Florida Justice Reform Institute
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Meet the President
  • Legislative
    • On the Front Line
    • On The Front Line 2025
    • Achievements
    • 2025 Legislation
  • Appellate Work
  • FJRI in the News
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Member
    • The Committee for Florida Justice Reform
    • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida vape bill heads to House floor

February 26, 2020/in Politico

Politico

Florida vape bill heads to House floor

Arek Sarkissian BY AREK SARKISSIAN – 02/26/2020 12:35 PM EST

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A House bill that would impose new regulations on the vape industry was approved by its final committee today and is now eligible for discussion on the chamber floor.

FL HB7089 (20R) by state Rep. Jackie Toledo (R-Tampa) was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on a 15-1 vote.

State Rep. Mike Hill (R-Pensacola) voted against the bill, saying he was concerned about language that could exposing vaping manufacturers to punitive damages in lawsuits.

Hill’s comments were in response to testimony by William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute. Large told the committee that existing law governing punitive damages was sufficient and targeting one industry would set a dangerous precedent.

After the meeting, Large said the provision would make it easier for plaintiffs to receive higher payouts for pain and suffering.

The bill would establish definitions and terms that the state Department of Business and Professional Regulation would use to write rules for the vape industry. The measure is similar to two Senate bills, FL SB810 (20R) and FL SB1394 (20R), by state Sen. David Simmons (R-Altamonte Springs), which would levy license fees on vape shops and penalties for unlawful sales.

One big difference between the two bills is that the Senate version defines vape devices as a tobacco product while the House version creates a new set of legal definitions specific to the vape industry.

The Senate bills are eligible for a full floor vote after the Committee on Appropriations approved them on a 19-1 vote last week.

Health advocacy groups including the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association oppose the House bill, saying the new legal definitions will conflict with terms already established in federal law.

The vape industry opposes the Senate bill because it links vaping to the tobacco industry.

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2020/02/florida-vape-bill-heads-to-house-floor-3977011

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2020-02-26 15:57:382025-07-10 14:31:37Florida vape bill heads to House floor
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Bad faith about bad faith

February 12, 2020/in Florida Politics

 

Fla Pol

Sunburn

Sunburn — The morning read of what’s hot in Florida politics — 2.12.20

Bad faith about bad faith — Tuesday’s Senate Banking & Insurance Committee saw Sens. Brandes and Lee accuse each other of being disingenuous. Supposedly a deal had been worked out to add a negotiated bad faith reform provision to Lee’s auto PIP repeal bill, SB 378. When Brandes tried to put that same provision onto his omnibus insurance bill, SB 1334, Lee objected. Ultimately, seeing the votes would cancel each other out, both Senators chose to TP their bills and live to fight another day. Commenting on the bad faith language after the hearing, William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said, “The law currently requires a civil remedy notice for first parties before they sue for bad faith. The trial lawyers don’t object to that; why do they object to the same notice now for third parties?”

https://schorsch.cmail19.com/t/i-e-xwirky-trlttliyt-y/

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2020-02-12 15:56:152024-11-25 09:59:16Bad faith about bad faith
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Fla. Injury Defense Attys Hope To Thwart ‘Phantom Damages’

February 5, 2020/in Law360

Law 360

By Y. Peter Kang

Law360 (February 5, 2020, 6:42 PM EST) — Injury defense attorneys in Florida are closely watching proposed legislation that would outlaw so-called phantom damages in injury trials, describing the bill as a key step in reining in jury verdicts that don’t reflect the actual costs of medical care.

The Florida Senate’s Judiciary Committee on Jan. 28 advanced S.B. 1668, a bill that would bar phantom damages, or when a jury only hears about the billed price of medical expenses, which is often not the actual amount paid by an insurance company that already negotiated discount prices with health care providers.

The bill’s proponents argue that juries seeing artificially inflated figures for past medical expenses tend to extrapolate those figures when determining what to award plaintiffs for future medical expenses, leading to outsize verdicts. The bill is sponsored by Sen. David Simmons, a Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

The proposed legislation is also a way for the injury defense bar and the insurance lobby to target alleged abuse by certain personal injury plaintiffs attorneys who are accused of colluding with a small group of physicians to inflate costs in order to obtain bigger payouts. These doctors issue “letters of protection,” or LOPs, which essentially act like liens that defer payment and entitle the physicians to a cut of any injury verdict.

Although LOPs are not mentioned in the bill’s text, preventing their alleged abuse by keeping verdicts in check is very much a goal of the bill, according to Mark Delegal, a Holland & Knight LLP partner who specializes in health care public policy and represents pro-business groups. He said it is a “dirty little secret” that a small subset of about three dozen doctors in the state are “in bed with the trial bar.”

“[The doctors] appear over and over again in litigation all over the state. It’s the same set of them,” he said. “They get on the witness stand and testify that they are the only doctor on the planet that can do this and that’s why they charge them so much. Medicare, Blue Cross won’t pay them. The only way they can get paid is through these letters of protection.”

However, Richard “Bo” Sharp, a medical malpractice plaintiffs attorney with Mallard & Sharp PA, said there is nothing nefarious about LOPs.

“Letters of protection allow an uninsured or underinsured accident victim to get the medical or surgical care that they need,” he said. “Letters of protection are a necessity until the insurance company pays for the medical needs of the victim prior to filing a lawsuit.”

William Large, president of tort reform group the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said that 50 years ago, letters of protection were used as a legitimate tool for doctors providing treatment to indigent patients, but that is no longer the case.

“Letters of protection are extremely rare outside of the personal injury context,” he said. “Ninety-nine percent of the doctors out there would never use an LOP or heard of an LOP. But the converse is untrue in personal injury cases, and plaintiffs attorneys have an incentive to send their clients to doctors who use letters of protection.”

If S.B. 1668 is enacted, the jury would hear evidence of the “usual and customary” cost of medical care incurred by an injured party in the applicable geographic area, rather than the often inflated “sticker price” costs that are usually negotiated down later. A parallel bill floated in the House, H.B. 9, would allow the jury to hear evidence of the usual and customary medical costs actually paid to a health care provider.

Different iterations of the bill have been floated nearly every year for the past decade, according to Delegal.

“This version has the best chance of getting passed,” he said. “It’s been the first time it has been passed by a Senate committee and has the support of the House leadership and the governor.”

Under the letters of protection, certain doctors are charging five to 10 times the usual and customary cost of medical care, according to Andrew Bolin, a medical malpractice defense attorney and founder of Bolin Law Group.

“Defendants are having to pay many multiples of what the amount should be because of inflated medical expenses that no one is paying,” he said. “Insurance plans don’t pay it, governments don’t pay it, even plaintiffs don’t pay it because they negotiate it down with the doctors later. They are truly phantom numbers that no one is paying, but the defendant is being held responsible for it.”

Bolin said this year’s version of the bill has the best chance of becoming law because it does away with previous attempts to have the jury hear about a fixed cost of medical services based on Medicare or Medicaid figures, or numbers taken from a public health database.

“This bill takes away the database requirements and allows defendants the opportunity to present evidence on what payments doctors are receiving for those same services in the same geographic area,” he said.

Lauren McBride, an attorney and director of liability claims for Publix Super Markets Inc., testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the grocery chain usually has about 450 personal injury claims pending against it at any given time, most of them in Florida.

She said that in about 60% of those cases, the plaintiffs are receiving medical treatment under letters of protection, and that approximately 60% of those LOP plaintiffs have health insurance.

“Why are they choosing not to use it?” McBride asked the committee. “They are being told not to use their health insurance by their attorneys who are sending them to doctors they have relationships with. … Our position is that the jury should know about the referral relationships between the lawyers and doctors.”

However, Tiffany Faddis, an attorney who testified on behalf of the Florida Justice Association, said the bill is unnecessary. She argued that the jury already has the opportunity to hear about the usual and customary medical costs via defendants’ use of so-called coding experts, who provide testimony on medical coding, billing and documentation.

“This bill is not going to protect injured parties. In fact, this bill is going to hurt your constituents who are in accidents and suffer injuries,” she said. “This bill will also impact their ability to get the future medical care that they need following an auto accident. Our civil jury system works and your constituents, the jurors, take great pride in deciding the fate of the case, and they get to hear everything.”

Leslie M. Kroeger, a Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC partner and president of the Florida Justice Association, told Law360 that the bill is yet another attempt by big companies such as Publix and Disney and their insurance companies to avoid paying the full amount of damages for injuries they’re responsible for.

“We’re just trying to protect the system that ensures a person can seek the care they need,” she said. “It’s not their fault they are put into a position where they need to seek treatment. And at every turn here, the insurance industry tries to limit their possibilities in any way they can.”

Bolin, who also testified before the committee on behalf of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said the Florida Senate’s willingness to take action on the issue bodes well for its passage.

“I’m pleased to see the Senate took this up first this year. Last year, we went through the House but couldn’t have it heard in the Senate,” he said. “I think the bill has a good chance of being passed because it directly responds to the problem without being overarching. And this version of the bill specifically responds to concerns the Legislature had with past versions. It’s the best one we’ve done so far, and it’s new and improved.”

https://www.law360.com/retail/articles/1240356/fla-injury-defense-attys-hope-to-thwart-phantom-damages-

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2020-02-05 15:57:062025-07-10 14:36:18Fla. Injury Defense Attys Hope To Thwart ‘Phantom Damages’
Florida Justice Reform Institute

House subcommittee OK’s PIP repeal legislation

February 4, 2020/in Florida Politics

 

Fla Pol

Car crash

House subcommittee OK’s PIP repeal legislation

Most of the opponents’ concerns centered on Florida’s bad faith laws.

By Sarah Mueller on February 4, 2020

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Erin Grall (HB 771) to repeal Personal Injury Protection faced a slew of opposition in the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee Tuesday.

Most of the concerns centered on the state’s bad faith laws, which establishes an obligation on behalf of insurance companies to defend their policyholders against third-party lawsuits. Despite that, the bill easily passed the committee.

Grall’s bill would replace PIP no-fault vehicle insurance with bodily injury coverage. It would require drivers carry at least $25,000 in liability for the death or injury of one person in a crash and $50,000 for the injury or death of two or more people in a crash. It would retain the existing $10,000 coverage for property damage. The bill would also mandate insurance companies offer drivers $10,000 in medical payments unless consumers opt out in writing.

Grall argues that despite changes lawmakers passed in 2012 to PIP, premiums continue to rise.

“It is time that we make a policy decision that favors personal responsibility over that no-fault system,” she said.

Several subcommittee members voiced frustration with the PIP system. Democratic Rep. Al Jacquet said as a legislator and a defense attorney, he supported Grall’s legislation.

“I can’t help but think when we make sure that Floridians have a higher amount of coverage, we’re actually helping the costs go down,” Jacquet said.

But opponents were less optimistic about the potential results of Grall’s legislation. Insurance companies said they opposed the bill unless lawmakers also tackle changes to Florida’s bad faith law.

“Right now, a claimant can refuse to provide documents and ignore phone calls and emails, but then set arbitrary deadlines for a settlement,” said Kathy Maus, an attorney with Florida Justice Reform Institute. “They’re hoping the insurer misses the deadline, so they can sue the insurer for 100 times the policy limits or more.”

Grall argues that PIP lawsuits are already a major driver of litigation in the state. She said there were 60,000 lawsuits in 2017, up 20,000 from the previous year.

Opponents also took issue with the opt-out provision. They said that because it’s on the consumers to take action, most drivers will retain that coverage without realizing it’s optional. Some insurance companies said they fear premiums will rise.

Physician groups also opposed the legislation. Chris Nuland with the Florida Chapter of American College of Surgeons said the group is concerned health insurance premiums will go up, causing more Floridians to become uninsured. About 12% of state residents currently don’t have health insurance.

Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee Chairman Tom Lee is sponsoring a similar bill (SB 371). His legislation would require drivers opt-in for the medical payments, rather than opt-out as Grall’s bill does. Lee’s bill passed his committee and is waiting for action in the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee.

floridapolitics.com/archives/318096-house-subcommittee-oks-pip-repeal-legislation

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2020-02-04 15:57:562024-11-25 10:01:24House subcommittee OK’s PIP repeal legislation
Florida Justice Reform Institute

House panel OKs proposed repeal of Florida No-Fault car insurance law

February 4, 2020/in The Center Square Florida

 

Center Square

House panel OKs proposed repeal of Florida No-Fault car insurance law

By John Haughey | The Center Square – Feb 4, 2020

Erin Grall

                                                                                                               Florida state Rep. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach – Steve Cannon / AP

According to the Insurance Information Institute, Floridians pay the nation’s third-highest car insurance rates despite state roads being relatively straight, flat and ice-free.

Among the most cited causes is Florida’s no-fault insurance regulations, or Personal Injury Protection (PIP) statutes. Under the state’s PIP statutes, Florida is one of only two states that does not require drivers to carry coverage for injuries or deaths if at fault in an accident.

Repealing PIP, a state study found, could save Floridians $81 per car per year, nearly $1 billion collectively, but bills seeking to do so have failed over the past decade.

This year, PIP repeal bills again are working through committees, with sponsors citing tweaks that make them more palatable to insurers, physicians and hospitals that have vigorously opposed past reform attempts.

Although the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee on Tuesday approved a bill repealing Florida’s 50-year-old Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law in a 13-1 vote, opponents made it clear they’ve just begun to fight.

House Bill 771, filed by Rep. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, removes liability limitations provided under PIP. If adopted, beginning July 1, drivers faulted in accidents would be fully liable for damages they cause.

“It’s time we make a policy decision that favors personal responsibility over that no-fault system,” Grall said, noting there were 60,000 PIP lawsuits filed in Florida in 2017, up from 20,000 in 2016.

HB 771 now moves onto the House Government Operations & Technology Appropriations Subcommittee and Commerce Committee.

Its Senate companion, Senate Bill 378, sponsored by Sen. Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, has passed through the Senate Infrastructure & Security Committee and awaits hearings before the Senate Banking & Insurance and Appropriations committees.

Florida adopted no-fault in 1970. It requires vehicle owners and drivers to obtain $10,000 in medical, disability and funeral expenses insurance without regard to fault, subject to a limit of $2,500 for nonemergency medical care. In exchange for maintaining PIP, drivers are immune from tort claims.

HB 771 and SB 378 would require drivers secure bodily injury liability coverage of at least $25,000 for death or injury of one person, $50,000 for injury or death of two or more people and $10,000 for property damage.

HB 771 mandates insurers offer drivers $10,000 in medical coverage unless consumers opt-out, while SB 378 varies slightly in requiring policyholders to opt-in.

Although some committee members acknowledged adopting a tort system could have unintended consequences and suggested limiting third-party lawsuits against insurers, all expressed frustration with PIP.

“I can’t help but think when we ensure Floridians have a higher amount of coverage, we’re actually helping costs to go down,” said Rep. Al Jacquet, D-Mangonia Park.

Insurers, physicians and hospitals call the measure “a lottery” for those injured in car accidents and said the state needs to also revise “bad faith” laws.

“A claimant can refuse to provide documents and ignore phone calls and emails, but then set arbitrary deadlines for a settlement,” Florida Justice Reform Institute attorney Kathy Maus said. “They’re hoping the insurer misses the deadline, so they can sue the insurer for 100 times the policy limits or more.”

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association maintains without “bad faith” law revisions, “Florida’s broken tort system,” which had “a $6.6 billion impact on premium costs” in 2017, will increase further.

Opponents argued the opt-out/opt-in provision will result in fewer people with medical coverage.

Florida Chapter of American College of Surgeons’ Chris Nuland said 12 percent of state residents don’t have health insurance, predicting increases in uninsured will result in a corresponding hikes in health-insurance premiums.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/florida/house-panel-oks-proposed-repeal-of-florida-no-fault-car/article_4251c68a-478d-11ea-b307-b71089b54a81.html

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2020-02-04 15:57:552024-11-25 10:00:44House panel OKs proposed repeal of Florida No-Fault car insurance law
Search Search

FJRI News Categories

FJRI News Archive

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

  • The Committee for Florida Justice Reform
  • About
  • Legislative
  • Appellate Work
  • FJRI in the News
  • Get Involved
© 2025 Florida Justice Reform Institute, All Rights Reserved. | Website Hosting & Web Development by RAD TECH
  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to X
  • Link to LinkedIn
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top