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

Proposals to raise payout caps in lawsuits against state, local governments advance

January 31, 2022/in Florida Politics

 

Florida Politics

Florida Politics

Jesse Scheckner – January 31, 2022

Florida law restricting how much a person or entity can sue the government has roots in British colonialism.

A pair of bills intended to update how governments in Florida settle hefty lawsuits advanced Monday through both chambers of the Legislature. But while nearly all lawmakers agreed the state’s existing system needs changing, they and the bills’ sponsors were divided on how to fix the problem.

Florida currently operates under a sovereign immunity law which protects government agencies from costly lawsuits by limiting what can be paid without legislative action to $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident.

It’s a policy with roots that can be traced to the days of British colonialism when subjects could not seek legal damages against the monarchy, and it’s a cushion against losses governments enjoy from the federal to the hyperlocal level.

Every year, the Florida Legislature considers scores of claims bills that, if approved, would clear proper payment to those seeking compensation for injuries or losses caused by the negligence or error of a public office or agency.

This year, state lawmakers are considering bills to pay a man wrongly incarcerated for 37 years, a Monticello nurse harmed in a head-on crash with a state employee and a mother whose three children were maimed in a highway pileup caused by a state trooper, among many others.

Some of the bills are advancing. Others stalled in one or both chambers, including a bill to pay $25 million to the families and victims of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, which has since been federally settled.

Had that not occurred and the state Legislature again let a claims bill delay payment to the victims, the 34-plus claimants and their families would have to subsist on just $300,000.

While those seeking relief above that per-incident limit wait, their medical bills and other costs pile up, causing debt or tax-backed systems like Medicare and Medicaid to step in. It frequently takes years for the state to release funds if it does so at all. In the case of the aforementioned mother of three, whose accident occurred in 2014, the state recently reduced her award from about $17 million to $7.2 million.

“We have people (who don’t) bother to bring legitimate claims because the caps are so low,” said Republican Rep. Mike Beltran of Lithia. “They can’t retain counsel. I want to make it fair.”

Beltran this Session introduced a bill (HB 985) that would overhaul Florida’s sovereign immunity procedures. It would do away with the per-incident clause of the law and increase the cap on collectible damages from the state, its agencies and local governments to $1 million per person.

It would also eliminate any statute of limitations on sexual battery against victims younger than 16 at the time of the incident — a policy in place for private companies — and reduce from six months to three months the general time period for a government entity to review and dispose of a claim.

Further, that $1 million amount wouldn’t be static. Under the bill as it’s currently written, the state Department of Financial Services would annually adjust the award cap to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, beginning in July 2023.

A House staff analysis said the bill will “likely have a significant negative impact on local governments and state agencies,” including a first-year cost of more than $14 million.

“The process (now) is completely broken,” said Republican Sen. Joe Gruters of Sarasota, who is backing a markedly different version of the bill.

Gruters’ bill (SB 974, in its amended form, would raise the current sovereign immunity cap to $300,000 for individual suits and $400,000 per incident. It also no longer includes a provision removing the statute of limitations on sexual battery cases against victims younger than 16 and would require the Department of Financial Services to adjust the pre-legislative payout caps to reflect the Consumer Price Index every decade, beginning in 2032.

Gruters acknowledged the reduced award amounts “are way too low, but we’ll continue to work on this.”

Todd Michaels, a lawyer at Haggard Law Firm in Coral Gables and a member of the Florida Justice Association, said he and others in his group far prefer Beltran’s version of the bill.

“The House bill is a massive step in the right direction and would go a long way toward correcting some of these injustices,” he told Florida Politics.

In 1973, the Florida Legislature adopted the Florida Waiver of Sovereign Immunities Act and capped payouts without legislative action to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per incident. Those caps last increased in 2010.

Adjusting them according to the increase in medical costs would place those caps today at $703,000 per person and $1.4 million per incident, Michaels said, adding that the average cap for other states is $539,000 per person and $1.9 million per incident.

“The House bill allows for real comprehensive reform, which would eliminate this antiquated process that burdens victims, governments, the state, the Legislature and the courts,” he said. “It allows a pathway to recovery that incentivizes settlements on behalf of the bad actor instead of incentivizing keeping litigation going, and it would also give victims a real possibility of a recovery, which could help them take care of their needs and keep that burden from being shifted to taxpayers.”

Republican Sen. Doug Broxson of Pensacola called Gruters’ bill “a great step” toward improving the existing system, which he described as “a lottery where … if a person gets the right law firm or right lobbyist, they have a better chance of (passing) a bill that’s been laying around for, in some cases, years.”

Estero Republican Sen. Ray Rodrigues agreed. What should be in place, he said, is a system that delivers deserved relief to those to whom government does wrong.

“If government harms an individual,” he said, “we should have a very clean process where that individual or their family can be made whole as quickly as possible.”

Not all were happy with Gruters’ bill, including Democratic Sen. Tina Polsky of Boca Raton.

“I’m very disturbed that we took out some very good provisions in this amendment,” she said, calling out the removal of the sexual battery provision. “This is our opportunity to fix the system as a whole, and while I’m glad that we’re taking baby steps, I’d like to take adult steps here.”

Sen. Jim Boyd of Bradenton, who owns an insurance business in private life, said he’d support the bill but is conflicted.

“There is a remedy for claims that are egregious or ones that deserve additional attention (through) the claims process that we have here in the Legislature,” he said. “While some would argue that’s imperfect, it’s still the system we have, and it does provide relief to those that truly need it.”

The arguments in the House revolved more around the larger caps, which advanced without change.

Bob Harris, a lawyer representing the Panhandle Area Education Consortium, said his group supports the change for sexual assault victims but argued the higher caps would invite more legal claims, which could potentially lead to a flood of million-dollar lawsuits that would overburden smaller school districts.

“We can’t afford that insurance,” he said. “If you put $1 million in front of someone versus $200,000 (and) $300,000, we know there will be more cases. We call it the ‘pot of gold at the end of the rainbow syndrome.’”

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, suggested to both chambers that the Legislature should look into reforming its claims bill process instead of changing the state’s sovereign immunity laws.

David Cruz, deputy general counsel for the Florida League of Cities, suggested Beltran lower the caps to the levels contemplated in Gruters’ bill.

“I feel strongly the Senate number is perhaps something we would much rather consider moving forward,” he said.

Beltran’s bill has now cleared the House Civil Justice and Property Rights Subcommittee and Appropriations Committee. It awaits a final hearing before the Judiciary Committee before moving onto the House Floor.

Gruters’ bill, which advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, still needs to clear the Community Affairs and Appropriations committees.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/491851-proposals-to-raise-payout-caps-in-lawsuits-against-state-local-governments-advance/ 

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 Tech2022-01-31 15:53:212024-11-24 23:07:13Proposals to raise payout caps in lawsuits against state, local governments advance
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Bill raising claims cap before state intervention to $1 million advances in the House

January 20, 2022/in Florida Politics

 

Florida Politics

Beltran

Renzo Downey – January 20, 2022

The current threshold hasn’t been adjusted since 2010.

A proposal to raise the cap on claims against local governments before the Legislature must intervene passed its first committee hurdle on Wednesday.

The measure (HB 985), carried by Lithia Republican Rep. Mike Beltran, would raise from $200,000 to $1 million the value of claims before sovereign immunity applies. The bill passed the House Civil Justice & Property Rights Subcommittee by a 16-1 vote.

Sovereign immunity is a principle stating that the government, including a local government, cannot be sued without its consent. The principle dates back to British common law.

Proponents hope it will reduce the number of times Floridians would have to come to lawmakers to plead their case to receive reparations for transgressions committed against them by the government.

“Every claims bill that’s filed — or that anyone approaches a member with for that matter — is one of our constituents that’s asking us to address this,” Beltran said. “They’re saying that the cap was not adequate compensation.”

Since 2010, Florida law has capped normal claims against a government entity at $200,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Additional damages can be awarded through claims bills in the Legislature.

Beltran’s bill would scrap that outline and place the cap at $1 million per person, a value he says matches with inflation since legislation limiting sovereign immunity was first passed in the 1970s. The bill would further allow the $1 million mark to be adjusted annually with the consumer price index, or CPI.

The panel also approved an amendment halving the time jurisdictions have to pay or deny claims from 6 months to 90 days. Most people know how they’re going to approach a lawsuit within 90 days, Beltran contended.

Orlando Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani asked Beltran, a lawyer and Vice-Chair of the committee, whether smaller jurisdictions would have the dollar amount. Beltran said he has never seen a government entity not have $1 million in insurance to cover claims.

However, Beltran’s comments didn’t assuage the concerns of groups like the Florida Association of Counties, the Florida League of Cities, and the Florida Justice Reform Institute. Representatives from Miami-Dade, Orange and Broward counties also opposed the bill, as did one from Parkland.

A 2020 ruling prevented the parents of several victims of the 2018 mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland from receiving a dollar amount larger than $200,000 without seeking legislative approval. An existing claims bill (SB 84), carried by Sarasota Republican Sen. Joe Gruters, would authorize a $25 million claim on behalf of the Broward County School Board for its negligence in the shooting.

While several members had reservations, all but Davie Democratic Rep. Mike Gottleib voted in favor of the measure.

Gainesville Democratic Rep. Yvonne Hayes Hinson told the committee she would vote yes now but was hoping to see the bill resolve to a more reasonable amount, calling the current increase to $1 million significant for one fell swoop. Windermere Democratic Rep. Geraldine Thompson took Hinson’s position, but added that she has sponsored claims bills in the past, including one that took 9 years, and noted they are difficult to get through the legislative system.

Miami Beach Democratic Rep. Mike Grieco also voiced support for the measure, adding the House should “absolutely” consider the opportunity.

“This isn’t just about slips and falls and negligence,” Grieco said. “There’s a criminal justice piece of this when we’re talking about wrongful arrests, police brutality, civil rights violations.”

Gruters also is carrying a bill similar to Beltran’s. That measure (SB 974) has not been scheduled for a committee hearing. Beltran’s measure next heads to the House Appropriations Committee, its second of three committee stops.

Both versions would take effect July 1.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/488231-bill-raising-claims-cap-before-state-intervention-to-1-million-advances-in-the-house/ 

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 Tech2022-01-20 15:53:212024-11-24 23:08:41Bill raising claims cap before state intervention to $1 million advances in the House
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Senate passes health care liability protections as providers look to House to do the same

January 19, 2022/in Florida Politics

 

Florida Politics

William Large

Christine Jordan Sexton – January 19, 2022

The Florida Senate is giving nursing homes, hospitals and doctors what they want. Will the House move next?
A must-pass bill for Florida’s nursing homes, doctors and hospitals cleared the Florida Senate Wednesday by a mostly partisan 22-13 vote.

Democratic Sen. Linda Stewart voted for the bill, the only member of her party in the chamber to support it.

Sponsored by Sen. Danny Burgess, the bill (SB 7014) extends through June 1, 2023 the protections health care providers currently have from COVID-19-related lawsuits. Senate Democrats all voted against the measure. Four senators have excused absences and did not vote.

The current law that shields businesses and health care providers from COVID-19-related lawsuits was one of the first measures passed by the Legislature during the 2021 Session. The law makes clear that to successfully sue a health care provider for COVID-19, the plaintiff must prove gross negligence or intentional misconduct.

While general businesses were provided indefinite immunity liability protections, health care providers were afforded such protection only through March 2022. House Speaker Chris Sprowls pushed for the limit on health care-related lawsuits. But as of publication, no House companion bill has been filed extending the liability protections.

Hospital and nursing home providers released statements thanking the Senate for passing the bill.

Florida Health Care Association spokesperson Kristen Knapp said the extended protections will help ensure the nursing centers can maintain the resources needed to keep their focus on resident safety and high quality health care.

“The pandemic has placed a tremendous burden on our state’s nursing centers and assisted living communities, and we’re still delivering care in a challenging environment. In the midst of this recent omicron surge, the guidance continues to change rapidly for our caregivers,” Knapp said in a statement. “At a time when our long-term care providers are experiencing financial and workforce challenges of historic proportions, sue-and-settle lawsuits will only make matters worse.”

The FHCA represents most of the state’s 690 nursing homes.

Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large focuses his lobbying efforts on tort-related issues. Large said in a statement the Senate should be commended for passing protections for “our beleaguered health care providers that are dealing with the impacts of omicron, labor shortages and COVID-19 lawsuits.”

The state’s largest hospital association also issued a statement following the Senate vote to pass the bill.

“It’s been a year since the Legislature and the Governor signed SB 72 into law, during which our hospitals and health care providers have contended with additional surges of the pandemic and a severe workforce shortage,” Florida Hospital Association (FHA) President and CEO Mary Mayhew said. “FHA engaged with members of the Legislature and supported SB 7014 to protect our members from unfounded lawsuits during a time when stress on the system is already so high.”

The bill is a tacit acknowledgment that the COVID-19 pandemic remains an ongoing concern even as legislators and Gov. Ron DeSantis have pushed laws and policies designed to keep businesses and local governments from imposing mandates and lockdowns.

The House Health and Human Services Committee voted last week to introduce a committee bill to extend the lawsuit protections. HB 7021 will next be heard by the House Judiciary Committee.

Burgess’ bill extends the existing law through June 1, 2023, the same expiration date included in other recently enacted laws relating to COVID-19. That includes one law that bans Florida employers from requiring their staff to get vaccinated without giving employees at least five different avenues to opt out.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/488117-senate-passes-health-care-liability-protections-as-providers-look-to-house-to-do-the-same/ 

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 Tech2022-01-19 15:53:212024-11-24 23:10:25Senate passes health care liability protections as providers look to House to do the same
Florida Justice Reform Institute

‘Game Changer’: Florida Supreme Court Ruling Could Chill Punitive Damages Claims

January 13, 2022/in The Insurance Journal

 

Insurance Journal

‘Game Changer’: Florida Supreme Court Ruling Could Chill Punitive Damages Claims

By William Rabb | January 13, 2022

Lawsuits

Punitive damages, long the scourge of businesses named in lawsuits, and a tricky issue for insurers, may soon be much harder to come by in Florida after a recent opinion handed down by the state Supreme Court.

“This will definitely chill plaintiffs’ requests for punitive damages,” said Robert Jarvis, a professor at Nova Southeastern University College of Law in Fort Lauderdale.

In a 6-1 decision posted Jan. 6, the high court approved an appellate procedure rule change that will allow interlocutory appeals on whether lawsuits can include demands for punitive damages. The rule will take effect April 1. Until then, litigants have had to wait until the end of a trial to appeal punitive damage claims.

The practical effect of the new rule may be that the appeal, now to be allowed during the midst of a lower court lawsuit, could take months. That will add delays to litigation and will ultimately discourage many plaintiffs from seeking punitive damages and pressing ahead with trials, some attorneys said.

Defendants in lawsuits will like it when an appeals court bars punitive damages, and plaintiffs will smile when the damages are allowed to be considered, said Curry Pajcic, a Jacksonville plaintiffs’ lawyer. But despite the outcome, “It’s going to increase the cost of litigation” for both sides, he said.

A tort-reform advocate called the ruling a “game changer” that would help prevent rifts that often arise between insureds and insurers when hefty punitive damage awards are at stake. Many liability policies, per statute, will not cover punitive damages. That often prompts policyholders to settle suits prematurely, said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute. In many cases, the insured will hire outside counsel to handle that.

William LargeWilliam Large

“Prior to this rule change, parties had to wait until the conclusion of a trial to address the issue with an appellate court,” Large said. “Seldom did parties get to have an appellate review, because of insureds’ pressure on insurers to settle the case. Finally, defendants and insurers will be afforded the due process they have been lacking.”

A deterrent to punitive awards could potentially affect insurers in bad-faith claims. In some cases, insurance companies can be held liable for punitive damages if a court finds they behaved in a particularly egregious manner, according to an article by Orlando-area attorney Sean Schulz.

The Supreme Court’s new rule is striking because the court took the initiative on its own, attorneys said. Instead of the usual path for procedural rules – responding to a request from the Florida Bar or an action by the Legislature – the court in this case was the initiator that asked a Bar committee in 2020 to draft the rule.

“They used the Bar as fig leaf,” Jarvis said. “This was so unnecessary. No one was clamoring to change the interlocutory rules on punitive damages.”

The move is another example of Florida’s government and its governor-appointed justices taking a pro-business, pro-insurance, anti-plaintiff turn to the right in recent years, Jarvis argued.

“The courts, especially at the Supreme Court and the appellate courts, have become very hostile to punitive damages,” he said.

Justice Jorge Labarga wrote a sharp dissent to the ruling. Labarga, appointed by Gov. Charlie Crist in 2009, wrote that the “drastic change” will result in needless delays.

Justice LabargaJustice Labarga
“Of particular concern are tort cases involving personal injury, where claims for much needed medical and economic relief will stall until the question of punitive damages is resolved,” Labarga wrote. “Access to our judicial system with claims authorized by law should not be impeded by unnecessary delay and resulting additional expense.”

He quoted from the Florida Bar committee that drafted rule, which noted that no other state has a similar procedure. While the committee and the Bar’s board of governors approved the change, the committee did so grudgingly, Labarga said.

In years past, the committee had declined to recommend the interlocutory rule change. But this time, the Bar members indicated they felt directed by a mandate from the Supreme Court, he said.

Labarga also pointed out that the majority of the justices had professed support for the change due to a concern about the privacy of litigants’ finances. State law forbids discovery of a defendant’s net worth until after punitive damages claims have been pleaded in court. Now, if an appeals court bars punitive damage claims, the plaintiffs cannot proceed with discovery of financial information.

Labarga noted that finances can easily be shielded by a confidentiality order, without abandoning the long-standing and efficient procedure the courts have relied upon.

Others said that businesses’ and jurists’ concerns over punitive damages may be overblown. Florida law already limits punitive awards, in most cases, to no more than three times the amount of compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater. In cases in which the defendant knew the injurious activity was dangerous and pursued it purely for financial gain, punitives are limited to four times the compensatory amount, or $2 million.

In cases of deliberate intent to harm the victim, the law puts no cap on punitive damages.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2022/01/13/649243.htm 

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 Tech2022-01-13 15:53:222024-11-24 23:12:34‘Game Changer’: Florida Supreme Court Ruling Could Chill Punitive Damages Claims
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