justices of the Florida Supreme Court and state appellate judges squeaked through the Florida House Wednesday after a majority defeated a series of unfriendly — even sarcastic — amendments.

HJR 1, by Eustis Republican Jennifer Sullivan, won 73 “Yes” votes — one more than the three-fifths support it needed. Forty-six members voted “No.”

The measure would limit judges of the district courts of appeal and justices of the Supreme Court to 12 years in office.

Sullivan argued Florida’s merit-retention system for appellate judges isn’t accountable because the voters have never tossed out a judge.

A number of Democrats argued the real motivation was to rein in a judiciary that has thwarted legislative initiatives.

The measure is “short-sighted and punitive, an “assault on a co-equal branch of government,” Democrat Evan Jenne said.

“And the only sin of that co-equal branch is providing a check and balance when the Legislature runs afoul of the Constitution — which, unfortunately, happens more than even I would like to admit,” Jenne said.

Following the vote, Jenne said he learned the House leadership would move for a final vote only when he arrived on the floor. Democrats opted not to try to block the move, reasoning the measure won’t pass the Senate. A companion measure, SJR 482, has yet to be heard in committee.

“It’s a dead bill,” Jenne said. “We’ve wasted enough time on a dead bill that isn’t going anywhere.”

Tampa Democrat Sean Shaw described the abuse directed at his father, the late Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw, while running for retention following an abortion ruling. The family received racist material in the mail, and pictures of dead babies.

 “I’m being told on this floor. ‘That’s not accountable.’ That doesn’t make any sense to me.”

 Republicans defended the proposal. Larry Metz, an attorney from Yalaha, argued that appellate judges set policy and need to be held accountable.

“That tells you we are doing what is right. And neither special interest hand-wringing nor political influence will stop the House from doing what is right. It boils down to this — we believe that no government job should be for life.”

The Florida Justice Reform Institute issued its own statement.

“Term limits are not going to ensure the best judges are on the bench,” said William Large, the group’s president.

“Instead they will only ensure that the best and brightest Florida lawyers rarely apply, and even when good judges manage to end up on the bench, they will be kicked off just as they are gaining the institutional knowledge and experience that make for great judges.”

Sullivan warded off 13 of amendments by Jared Moskowitz, a Democratic attorney from Coral Springs, that frankly made a mockery of her proposal.

Moskowitz proposed extending Supreme Court terms to 28, then 24, then 20 years, then 16, then eight.

To extend term limits to trial judges. To require ex-judges to publicly disclose their clients. To bar them from appearing before their old jurisdiction for two years.

He ended up withdrawing the amendments he didn’t withdraw Moskowitiz’s point, he said, was that the proposal would be a mistake and the 12-year limit aribitrary.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/234982-term-limits

Florida Justice Reform Institute

House Approves Judicial Term Limits

/in

 

House Approves Judicial Term Limits

By BRANDON LARRABEE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA
March 29, 2017 – 7:30pm

   

The Florida House on Wednesday narrowly approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit Supreme Court justices and appeals-court judges to two consecutive terms in office, sending a major priority of Speaker Richard Corcoran to an uncertain fate in the Senate.

House members voted to approve the measure (HJR 1) on a 73-46 vote nearly along party lines. It takes 72 votes to pass a constitutional amendment through the House.

Six Republicans — Reps. Eric Eisnaugle of Orlando, Jay Fant of Jacksonville, Joe Gruters of Sarasota, Don Hahnfeldt of The Villages, George Moraitis of Fort Lauderdale and Dan Raulerson of Plant City — joined Democrats in opposing the measure.

If adopted by the Senate and the voters in a November 2018 referendum, the proposal would essentially limit most judges to between 12 and 15 years in office. Service of current District Court of Appeal judges and Supreme Court justices before 2019 would not count toward their term limits.

Appellate judges in Florida aren’t directly elected but go on the ballot every six years in retention elections for up-or-down votes.

Legal organizations across the political spectrum have opposed the legislation, but Corcoran, R-Land O’ Lakes, brushed that off in a statement issued by his office after the vote.

“That tells you we are doing what is right,” Corcoran said. “And neither special interest hand-wringing nor political influence will stop the House from doing what is right. It boils down to this — we believe that no government job should be for life.”

But opponents argued that the measure was aimed at weakening the judicial branch after a string of Supreme Court rulings that have stymied Republicans who dominate state government. Many of those rulings have been issued by majorities featuring long-serving Democratic appointees.

“At the end of this day, the bill will have one major chilling effect: a less-independent judiciary beholden to the executive and legislative branches,” said Rep. Evan Jenne, D-Dania Beach.

Debate over the measure was wide-ranging, with lawmakers discussing their favorite installments of the Federalist Papers and the federal court-packing scheme advanced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In addition to questions about judicial independence, opponents of the measure say term limits would discourage young lawyers from applying for court openings, because they would be forced to rebuild their practices after roughly 12 years of service.

Critics also contend that more experienced judges shouldn’t be pushed off the courts.

“Term limits are not going to ensure the best judges are on the bench,” William Large, president of the conservative Florida Justice Reform Institute, wrote in a letter to lawmakers ahead of the vote. “Instead they will only ensure that the best and brightest Florida lawyers rarely apply, and even when good judges manage to end up on the bench, they will be kicked off just as they are gaining the institutional knowledge and experience that make for great judges.”

But supporters argued that the proposal would bring more accountability to the judiciary and make it more responsive to the people.

Rep. Jennifer Sullivan, a Mount Dora Republican who sponsored the proposal, underscored that no appellate judge has ever lost a retention election.

“An accountability system which doesn’t hold people accountable is not truly an accountability system,” Sullivan said. “Retention elections are not an effective check and balance on the appellate courts, and it’s time for a new approach.”

The constitutional amendment faces stiff opposition in the Senate, though, where other judicial changes approved by the House in recent years have been watered down or rejected. Republican leaders in the chamber have already signaled they have concerns about the new proposal.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/house-approves-judicial-term-limits

Florida Justice Reform Institute

House Approves Judicial Term Limits

/in

 

News Service of FL

House Approves Judicial Term Limits

3/29/2017                                                                                                            Brandon Larrabee

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, March 29, 2017……… The Florida House on Wednesday narrowly approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit Supreme Court justices and appeals-court judges to two consecutive terms in office, sending a major priority of Speaker Richard Corcoran to an uncertain fate in the Senate.

House members voted to approve the measure (HJR 1) on a 73-46 vote nearly along party lines. It takes 72 votes to pass a constitutional amendment through the House.

Six Republicans — Reps. Eric Eisnaugle of Orlando, Jay Fant of Jacksonville, Joe Gruters of Sarasota, Don Hahnfeldt of The Villages, George Moraitis of Fort Lauderdale and Dan Raulerson of Plant City — joined Democrats in opposing the measure.

If adopted by the Senate and the voters in a November 2018 referendum, the proposal would essentially limit most judges to between 12 and 15 years in office. Service of current District Court of Appeal judges and Supreme Court justices before 2019 would not count toward their term limits.

Appellate judges in Florida aren’t directly elected but go on the ballot every six years in retention elections for up-or-down votes.

Legal organizations across the political spectrum have opposed the legislation, but Corcoran, R-Land O’ Lakes, brushed that off in a statement issued by his office after the vote.

“That tells you we are doing what is right,” Corcoran said. “And neither special interest hand-wringing nor political influence will stop the House from doing what is right. It boils down to this — we believe that no government job should be for life.”

But opponents argued that the measure was aimed at weakening the judicial branch after a string of Supreme Court rulings that have stymied Republicans who dominate state government. Many of those rulings have been issued by majorities featuring long-serving Democratic appointees.

“At the end of this day, the bill will have one major chilling effect: a less-independent judiciary beholden to the executive and legislative branches,” said Rep. Evan Jenne, D-Dania Beach.

Debate over the measure was wide-ranging, with lawmakers discussing their favorite installments of the Federalist Papers and the federal court-packing scheme advanced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In addition to questions about judicial independence, opponents of the measure say term limits would discourage young lawyers from applying for court openings, because they would be forced to rebuild their practices after roughly 12 years of service.

Critics also contend that more experienced judges shouldn’t be pushed off the courts.

“Term limits are not going to ensure the best judges are on the bench,” William Large, president of the conservative Florida Justice Reform Institute, wrote in a letter to lawmakers ahead of the vote. “Instead they will only ensure that the best and brightest Florida lawyers rarely apply, and even when good judges manage to end up on the bench, they will be kicked off just as they are gaining the institutional knowledge and experience that make for great judges.”

But supporters argued that the proposal would bring more accountability to the judiciary and make it more responsive to the people.

Rep. Jennifer Sullivan, a Mount Dora Republican who sponsored the proposal, underscored that no appellate judge has ever lost a retention election.

“An accountability system which doesn’t hold people accountable is not truly an accountability system,” Sullivan said. “Retention elections are not an effective check and balance on the appellate courts, and it’s time for a new approach.”

The constitutional amendment faces stiff opposition in the Senate, though, where other judicial changes approved by the House in recent years have been watered down or rejected. Republican leaders in the chamber have already signaled they have concerns about the new proposal.

–END– 3/29/2017

https://new.newsserviceflorida.com/app/post.html?postID=24302 

Florida Justice Reform Institute

House panel OKs bill to eliminate long standing PIP program, despite opposition

/in

 

Politico

House panel OKs bill to eliminate long standing PIP program, despite opposition

03/27/2017 05:08 PM EDT

Cars

In lieu of the PIP policy drivers will instead be required to carry aminimum bodily injury policy
of $25,000 and $50,000 for bodilyinjury or death to two or more persons. Getty

TALLAHASSEE—The House Insurance and Banking Committee on Monday approved HB 1063,which eliminates Florida’s long-standing law requiring drivers to carry $10,000 of personal injury protection insurance and along with it the no-fault program that provides people access to health care for injuries stemming from automobile accidents without having to first file a lawsuit sue in court.

In lieu of the PIP policy drivers will instead be required to carry a minimum bodily injury policy of $25,000 and $50,000 for bodily injury or death to two or more persons.

State Rep. Erin Grall, a Vero Beach Republican and sponsor of the bill, told the committee that the PIP system is rampant with fraud and that Florida several times has tried to respond to that by altering the program. In 2012, to address increasing PIP costs, the Legislature limited the dollar amount of PIP coverage for an accident to $2,500 unless the injuries required emergency attention.

To underscore the problems with fraud, Grall told the committee that before the changes 60 percent of the injuries stemming from car accidents were considered non-emergency. Since the change, she said, 4 percent of claims filed are for non-emergency medical conditions.

“It just gets tweaked in a different way and we squeeze it in different parts,” she said.

Pinnacle released a report in September that showed the sweeping changes made to the state’s mandatory personal injury protection yielded an average 15.1 percent savings in PIP auto insurance premiums. The report estimates that eliminating the PIP requirement would generate an overall reduction of about $81 annually per car for the average driver.

Several insurance lobbyists who testified on Monday expressed concern that HB 1063 would eliminate the no-fault system and require drivers to sue for benefits, but that the proposal does not make any changes to the state’s third- party bad faith laws.

“Right now, in cases where a policyholder has low policy limits and is sued on a claim with clear liability and big damages, the plaintiff’s lawyer doesn’t settle the case for those low policy limits,” William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute said in a statement. “Instead, they set arbitrary and unreasonable time frames and multi-conditional demands, making it impossible to settle an undisputed claim. The result is lucrative multi-million dollar settlements and payouts that greatly exceed policy limits of policyholders. That would only get worse under a system of mandatory bodily injury insurance.”

But Grall called bad faith a separate issue and said that the Legislature should be mindful of the details of the decision to eliminate PIP and replace it with a new system. The Legislature “can’t anticipate a problem that does not yet exist.”

Lobbyists representing health care providers, though, opposed the bill, including the Florida Medical Association and the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association. They said health care providers wouldn’t be paid for providing needed health care services. Additionally there were concerns that there would be increases to health insurance as injured drivers turned to their health insurance policies to cover their health care needs as opposed to filing a lawsuit in court.

Florida’s financial responsibility laws currently require drivers involved in an accident to prove that they have the ability to pay monetary damages in the amount of at least $10,000 for injury or death for one person and $20,000 for injury or death to two people as well as $10,000 in property damage.

The bill does not change financial responsibility for property damage but it does increase the minimum coverage requirements for bodily damages.

According to staff analysis, Florida is one of 17 states (including the District of Columbia) with mandatory PIP requirements. But only nine states, including Florida, have compulsory PIP laws and no fault laws. Five states including Texas, which does not have a compulsory PIP law, allows drivers the option to choose no fault protections.

Policies issued on or after January 1, 2018 would be precluded from selling PIP coverage, which provides drivers with lost wages and health care costs.

During her closing remarks, Grall told the committee that she would be open to eliminating bad faith but only if there was a mandatory rate rollback, a move insurers traditionally have opposed.

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2017/03/house-panel-oks-bill-to-eliminate-long-standing-pip-program-despite-opposition-110729 

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Trial Lawyers Gaining Influence at Statehouse, Florida Justice Reform Institute Says

/in

 

Trial lawyers gaining influence at statehouse, Florida Justice Reform Institute says

by Taryn Phaneuf | Mar. 25, 2017, 5:26pm

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — It has been a busy legislative session for the Florida Justice Reform Institute (FJRI), a lobbying group that encourages state lawmakers to curb litigation abuse that hurts businesses in the state.

This year, the group’s list of bills to combat outweighs the short list of those to champion.

The FJRI only supports six of the 25 bills that it has taken a formal position on during this session. It opposes the other 19, which cover a range of issues, including exposing health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to vicarious liability for medical malpractice, mandating prejudgment interest on awards and creating a cause of action that would allow a woman to sue a doctor for physical and emotional injury resulting from an abortion.

To William Large, FJRI president, the lopsided nature of his watchlist this session is proof that trial attorneys in Florida have gained influence in the statehouse. The volume of proposed legislation demonstrates that the legislature has different priorities than it has had in prior years – priorities that Large believes don’t favor civil justice reform.

“I do get the sense that the trial bar is in a good enough position that they’re trying a number of things across a broad front,” Large told the Florida Record.

The abortion bill, which Large said is “litigation in disguise,” shows that the trial bar is using social issues to build support for its agenda.

The FJRI is in favor of bills covering three legal reform issues, including accuracy in damages (H.B. 583 and S.B. 146), medical malpractice (H.B. 537 and S.B. 384) and assignment of benefits (H.B. 1421 and S.B. 1038).

The assignment of benefits (AOBs) bills address longtime insurance litigation abuse that causes premiums to rise while bringing a lot of business to a handful of law firms. There have been four previous attempts to pass legislation that reins in the misuse of AOB provisions in insurance policies.

Under an AOB, a policyholder gives up the right to a present claims against someone who performs repairs. Abuse occurs when the other party inflates the price of repairs and then sues the insurance company if it refuses to pay.

Of the legislation FJRI opposes, two bills top the list.

H.B. 675 and S.B. 262 delete a provision of a statute that says HMOs can’t be held vicariously liable for medical negligence, except in certain circumstances. The way supporters see it, HMOs are making treatment decisions, so they should be held responsible if negligence occurs. But opponents, including the FJRI, see it as an overextension of medical malpractice principles that would be detrimental to the industry.

The FJRI also opposes a bill that would mandate that prejudgment interest starts accruing from the time the claim is asserted. The mandate would increase the threat of higher-cost litigation and the pressure to settle. The bill was introduced in previous sessions.

“In years past, that bill went nowhere,” Large said. “This year, it has been flying.”

http://flarecord.com/stories/511097137-trial-lawyers-gaining-influence-at-statehouse-florida-justice-reform-institute-says

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Subcommittee to Hold PIP Reform Hearing Monday; Moves to Get Bad Faith Reform in the Mix May Be Sidelined

/in

 

Florida subcommittee to hold PIP reform hearing Monday; Moves to get bad faith reform in the mix may be sidelined

by Nicholas Gueguen | Mar. 24, 2017, 5:32pm

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida House of Representatives Banking and Insurance Subcommittee will hold a hearing Monday involving reform of auto insurance personal injury protection (PIP) which could lead to a showdown between pro-reformers and the trial bar over the move to work bad faith litigation reform into the mix.

Possibly anticipating that reformers would seek to add a bad faith amendment to PIP reform, House Speaker Richard Corcoran appears to be putting on the brakes.

A Tallahassee source familiar with the tension between the two sides said he believes Corcoran wants “all interested parties to hold off on amendments at this stage of the process.”

The source said that Corcoran has given an assurance that there will be a full opportunity to discuss adding bad faith language before the next full committee hearing.

Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large told the Florida Record that PIP, which was intended to be a no-fault system for auto insurance, has turned into a system of “setups and gotchas, making the product expensive and of little value to the average driver.

He said the original intent of PIP was good – it promised to avoid the use of attorneys and excess litigation while covering an injured policy holder’s medical and other expenses – but the system which has been in place since the 1970s is no longer functional.

Large has said that third-party bad faith law needs amending. Abuses have occurred, he said, when plaintiffs’ attorneys choose not to settle bodily injury cases that have low policy limits, instead they go forward with a trial in hopes of a big verdict, followed by a third party bad faith lawsuit against the insurer. 

Florida has tried several times unsuccessfully to fix PIP in the past, according to Large.

 “Now is the time to admit that PIP can’t be fixed,” Large said. “The legislature should repeal PIP and replace it with mandatory, at-fault bodily injury auto insurance. That coverage pays the injured party if the policyholder causes an automobile accident and is sued.”

He said that if the legislature decides to get rid of PIP and replace it with mandatory bodily injury coverage, four things must be kept in mind.

“First, the policy limits should be low, no more than $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident,” he said.

“Second, the legislature must fix the third-party bad faith law. Right now, in cases where someone has a low policy limit and gets sued on a claim with clear liability and big damages, the plaintiff’s lawyer doesn’t settle the case for those low policy limits. Instead, they sue for big money and then hope to file another gotcha, a third-party bad-faith lawsuit. That would only get worse under a system of mandatory bodily injury insurance. Third, don’t adopt additional mandatory coverages that will drive up the price of insurance, or recreate the problems of PIP, like mandatory first-party medical coverage. Finally, the legislature shouldn’t fix prices with this new coverage. They should let the market decide what this type of policy should cost.”

 http://flarecord.com/stories/511097326-florida-subcommittee-to-hold-pip-reform-hearing-monday-moves-to-get-bad-faith-reform-in-the-mix-may-be-sidelined

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Assignment of Benefits – Abuse Drives Up Insurance

/in

 

Assignment of benefits – Abuse drives up insurance

A state law intended to give homeowners recourse in disputes with their insurers is instead being used by some repair vendors and their lawyers to generate a windfall.

The “one-way attorney fee” allows policyholders to collect legal fees from their insurer if they win a claims dispute. But if the policyholder loses in court, they don’t have to pay the insurer’s legal fees.

Some repair vendors are tricking policyholders into signing an assignment of benefits, or AOB, allowing the vendor to seize control of the policyholder’s rights, file a claim and sue the insurer, often without their knowledge or consent.

This scheme has become an incentive for lawyers and their vendor clients to clog the courts with lawsuits and generate profit.

AOB litigation increased by over 66 percent from 2010 to 2011, fell briefly after the 2012 auto insurance reforms, and then started rising again, according to the Florida Department of Financial Services. From 2014 to 2015, AOB litigation increased 10.7 percent, and then 21 percent from 2015 to 2016.

This problem isn’t confined to home insurance claims. Auto glass claims saw an almost 3,000 percent increase in five years — from 591 claims in 2011 to 19,558 claims in 2016.

This rampant AOB abuse and litigation is driving insurance costs up. Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier had it right when he told the governor and Cabinet that there’s no explanation other than the one-way attorney fees.

It’s time to pass meaningful reforms to keep consumers in control of their insurance policies and stop the abuse that’s hiking up insurance rates.

William Large, president, Florida Justice Reform Institute, Tallahassee

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/wednesdays-letters-a-vital-asset-for-alzheimers-researchers/2317389

Florida Justice Reform Institute

William Large: Florida Must End Assignment of Benefits Abuse, Self-serving Windfalls

/in

 

The dedicated president of our lobbying organization in Tallahassee, FL

William Large
Guest Author – March 14, 2017

A state law that was originally intended to give individual policyholders special rights in disputes with their insurance companies is instead being used by some repair vendors and their lawyers to generate a self-serving windfall. The problem is serious and growing, and it’s driving insurance costs higher and higher.

The so-called “one-way attorney fee” allows a policyholder to collect their legal fees from their insurer if they win a claims dispute. But, if the policyholder loses in court, they don’t have to pay the insurer’s legal fees.

Some repair vendors, though, are tricking policyholders into signing an assignment of benefits or AOB. This allows the vendor to seize control of the policyholder’s special rights, file a claim and sue the insurer, often without the policyholder’s knowledge or consent.

Now, this litigation-for-profit scheme has become an incentive for lawyers and their vendor clients — often water damage remediation firms, roofers, or auto glass shops with aggressive marketing schemes — to clog the courts with lawsuits and generate big paydays for themselves.

Recently, the Florida Justice Reform Institute revealed how the growing use of AOBs and the one-way attorney fee by third parties is increasing litigation and costs.

Using the Florida Department of Financial Services’ service of process database, we discovered some startling insights.

From 2000 to 2016, Florida’s population increased 26 percent, while total litigation filed against insurance companies increased about 280 percent.

In particular, AOB litigation increased by over 66 percent from 2010 to 2011, fell briefly after the 2012 auto insurance reforms, and then started rising again. From 2014 to 2015, AOB litigation increased 10.7 percent, and then 21 percent from 2015 to 2016.

AOB lawsuits initiated by vendors who provide water cleanup, restoration, drying, mitigation, mold detection, or remediation services were overwhelmingly concentrated in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties. On average, these three counties produced more than 80 percent of litigation from these vendors in 2014, and that share rose to nearly 85 percent in 2015, and nearly 89 percent in 2016.

Unfortunately, the problem is not just confined to home insurance claims. Auto glass claims also saw a staggering increase — over 3,000 percent in five years — from 591 claims in 2011 to 19,558 claims in 2016.

But the most surprising discovery was that nearly 25 percent of all AOB cases — from property to auto to auto glass — filed in Florida between 2013 and 2016 were filed by just 11 lawyers.

The bottom line is that all this rampant AOB abuse and litigation is driving insurance costs up. Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier had it right last month when he told the Governor and Cabinet that there’s no other explanation other than the one-way attorney fees.

The Florida Legislature has strong data supporting this growing problem. It’s time for them to pass meaningful reforms and stop a handful of unscrupulous repair vendors and their lawyers from using the policyholders’ special rights for their own benefit. Keep consumers in control of the insurance policies they bought and paid for, and stop the abuse that’s sending insurance rates higher.

William Large is President of the Florida Justice Reform Institute.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/233919-william-large-florida-must-end-assignment-benefits-abuse-self-serving-windfalls

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida’s Trial Bar Hurricane

/in

 

Wall Street Journal

OPINION REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Florida’s Trial Bar Hurricane

Legal abuse threatens insurers that absorb extreme weather risk.

March 14, 2017 6:57 p.m. ET

Hurricane

Governor Rick Scott has done heroic work to shore up the finances of Florida’s catastrophic insurer before the next big hurricane makes landfall. But storm or no storm, taxpayers will still get whacked with Category 5 bills if Tallahassee doesn’t shut down the state’s latest plaintiffs attorney get-rich-quick scheme.

Sunshine State lawyers, in cahoots with local contractors, are crisscrossing the state encouraging homeowners to sign away their insurance rights, a practice known as “assignment of benefits,” or AOB. In exchange, the lawyers promise to handle property repairs and fight with the insurance company for settlement paydays.

What the lawyers aren’t telling homeowners is what happens next. A 1950s-era Florida statute dictates that insurers are liable for all attorneys fees if they lose in court or settle for an amount more than the insurer’s initial offer. So the trial bar is filing inflated claims to coerce pre-emptive settlements from insurers that want to avoid even more expensive, protracted legal battles.

State courts have turned a blind eye to this abuse, and insurance costs are predictably soaring. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., Florida’s state-owned insurer of last resort, has seen litigated claims jump to 45% of all claims in 2016, up from 12% in 2011. The average paid loss on all non-wind water claims clocked in at $19,966 last year, up from $10,301 in 2011—and that number is expected to climb this year as more AOB lawsuits are filed.

Private insurers are seeing similar trends and are passing the costs along to policyholders. Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation says insurers may need to raise rates 10% or more annually “just to break even.” In Miami-Dade County, an owner of a $150,000 home pays, on average, a $2,678 annual premium for Citizens’ multi-peril insurance, more than twice the national average, and that’s rising to $2,926 soon. Citizens isn’t allowed to raise rates more than 10% a year, but private insurers can.

How long can homeowners bear double-digit premium hikes? Florida’s insurance commission is worried that consumers will eventually drop private insurance, or private insurers will close up shop—or both, especially in Southeast Florida, where AOB abuse is concentrated. Citizens would then be forced by law to step in and offer a below-market rate policy. Taxpayers would absorb the losses.

This man-made fiscal hurricane is swirling even as Citizens has offloaded more than a million policies to private insurers and shrunk its market share over the past few years. In 2011 the insurer estimated it would have to levy a $11.6 billion tax on Florida policy holders to cover claims from a catastrophic hurricane. Today, Citizens is running a surplus and could absorb the cost itself thanks to recent weather luck and Gov. Scott’s reforms.

That sunny scenario won’t last if AOB abuse continues. Florida’s legislative session started last week, and a bill introduced by Republican Senator Dorothy Hukill proposes common-sense reforms. But legislative fixes have been thwarted in recent years by the state’s powerful plaintiffs-lawyer lobby, and competing bills would bless the trial bar’s practices. Florida homeowners already face risks from hurricanes, hail storms and other natural phenomena. Do they need to face the unnatural disaster known as plaintiffs attorneys too?

Appeared in the March 15, 2017, print edition.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/floridas-trial-bar-hurricane-1489532272?mg=prod/accounts-wsj 

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Justice Reform Institute Applauds Legal Reform Bill

/in

 

Florida Justice Reform Institute applauds legal reform bill

by Nicholas Gueguen | Mar. 13, 2017, 7:19pm

TALLAHASSEE —  The U.S. House of Representatives addressed necessary changes when it passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017, Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large said.

“This legislation is a welcomed step for much-needed civil justice reform,” Large told the Florida Record.

The House of Representatives passed the bill in a close 220-201 vote count March 9. According to the National Law Journal, this bill is “part of the largest tort-reform push in more than a decade on Capitol Hill,” and the bill would help cut down the number of class-action lawsuits. The National Law Journal wrote that it would put a special focus on class-action lawsuits that “critics say seek large payouts for speculative or nonexistent injuries.”

The National Law Journal called the bill “controversial.” Large said the bill would help Florida.

“The legislation would improve Florida’s litigation climate,” Large said.

The bill would associate attorney’s fees and the settlement amounts, limit plaintiff’s attorneys in terms of who they could represent and “halt discovery early on in cases,” the National Law Journal wrote. It also said that the House of Representatives spent a lot of time debating those issues.

Large said the bill includes a provision relating to the injuries of both the class in a class-action lawsuit and the class representative.

“The legislation includes a core provision that every proposed class representative must permanently demonstrate that each proposed class member suffered an injury of the same type and scope as the injury of the proposed class representative,” he said.

Large said the bill will only affect federal class-action litigation.

The National Law Journal wrote that part of the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act also would mandate that “trusts of bankrupt companies file quarterly reports disclosing payments to victims of mesothelioma and other cancers caused by asbestos.”

Along with that bill, the House of Representatives also passed the Innocent Party Protection Act of 2017. The  bill passed with a wider margin of 224-194.

The House of Representatives on March 10 passed the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017 by a 230-188 vote.

http://flarecord.com/stories/511091724-florida-justice-reform-institute-applauds-legal-reform-bill

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Justice Reform Institute

  • Phone

    (850) 222-0170

  • Hours of Operation

    Monday – Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

  • Address

    210 S Monroe Street
    Tallahassee, FL 32301

Site Links