March 2023 – Florida Justice Reform Institute

Sharp differences over changing Florida’s law on personal injury and damage lawsuits

March 29, 2023/in wgcu.com

WGCU | By Hayley Lemery
Published March 29, 2023 at 12:16 PM EDT

Sophia Spero was driving and injured in a collision with another vehicle.
She said the other driver was impaired, and Spero now works with

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Spero is concerned about
changes to Florida laws on personal injury legal claims.

Critics of legislation in the Florida House and Senate dealing with a range of civil litigation matters say they benefit insurance companies and not victims. Proponents say the measures target lawsuit abuse.

Governor Ron DeSantis approved House Bill (HB) 837 on March 27 and the complimenting Senate Bill (SB) 236 is currently laid on the Senate table and is nearing law eligibility. The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee approved the revision of the Senate bill in mid-March. Republican Senator Travis Hutson endorsed those revisions.

Opponents of these legislative changes believe this will strip Floridians of their legal rights in civil cases. However, those in favor believe this will eliminate lawsuit abuse by limiting what can be shared to a jury, further protecting businesses from negligence.

Richard Purtz is a Southwest Florida board-certified civil trial attorney and managing partner of Goldstein Buckley Cechman, Rice and Purtz, which specialize in personal injury cases. He says these changes will benefit insurance companies and not victims.

“Primarily [HB 837 is] aimed at insurance and people that bring personal injury claims to limit what they can do, what they’re entitled to, limit what doctors can charge, protecting insurance companies from what’s known as bad faith claims,” Purtz said. “It also shortens the statute of limitations from four years to two years, and makes some other changes that are designed to limit what injured parties can collect in a lawsuit.”

People came to the meeting on SB 236 to voice support or opposition to the changes. At the beginning of the meeting, Democratic Senator Lauren Book voiced her concerns to Senator Hutson about making victims relive their tragedies if offenders join the civil verdict.

Hutson said he’s heard this before.

“In these proceedings, the jury can already hear about the crime, they can already hear about the criminal measures that are happening. So, I don’t see how that victimizes someone twice,” Hutson said. “Now the difference is, we’re telling the jury on the verdict form, there may be some fault on the other side, too. You guys have to determine that out and that’s going to be between the lawyers for the plaintiff and the defendant, and those lawyers are going to argue that in court, and I believe a competent jury will determine what’s best for that outcome.”

Motorcyclists wearing shirts reading “Bikers over Billionaires” came to the meeting. Most disapproved of the bill and how it would impact crash victims, saying it would only benefit insurance companies.

“It’s not often you see bikers cry, and I saw people shed a few tears,” Holly Hill of Sarasota said. “If you were to look at us, people [with] shirts like mine. You might notice that we belong to a certain demographic, and that’s the demographic that helps you get the super majority that you enjoy in this legislature today.”

Purtz says that injured parties would be limited to what they can present at trial if they don’t have insurance or are under a letter of protection with a physician under HB 837.

“To limit what a doctor can charge to 1.4 times the Medicaid rate will basically drive all the doctors out of doing any type of work,” Purtz said. “It’s almost impossible to find a spinal surgeon, there are none in Southwest Florida that work for Medicaid rates, we have to go out to somebody, and this will just make the problem worse. So, it’s very difficult to convince any doctor to work for that money.”

Andy Bolin, a board-certified civil trial lawyer at Bolin Law Group, spoke on behalf of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, showing support for the bill in how it deals with accuracy and damages.

“You’ve heard a lot about how the accuracy and damages portion of this will correct phantom damages that are being submitted to our juries,” Bolin said. “But I also want to point out that it will also help cure a problem where, because of these inflated past medical expenses, good faith disputed claims, who my clients want to settle.. are unable to do so because of these inflated damages.”

Anna Melendez is a small business owner of a distribution company in Tallahassee that delivers to over 1,200 convenience stores. She says being a small business owner isn’t for the faint of heart.

“There are rewards but there’s also a lot of risk and it seems like it’s getting riskier and costlier every day. As a matter of fact, my liability premiums have gone through the roof, and my warehouse has a big roof,” Melendez said. “It’s crystal clear to me that our laws are failing small business owners in our state of Florida. All you have to do is drive down any street or highway and you’ll see all the billboards are for lawyers, one after another with actual dollar signs saying ‘please hire me and get paid.’ Small business is a massive target for frivolous lawsuits.”

Sal Nuzzo of The James Madison Institute, a right-wing advocacy “think tank,” supported the transparency and damages portion of the senate bill.

“What this bill functionally does in this respect is to provide correct information to juries whose job it is to seek the truth and make accurate judgments for damages in their jobs,” Nuzzo said. “The status quo means that we keep and maintain a cottage industry of fraud and abuse over medical charges. The bill for which lands on every single Floridian paying an insurance premium in this state.”

Sophia Spero was in a crash on October 18, 2018, due to an impaired driver in her hometown of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. She was a 17-year-old senior in high school and a server in a retirement community. She was driving to her part-time job around 3:40 p.m. when she was struck by a 67-year-old impaired driver with prescription medication in his system and a blood alcohol content of 0.14.

She doesn’t know the extent of the other driver’s injuries, but she had a compound fracture in her left femur, a broken right kneecap, three factures in her right hand and wrist, a compression fracture to a vertebra, and a concussion.

“I’m obviously not grateful or lucky that this happened to me in any sense of the word,” Spero said. “But I am thankful that my injuries were solely bone injuries because bones can heal.”

She spent 10 days bedridden in a local hospital and had surgery to put metal rods and screws in her left femur. Then she was transported to a pediatric rehab hospital in Delaware for two and a half weeks. She was sent home in November of 2018.

“It’s really hard being 17-years-old and having a walker and watching your friends on social media, doing all these things that you should be there doing, but you can’t be because of somebody else’s choice,” Spero said.

She returned to school in January of 2019, three months after her accident. She used to run and cheer in high school, and the crash limited her physical abilities. She was homeschooled for months.

She was going to physical therapy two to three times a week and had a manipulation procedure in March of 2019. This was to give her full range of motion in her left leg again, but the procedure didn’t work. In December of 2020, she had surgery to get the metal hardware taken out of her left femur.

“Most people are injured in accidents reach out to attorneys relatively soon after their injury,” attorney Richard Purtz said. “But what happens is not all the treatments complete in 60, or 90, or even 180 days, and sometimes doesn’t finish until one or two years passes, because people have multiple surgeries from that one single event.”

Before getting this surgery two years after her crash, Spero said she was in constant pain and didn’t have full range of motion in that leg.

“I can do physically anything that I would like to do or anything that I would want to do prior to my crash happening, which is amazing,” Spero said. “But mentally, this is with me every single day.”

She was at a service-learning fair her freshman year when she met people from an organization called Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). She ended up volunteering with them for the next three years. She now works full-time as the program specialist for MADD and gives 60 presentations in the community to reach around 12,000 people a year.

Attorney Richard Purtz brought up the point that ever since Hurricane Ian hit Southwest Florida last September, hundreds of people have contacted his firm with complaints of their house damages.

“They have damage to their house and says it’s $75,000 or $100,000. They’re getting offered $2,000 or $3,000 by their insurance company. Well, before the law was changed, if you bring a suit against your insurance company and you won, and your insurance company had to pay your attorneys fees, well, that no longer exists,” Purtz said.

“So now people have to pay money out of their pocket or money out of their ultimate settlement to pay their lawyers and it makes it almost impossible for any insured personnel to get 100% reimbursement for their losses and rebuild their homes,” Purtz continued. “It’s a terrible situation, it’s very unfavorable to the insured, the people are being hurt the most. And insurance companies are pocketing the profits, and it’s just not a fair system we currently have.”

Purtz says HB 837 includes nothing that favors or helps injured victims.

“In fact, it makes some of these things make it almost impossible to get cases resolved,” Purtz said.

This story was produced by Democracy Watch, a news service provided by Florida Gulf Coast University journalism students. The reporter can be reached at [email protected]

https://news.wgcu.org/government-politics/2023-03-29/sharp-differences-over-changing-floridas-law-on-personal-injury-and-damage-lawsuits

Major changes to Florida tort laws clear House; Senate could vote on final passage next week

March 18, 2023/in Florida Politics

Christine Jordan Sexton – March 18, 2023

The hope is insurance rates will be lowered though there is no mandate in the bill.

The House has passed a major legislative package to limit lawsuits against insurance companies and businesses.

Filed by Reps. Tommy Gregory and Tom Fabricio, the bill (HB 837) cleared the chamber on an 80-31 vote. Rep. Paula Stark, a Republican from St. Cloud, voted against the bill and was the only member to cross party lines.

The omnibus bill makes substantive changes to how lawsuits are filed and litigated in the state, all but eliminating the longstanding statute that allows a policyholder who successfully sues their insurance company on a coverage denial claim to recoup attorney fees.

That 1893 law was “misguided,” Gregory, a Republican civil litigator from Manatee County, said, because it encouraged policyholders to file lawsuits.

By contrast, he continued, the bill seeks to establish three principles: That each party to litigation should pay its own attorney fees; that “the person who causes you harm, that’s the person who pays for your damages” and not “those with the deepest pockets,” whether a business of insurance company; and to “trust the juries.”

Fabricio, also a Republican civil attorney but from Miami-Dade County, noted that the bill does nothing to cap damages, even punitive damages. It does promote transparency as to damages suffered by requiring plaintiffs to provide evidence of the medical costs they’re actually paying, less any discounts or waivers, he said.

“We want the juries to be armed with all the information. We want the juries to be able to go back to that jury room, deliberate based on the numbers that both sides present,” Fabricio said.

The bill is a priority for Gov. Ron DeSantis, House Speaker Paul Renner, and Senate President Kathleen Passidomo and has been fast-tracked through the legislative process.

SB 236, the companion bill filed by Sen. Travis Hutson, has cleared all of its committees of reference and could be considered by the full Senate as soon as Wednesday.

Business interests were quick to issue statements lauding Renner and the House for passing the legislation.

“With the House’s passage today of legislation that will significantly transform our state’s legal system, Speaker Paul Renner has taken a stand in support of Florida’s businesses and consumers and put unscrupulous billboard lawyers on notice,” AIF President and CEO Brewster Bevis said in a prepared statement.

Bevis said the bill puts a stop to what he called “frivolous” lawsuits being filed solely for personal gain.

Democrat Mike Gottlieb, a criminal-defense lawyer from Broward County, conceded the state needs tort reform, but warned that the bill’s limits on medical payouts would discourage doctors from treating injured people on the basis of a future insurance recovery.

In addition to the near-total elimination of the one-way attorney fee statutes, the bill changes the information that juries are allowed to consider regarding past and future medical bills.

The House bill initially would have put an end to the use of letters of protection, or LOPs.

LOPs are sent by plaintiff attorneys to their clients’ health care providers. LOPs guarantee the provider payment for medical treatment from a future lawsuit settlement or verdict award. Therefore, if the patient is insured, providers don’t bill the insurers, Medicare or Medicaid.

While HB 837 doesn’t ban LOPs altogether, the bill allows juries to consider the contracted commercial reimbursement rates for the costs of care as well as Medicare and Medicaid rates when determining future medical expenses.

The bill makes clear the jury can consider 120% of the Medicare reimbursement rate or, if the service isn’t covered by Medicare, 170% of the Medicaid reimbursement rate.

Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large said letters of protection enable plaintiff attorneys to inflate the value of past medical bills and claims the use of LOPs artificially inflates settlement amounts by as much as 400%.

The bill also allows separate court proceedings to divide payouts between policyholders and any third parties, such as auto passengers, injured in any accident. The carrier wouldn’t have to pay third parties any amount in excess of the policy limit.

But all parties, including third parties, would have to cooperate in good faith. Hillary Cassel, a Democrat from Broward County, argued that provision would allow those third parties, by refusing to cooperate with someone who harmed them, to muddle the claim.

“Good faith now would require that family that lost a family member to work in good faith with this person who hurt their family member. And if that person who’s been injured doesn’t cooperate in the manner in which the insurance company sees fit, that impacts that business’ insurance,” Cassel said.

“Is that common sense?”

In past Legislative Sessions, companies such as Publix were on the front lines of the LOP battle alongside FJRI. But for the 2023 Session, the Florida Trucking Association (FTA) has taken on a more prominent role.

“Today is a promising step in the fight against trial attorneys who have been profiting while businesses and Floridians have suffered under the cost of lawsuit abuse,” FTA President and CEO Alix Miller said in a prepared statement. “We look forward to seeing the Senate take similar action, so we can, once and for all, rebalance our judicial system to the benefit of all Floridians.”

Worth noting: There were eight House members who weren’t included in the final House vote. And while the official vote remains unchanged, three of the eight members — Reps. Mike Beltran, Joe Casello, and Chip LaMarca — voted later.

Beltran, a Republican from Valrico, and Cassello, a Democrat from Boynton Beach, cast “no” votes while LaMarca, a Republican from Lighthouse Point, cast a “yes” vote.

Meanwhile Reps. Jervonte Edmonds, Dianne Hart, Lauren Melo and Allison Tant did not vote.

There is no requirement for insurance companies to reduce rates as a result of the substantive changes. And that is one reason why the legislation has been criticized by trial attorneys and their clients who say it goes too far and will result in a windfall for insurance companies.

Specifically, they note that the bill changes Florida’s bad faith statutes so that insurance companies cannot be sued for bad faith if, prior to a complaint being filed or within 90 days of being notified of the complaint, they tendered the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded by the claimant.

Additionally, if there are multiple claimants in a single bad faith action, the bill allows the insurer at the outset to pay the total amount of the policy limits through an interpleader action. That limits the insurer’s bad faith liability and makes the claimants compete against each other for a share of the money.

NFIB Executive Director Bill Herrle said Friday that the small business owners his association represents have “clamored for” the changes.

The bill “won’t stop anyone from going to court. If you’ve been hurt, you have a constitutional right to seek redress, but HB 837 brings the scales of justice back into balance after being weighted in favor of plaintiffs’ attorneys for so many years,” Herrle said.

He added that, unlike big corporations, small businesses don’t have legal departments to defend themselves against.

“The cost of defending itself against just one nuisance lawsuit can break a small business, even if the case is eventually thrown out of court,” he said.

—

Material from The Florida Phoenix was used in this post.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/596307-torts-bill-clears-house-senate-could-vote-on-final-passage-next-week/

HOUSE AND SENATE TORT BILLS COMING TOGETHER

March 16, 2023/in Florida Bar News

Mar 16, 2023 By Jim Ash

The Senate Judiciary Committee has signed off on sweeping litigation reforms, many long demanded by industry to combat “lawsuit abuse,” “nuclear verdicts,” and “billboard attorneys.”

The committee voted 8-4 on March 14 to approve a revised SB 236 by Sen. Travis Hutson, R-Palm Coast.

Sen. Travis Hutson

Hutson noted that the number of witnesses who submitted appearance cards fell from 250 at the first committee to 150 and suggested that changes resulting from negotiations with the House are mollifying critics.

“There are bad actors on both sides of the aisle,” he said, referring to insurers and trial attorneys. “Ultimately, the goal is to strike a balance.”

In nearly three hours of debate, critics, including Democrats, veteran trial lawyers, human trafficking survivors, the father of a Parkland school shooting victim, and others, blasted the proposal, saying it would deny just compensation to Florida’s most vulnerable.

Supporters, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Insurance Federation, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the Florida Justice Reform Institute, urged the sponsors to protect businesses and insurers from predatory lawsuits.

Democrats on the committee continued to complain that sponsors are rushing myriad changes to a complex system that is designed to protect people harmed by the actions of others.

“I continue to have some of the same concerns with the bill that I expressed the last time that I saw it,” said Sen. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando. “It flips the duty to act in good faith to the consumer, even though it’s the insurance company that acted in bad faith.”

Hutson offered a 34-page “delete everything” amendment that he said makes the Senate proposal nearly identical to HB 837 by Rep. Tommy Gregory, R-Lakewood Ranch. The House is poised to begin debating the companion March 16.

Among other things, HB 837 called for repealing Florida’s fee-shifting statute that for decades has required insurers to pay a policyholder’s attorney fees and costs if a court determines that the company unfairly denied or underpaid a claim.

Both chambers have since agreed to permit fee shifting in limited circumstances, Hutson said.

However, Hutson acknowledged that the reforms would still require many plaintiffs to pay their own legal fees.

Sen. Thompson said she doubted plaintiffs could find a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis.

“How likely is it that an individual, an attorney, is going to put in all the work, without the assurance that they are going to be compensated?” she asked.

Hutson predicted the reforms would drive down the cost of legal services as plaintiffs shop for lower fees.

“So, we’re going to create competition with this, and it’s going to be good for the consumers,” he said.

Other provisions would reduce the statute of limitations for negligence actions from four years to two and move Florida from a “pure” to a “modified” comparative negligence standard.

The change would mean that a plaintiff who is found more than 50% at fault would be denied damages – or a defendant who is found only 49% at fault would pay nothing.

But both chambers have agreed to exempt medical malpractice from the modified standard, Hutson said.

Sen. Gayle Harrell, R-Stuart, said she was concerned the exemption will blunt the benefits of the reforms.

“Why are we eliminating medical malpractice from this?” she said.

But Hutson said that’s where he draws the line.

“I think a doctor that commits 49% damages should still be on the hook as far as it relates to a patient still receiving full damages for a suit,” he said.

Both chambers now agree on revised process for protecting insurers from a bad-faith actions, Hutson said.

The House proposed giving insurers 120 days after a policy holder makes a claim to offer to pay the claim, or the policy limits, whichever is less, to avoid bad-faith liability.

Both chambers now agree that the insurer should have 90 days from when the claim is filed to make the offer, Hutson said.

The Florida Justice Association warned that a “damages transparency” section of the original House proposal would limit damages for some severely injured plaintiffs to 140% of the Medicaid reimbursement rate. Hutson said the House and Senate have agreed to raise that provision to 170% of the Medicaid rate.

The thrust of damages transparency, supporters say, is to prevent plaintiffs from presenting “phantom” or inflated medical expenses to juries to artificially inflate damages.

Much of the debate in Senate Judiciary Committee focused on a premises liability provision.

The reforms seek to protect apartment and other multi-family housing property owners from liability when a criminal kills or injures a resident.

Property owners who take certain precautions, such as securing access, video monitoring, and lighting, would receive immunity.

To remain in compliance, the property would have to undergo periodic inspection. Hutson said the Senate demanded more frequent inspections, and the House relented.

But critics, including MADD and other victim advocates, strenuously oppose a provision that would allow juries in premises liability cases to apportion part of the blame to the criminal defendant.

Rep. Mike Gottlieb, D-Plantation, and a lawyer, tried unsuccessfully to strip the provision from the House bill, arguing that Florida courts have always resolved civil and criminal cases in separate forums. Critics predicted that jurors in civil suits would apportion blame to criminal defendants who are the least able to pay damages.

Jeff Binkley told the panel he filed a civil suit after his 21-year-old daughter, Maura, an FSU senior, was killed in a Tallahassee yoga studio mass shooting in November 2018.

Had the reform measures been in place, the defendant would have risked going to trial instead of accepting responsibility and agreeing to settle, Binkley said.

“This is a hammer in search of a nail, and if you pass this, that hammer is going to land on victims,” he said.

Another opponent told the committee that her 17-year-old son was killed by a stray bullet at a complex where the owners allowed gang violence to fester.

“It would be reprehensible for the condominium to avoid responsibility by pointing the finger at the killer,” she said.

Curry Pajcic, president of the Florida Justice Association, warned that a young woman who was savagely assaulted at an apartment complex would be “forced to share the verdict form” with her assailant in a civil trial.

“Who’s the jury going to blame more, that animal who raped her, or the apartment complex?” he said. “That jury is going to blame that animal. You would do it — I would do it.”

https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/house-and-senate-tort-bills-coming-together/

Lawsuit limitation bills keep rolling through the process

March 16, 2023/in Florida Politics

Christine Jordan Sexton – March 16, 2023

A bill that gives insurers, and businesses more protections against lawsuits could pass the House on Friday.

The Florida business community’s top priority for the 2023 Legislative Session — a sweeping bill to limit lawsuits against insurance companies and businesses — was center stage Thursday.

The Senate Fiscal Policy Committee voted 13-6 to pass SB 236 by Sen. Travis Hutson and the full House debated its version of the proposal, HB 837 by Reps. Tommy Gregory and Tom Fabricio, before agreeing to roll the bill to third reading ahead of a likely Friday vote.

While Democrats tried to amend the bills on Thursday, Republican supermajorities in the House and Senate successfully beat back their efforts.

Associated Industries of Florida President & CEO Brewster Bevis issued a statement following the lengthy meeting and vote.

“We applaud members of the Committee on Fiscal Policy for supporting these important policy changes that will help stop out-of-control lawsuit abuse in our state. By rebalancing Florida’s legal system, lawmakers are rightfully putting the interests of businesses and consumers above the profits of billboard lawyers. AIF will continue to stand in strong support of Florida’s leaders as they tackle our state’s toxic tort climate this Session.”

The Fiscal Policy Committee was the third Senate panel to advance SB 236, which now heads to the full Senate.

The high-priority legislation is endorsed by Republican legislative leaders and Gov. Ron DeSantis. Not all Republicans are on board, however.

Port Orange Republican Sen. Tom Wright said Thursday he was voting against the measure after hearing from constituents.

“You have 150 ‘nos’ and three ‘yesses,’” Wright told Hutson. “They voted me in so I will be down on this vote today.”

Other Senate Republicans who previously voted against the bill, such as Sen. Jay Trumbull and Sen. Nick DiCeglie, supported it on Thursday. DiCiegle told the committee that while he had concerns with the bad faith provision in the bill that the bottom line was he wanted to support tort “reform.”

Sen. Linda Stewart, a Democrat from Orlando, also voted for the bill.

Orlando trial attorney and self-described “lifelong Republican” Alexander Clem, told members of the Fiscal Policy Committee that personal responsibility has always been a cornerstone principle of the GOP. Yet the “omnibus” bill, Clem said, abandons that principle.

Clem recalled when his father served in the Legislature in the early 1970s. It was a time, he said, when there were fewer than 30 Republicans serving in the House and Senate.

“(My father) fought for personal responsibility. I know about the political pressure. I can see it. I’ve talked to you all. It’s intense. It is intense and I get it and I am sympathetic to it. But remember this, please. When you make decisions in this body, the laws that you put on the books are there forever. It’s forever time. You are here for a short time, but the laws are on the books for a forever time. This is the time to do what’s right,” he said.

The bills contain many provisions that business associations and insurers have tried to secure for the past two decades.

Included in the bills are provisions to change Florida’s negligence system from a “pure” comparative negligence system to a “modified” comparative negligence system, which would prohibit plaintiffs from collecting damages if they are more than 50% at fault for their own injuries.

The change would not apply to medical malpractice claims.

Juries considering premise liability cases also will be allowed under the bills to consider the fault of all people who contributed to an injury, including criminals.

Specific to attorney fees, the bills build off a decision the Legislature made in a December Special Session to eliminate one-way attorney fees for homeowner claims. While Florida law has long allowed a policyholder who successfully sues their insurance company to recoup their legal fees, the bills eliminate that perk.

There is an exception, however. One-way attorney fees will remain in place for declaratory judgments for coverage denial claims.

Headed into the 2023 Legislative Session, Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large said cracking down on letters of protection — a vehicle designed to guarantee payments to certain medical providers ahead of litigation — was a top priority.

Large and other bill proponents maintain that letters of protection, or LOPs, enable plaintiffs’ attorneys to inflate the costs of past medical bills.

Large hypothesizes that LOPs can inflate the costs of settlements by four times the amount. Business groups initially pushed to ban the use of LOPs and require health care providers to either accept commercial insurance reimbursement for insured patients or agree to Medicare or Medicaid rates for uninsured patients.

Ultimately, the bills allow the continued use of LOPs. But the bills would allow juries to see the amount that was paid to settle past medical bills. Additionally, juries would be able to see evidence of what a provider would accept for payment outside of a LOP.

For an insured patient, the jury could see evidence of what the insurer or HMO would have been required to pay, plus the claimant’s care expenses under the insurance policy.

For patients on Medicare or Medicaid, juries could be shown reimbursement rates. The bill allows juries to see reimbursement at 120% of the Medicare rate. If the service isn’t covered by Medicare, the jury would see 170% of the Medicaid rate.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/596069-lawsuit-limitation-bills-keep-rolling-through-the-process/

Negotiations nearly final on bills to protect insurers, businesses from lawsuits

March 14, 2023/in Florida Politics

Christine Jordan Sexton – March 14, 2023

Letters of protection can still be used under the compromise.

The House and Senate appear to have reached an agreement on most issues of a far-reaching bill on lawsuit limits bill that is being fast-tracked through the Legislature and has the support of Gov. Ron DeSantis

Senate bill sponsor Sen. Travis Hutson detailed the nuances of the agreement between the House and Senate to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

“I am going to call some friends in the House right after we are done,” Hutson told committee members assuring them he would continue to hammer out some fine points of the agreement which he later described to Florida PolItics as technical.

The Florida Justice Association, which represents the state’s trial attorneys and their clients, does not support the agreement. The accord has also caught the ire of some Parkland parents and others who say that proposed changes in the bill that would protect property owners and managers of commercial properties from civil suits goes too far.

Specifically, the bill proposes allowing juries to consider the fault of all people — including criminals — who contributed to an injury.

That is part of broader policy changes in the agreement to shift Florida from a state with a pure comparative negligence approach to a state that uses a modified comparative negligence standard. The switch means that plaintiffs who are found to be more than 50% responsible for their injuries or harm may not recover damages.

The chambers agreed that the changes should not impact medical malpractice cases or wrongful death cases against physicians.

“I hold doctors to a higher standard,” Hutson said of maintaining current law for medical malpractice cases.

Florida’s hospitals and health care providers were hoping that the changes would apply to medical malpractice lawsuits.

The chambers also reached a compromise on so-called “truth in medical damages” and letters of protection, or LOPs.

Headed into the 2023 Legislative Session, Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large said cracking down on letters of protection — a vehicle designed to guarantee payments to certain medical providers ahead of litigation — was a top priority because inflated bills drive excessive jury settlements.

Large and other business groups initially wanted to ban the use of letters of protection and required providers to either accept commercial insurance reimbursement for insured patients or agree to Medicare or Medicaid rates for uninsured patients.

The agreement between the chambers addresses both past and future medical bills. Specific to past bills the agreement allows jurors to see the amount that was paid to settle the bills regardless of the source of payment.

In regard to future medical bills, the agreement allows the jury to see evidence depicting the amount necessary to satisfy unpaid charges for incurred medical treatment. For insured patients whose bills have been paid by their health insurance carrier or HMO, the jury could see evidence of what the health insurer is obligated to pay the health care provider to satisfy the health care bill plus the claimant’s care expenses under the insurance policy.

For insured patients who did not submit bills to the health insurer or HMO to pay and received care under a letter of protection, the jury can see evidence of what the insurer or HMO would have been required to pay plus the claimant’s care expenses under the insurance policy.

And for patients on Medicare or Medicaid, the jury would be told what 120% of the Medicare reimbursement rate is in effect at the time of service. If there is no applicable Medicare rate for a service, 170% of the applicable Medicaid rate will be presented to the jury.

Specific to attorney fees, House and Senate Republicans have agreed to narrow the state’s broad one-way attorney fees statutes to allow the attorney fees to be recovered in declaratory judgments for coverage denial claims.

Regarding bad faith claims, the Senate has agreed to the House’s position to amend current law to make clear that “mere negligence is not bad faith.”

Additionally, the chambers have agreed, Hutson said, to provide a safe harbor against bad faith claims for insurers that give them up to 90 days to pay either an amount covered by a policy or the amount demanded by the person filing the claim, whichever is less.

The overall agreement was embodied in the strike everything amendment that the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to tag onto SB 236 on Tuesday night and in the lengthy amendment that has been filed to HB 837 by bill sponsor Rep. Tommy Gregory. The House bill will be taken up by the full House on Thursday while Hutson’s bill now heads to the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/595485-negotiations-nearly-final-on-bills-to-protect-insurers-businesses-from-lawsuits/

Civil Litigation Reform Package Revised and Moved Out of House Judiciary

March 10, 2023/in Florida Bar News

Mar 10, 2023 By Jim Ash

Rep. Tommy Gregory

A House panel voted Wednesday to approve a revised civil litigation reform package, despite continued warnings that it would deny Florida’s most vulnerable citizens access to justice.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 16-8 to approve HB 837 by Chair Tommy Gregory, R-Lakewood Ranch. The measure goes next to the House floor.

After nearly five hours of debate, Gregory took a swipe at sponsors of a poisoned pill amendment that forced Republicans to vote against creating a negligence action for the death of an unborn child.

“We’re here to talk about balance,” Gregory said. “You wonder what kind of games people play in court? You’ve witnessed some of them here today.”

Critics complained that reformers are rushing fundamental and complex changes to a system that is supposed to serve as a bulwark for victims of another’s wrongdoing.

Rep. Yvonne Hinson, D-Gainesville, noted that sponsors unveiled a 35-page “strike everything” amendment at the last minute.

“For the record, we got this dropped on us just a few minutes before the meeting,” she said.

HB 837 originally called for, among other things, repealing one-way attorney fees for all lines of insurance, switching Florida from a “pure” to a “modified” comparative negligence standard, and making it easier for insurance companies to avoid liability for “bad faith” claims.

Other provisions would condense the statute of limitations for filing negligence claims from four years to two and limit the awarding of attorney fee multipliers to rare and unusual circumstances.

A “damages transparency” section would cap some awards at 140% of the Medicaid rate.

The Civil Justice Subcommittee voted 12-6 to approve the measure at its first committee stop on February 24.

But the revised version no longer calls for repealing Chapter 627.428, a law that for 130 years has protected policy holders by forcing insurers to pay their attorney fees if a court determines the company unfairly denied or underpaid a claim.

The revision also exempts medical malpractice claims from the modified comparative negligence standard. The measure would still prevent other plaintiffs from collecting damages if they are found to be more than 50% at fault. Critics warned that means people who cause a serious accident could avoid paying damages if they are found only 49% at fault.

Rep. Kristen Arrington, D-Kissimmee, asked Gregory to explain “the policy” reason for moving Florida away from pure comparative negligence.

“The policy reason I think is pretty clear,” Gregory said. “You shouldn’t recover damages when you are more to blame for the incident.”

Sponsors also softened a provision that protects insurance companies from liability in “bad-faith” claims.

The original measure would have given insurers 90 days after a lawsuit is filed to offer the disputed amount or the policy limits, whichever is less, to avoid liability.

The revised version gives insurers 120 days after a policy holder makes a claim.

The bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. Tom Fabricio, R-Hialeah, said the change will make insurance companies respond much faster.

“No lawsuit filing will be necessary,” he said.

Critics focused much of their attention on a premises liability provision that seeks to shield multi-family housing owners from liability when a criminal kills or injures a resident.

The bill would allow jurors in those civil actions to consider “the fault of all parties” — including the perpetrator — if the property owner can demonstrate that certain safety measures, such as security lighting, were in place.

Crime victim advocates argued the provision would shift the burden to a party who may be in prison and least able to pay.

Rep. Mike Gottlieb, D-Plantation and an attorney, said the criminal and civil justice systems have always operated separately.

“Why are you considering the actions taken by the tortfeasor?” he asked, referring to the perpetrator. “Are there any guidelines in the bill in terms of telling the jury how they are supposed to apportion that?”

Fabricio said the bill does not specifically address jury instructions.

“The jury will get to determine whether there was in fact liability on the criminal tort feasor,” he said.

Supporters include the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Florida, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Florida Trucking Association, the Florida Justice Reform Institute, insurance companies, and others.

Reformers say the changes are necessary to curb the “lawsuit abuse” that is driving up the cost of consumer goods and every Floridian’s insurance rates.

Florida Justice Association President Curry Pajcic, a prime opponent, thanked the sponsors for agreeing to make changes, but continued to speak against the measure.

“It’s getting better, but we still have a long way to go,” he said.

A Southwest Florida civil trial lawyer, who described himself as a “proud billboard attorney,” said the reforms represent a transfer of wealth from consumers and taxpayers to the insurance industry. He noted that State Farm just reported $89.3 billion in revenue.

But Gregory urged the committee to put that figure in perspective.

“Looking at that in vacuum, it’s an interesting fact, but it ignores all of the insurance companies that went bankrupt and left the state of Florida,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee voted 8-3 on March 7 to approve a companion, SB 236 by Sen. Travis Hutson, R-Palm Coast.

Hutson called the measure “a moving target,” and said he continues to negotiate with House sponsors to bring the measures closer together.

SB 236 faces two more hearings, in the Judiciary and Fiscal Policy committees, before reaching the Senate floor.

Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, and House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, and Gov. Ron DeSantis — all three of them attorneys — support civil litigation reforms.

With Republican supermajorities in both chambers, passage seems all but assured.

Sen. Victor Torres, D-Kissimmee, told the Banking and Insurance Committee he could not support any measure that makes it harder for his constituents to seek justice.

“My constituents sent me up here to protect their rights,” he said. “And when they’re sick or injured is when they need their rights the most.”

https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/civil-litigation-reform-package-revised-and-moved-out-of-house-judiciary/

Diagnosis for 3.8.23: Checking the pulse of Florida health care news and policy

March 8, 2023/in Florida Politics

Christine Jordan Sexton – March 8, 2023

— Medical costs in play —

Medical costs are among a trio of thorny issues in the omnibus tort bills that continue to be hammered out between the legislative chambers according to Sen. Travis Hutson, primary sponsor of SB 236.

“Those issues are not set in stone even as we speak right now,” Hutson told members of a Senate Banking and Insurance Committee Tuesday night who voted 8-3 to advance his lawsuit limits bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Two highly watched bills aim to rein in the use of what are known as “letters of protection” (LOP). LOPs are sent to surgeons who treat injured people. Plaintiffs’ attorneys use LOPs to guarantee the providers’ medical payments from future lawsuits settlement or verdict awards.

Travis Hutson addresses medical costs in his latest bill on changes to Florida’s tort situation.

SB 236 and its counterpart HB 837 would require surgeons and other providers who treat insured patients to accept negotiated reimbursement costs. For uninsured patients, the bills would cap charges at Medicare or Medicaid rates. The Senate bill would cap providers at 120% of Medicare rates in effect at the time or if there is no Medicare rate, 170% of the applicable Medicaid rate.

The House bill also would cap reimbursements at the Medicare rate. But if there’s no applicable Medicare rate, 140% of the Medicaid rate.

Surgeons have come to Tallahassee in droves to testify against both bills, saying the provision would adversely impact the uninsured who won’t be able to find surgeons willing to take their complex cases.

But proponents of the restrictions say LOPs inflate the patient’s medical costs and in turn fuel large jury verdicts. The reason? The higher the costs of past care, the higher the costs of future care and the higher the amount of pain and suffering juries are willing to award

Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large said tackling the LOPs situation is “the most significant” civil reform that could be made this session. At an Associated Industries of Florida meeting earlier this year, Large said lawsuits with past medical costs of $90,000 or more can yield big verdict returns.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/593819-diagnosis-for-3-8-23-checking-the-pulse-of-florida-health-care-news-and-policy/

Tampa attorneys speak out against Florida tort reform bill currently in session

March 8, 2023/in ABC Action News

Personal injury attorneys and doctors say the bill will negatively affect anyone who drives a car in Florida.

By: Stassy OlmosPosted at 11:23 AM, Mar 08, 2023 and last updated 7:03 PM, Mar 08, 2023

TAMPA, Fla. — One of the biggest tasks the Florida legislature has this session is a bill Governor Ron DeSantis wants passed known as monumental insurance tort reform, but there are some major concerns surfacing in the Tampa Bay community.

“Everybody who has car insurance in the state of Florida, who drives a car in the state of Florida, rides in a car in the state of Florida will be negatively affected by this bill,” said Attorney Keith Ligori of Ligori and Ligori in Tampa.

Ligori is one of several attorneys who represent personal injury, wrongful death, and insurance lawsuits that are raising red flags about the civil remedies bills now in the House and Senate.

“It’s packaged with a big red bow, gift wrapped, at the expense of businesses, families, and folks who have been injured probably at the lowest point in their lives,” said Stephen Barnes of Barnes Trial Group.

Here’s the basics of what’s in the bill:

1. Limits one-way attorney fees and fee multipliers that an insurance company pays
2. Allows a jury to know when a lawyer refers a client to a medical provider
3. Changes third-party rights to sue an insurance company for “bad faith”
4. Creates standards to prove the cost of damages for medical expenses
5. Bases a standard cost of care on Medicare rates
6. Enforces “comparative negligence” so a party greater than 50% at fault cannot recover damage

Florida Justice Reform Institute CEO William Large supports the bill, which he explained has the goal of stopping lawsuitabuse.

“What we’ve seen is a lot of lawsuits over low dollar amounts that were really about attorney’s fees,” Large said. “These lawsuits sometimes are brought over $2, $100, $200, and it’s not about the amount of controversy; it’s about the attorney’s fees associated with fighting the amount of controversy that leads to needless litigation.”

Tampa attorneys are concerned it will do the opposite.

“What this bill does is it allows the insurance companies to be able to delay, delay, delay and deny claims and then pay out lowball claims,” Ligori said. “And what’s gonna happen is these cases are going to all get litigated now because the way the law is written, they have 90 days after you file suit, so all they’re doing is this bill is really promoting is more litigation.”

“By creating tort reform, sure, it hurts personal injury lawyers, but the reality is who it really hurts is the consumer, the person who’s been injured, and who does it really help? The wrongdoer, the individual, a corporation, you’re trying to hold accountable,” said Scott Distasio of Distasio Personal Injury Law.

The bill also lays out standards for the cost of medical care for all claims with the goal of not allowing doctors to inflate costs.

“If you have health insurance, and the bill wasn’t paid yet, the numbers should be what the health insurance would be. Number two, if you have health insurance and didn’t use it, it should be what the health insurance would have paid,” Large explained.

“If you do not have health insurance at all, what should that number have been? One marker potentially is the Medicare number. If Medicare doesn’t treat something, the language of the bill says the number should be 140% of Medicaid.”

A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found private insurers pay nearly double medicare rates for all hospital services at 199%, 143% for physician visits, and an average of 264% for outpatient services.

Kaiser Family Foundation

“What incentive or motivation does the doctor have to see somebody, get typically Medicaid — the lowest rate out there, and still possibly not even get paid on the treatment that they’re providing?” exclaimed Dr. Jay Parekh, an interventional spine and joint physician in Tampa.

Parekh said one of his biggest concerns is that patients with health insurance will get delayed care, and those without may be denied care

“I’ve had patients who’ve had massive herniated discs following a car accident, who need immediate surgery. And we don’t really realize that until they get that MRI done,” he said. “Now, if this bill goes through, and that patient has to wait two to four weeks or six weeks to have an MRI done, they might get paralyzed.”

He added, “I actually have a close friend of mine… a physician, he is not allowed to see patients who have been in motor vehicle accidents. The only way this spine surgeon can see a patient has been involved in a motor vehicle accident is if that patient goes to the emergency room.”

Attorneys also expressed concern regarding comparative negligence reform, which they say will allow those who are found almost equally at fault in an accident can walk away without paying any damages.

For example, Barnes said someone texting and driving who runs a stop sign and injures another driver.

“The insurance company for the person who was texting and ran the stop sign can go hire an expert and figure out that maybe the other driver was going five or 10 miles over the speed limit. And then make an argument that ‘You know what? Their speeding was 51% the cause of this accident, and the texter that ran the stop sign was 49%. Under this bill, the person who was texting and ran a stop sign would get off without paying a dime, so would their insurance company,” he said.

In the governor’s press conference in February, the CEO of Patriot Transportation Trucking Company said this tort reform bill will help the trucking industry stay in business.

“Since 2018, our insurance rates have gone up by 73%, and we’ve reduced our coverage by 60%,” said Rob Sandlin, President/CEO at Patriot Transportation.

Patriot Transportation

The question is: will insurance rates really go down?

“This is politics,” Ligori expressed. “Nowhere in the bill does it say that they guarantee the reduced rates by the amount of money that they save by not paying off the claims.”

These attorneys and doctors are pleading with the legislature to rework the bill before they consider passing it this session.

The House and Senate currently have similar versions of the bill on the table— HB 837 and SB 236. Both the House speaker and the Senate president spoke in favor of passing the bill at the governor’s press conference in February.

“It’s unacceptable for the free state of Florida to be considered a judicial hellhole,” Representative Tom Fabricio said in a press release. “While attorneys have a responsibility to passionately represent their clients, some have abused the system for purely financial gain. HB 837 will bring balance to the system and protect the legal rights of Floridians to access the courts while disincentivizing and reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits.”

Read more of the opinion regarding the bill from the Florida Justice Reform Institute below.

Tort Reform Package One-Pager 1.3 by ABC Action News on Scribd

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/in-depth/tampa-attorneys-speak-out-against-florida-tort-reform-bill-currently-in-session

Proposed Florida laws are good news for insurers—as plaintiff lawyers push back

March 6, 2023/in PropertyCasualty360

Parkland shooting victims and survivors were among the South Florida residents gathered Thursday in opposition to the proposed changes.

By Lisa Willis | March 06, 2023 at 12:04 AM

Florida State Capitol Building in Tallahassee. (Credit: SeanPavonePhoto/Adobe Stock)

As the larger tort reform bill, HB 837, is making its way through the legislature in Tallahassee, South Florida plaintiff attorneys and clients are up in arms over not only about the proposed law, but another bill introduced this week, Senate Bill 1274.

This bill, introduced by state Sen. Colleen Burton, is anticipated to be up in the Senate Tuesday afternoon, and then again in the House on Wednesday afternoon, said Miami lawyer Stephen Forst Cain of Stewart Tilghman Fox Bianchi & Cain.

Cain is in the state capitol fighting the bill and a slew of proposed amendments surrounding the controversial piece of legislation aimed at what Gov. Ron DeSantis says is “comprehensive reforms to decrease frivolous lawsuits and prevent predatory practices of trial attorneys that prey on hardworking Floridians.”

“I think this is Big Insurance companies convincing legislators that we need to be a business-friendly state. The problem is that in the meantime, they’re trampling on the rights of everyday Floridians and making our safe state unsafe,” Cain said. ”That bill, frankly, makes our state unsafe. It disincentivizes business owners and apartment complexes from taking appropriate security measures, and I think will result in more crime not less—all to get big insurance more money.”

‘All types of lawsuits’
Both bills plus the proposed amendments are the talk of Tallahassee and South Florida.

Davie legal ethics professor Robert Jarvis said 837 is a terrible bill.

Jarvis, who teaches at Nova Southeastern University, says at its base level, the bill continues the insurance industry’s long effort to reduce payouts to plaintiffs.

“The industry has never had a more supportive governor or legislature, and that is why it is striking now and finding success,” Jarvis said.

Jarvis said it would be a change to the comparative negligence system—used for decades— and designed to help defendants, who in most cases are companies.

“All plaintiffs, whether crime victims or not, take a chance when they file a lawsuit that they will be unsuccessful,” he said. “And HB 837’s changes are not specifically aimed at crime victims. Instead, they apply broadly to all types of lawsuits.”

Changes would affect premises liability
But that’s of little comfort to former victims of crime who gathered in Miami Lakes Thursday to voice their concerns.

The group was comprised of victims of violent crime, victims of negligence and those who lost loved ones to tragedy, most of which sought financial restitution via lawsuits in the past.

Spokesperson Renee Williams with the advocacy group National Center for Victims of Crime said the proposed changes make her worried for Floridians “… and a little bit angry.”

“I think that there has been a misnomer that this is tort reform,” Williams said. “And while I totally respect some of the policy purposes behind this bill, it’s disheartening that the amendment that joined this week was done with absolutely no consideration to crime victims.”

Williams is concerned with the wording of the “premises liability for criminal acts” by third parties in the bill, which she said alludes to owners or principal operators of multifamily properties and businesses having certain presumptions against liability.

“If business owners and if businesses in the state of Florida have a crime committed on their property, as long as they can point to the perpetrator or the criminal as being responsible, they’re no longer responsible for anything, including common sense safety measures that keep individuals and communities safe,” she said.

‘Slip it through the legislature’
Jarvis, the ethics expert, said some lawyers are reluctant to discuss the proposed changes.

“Plaintiffs’ lawyers, of course, clearly are against it, (but) why won’t any defense lawyers speak? I think the answer is obvious: This is a bad bill for consumers, and its opponents are hoping to slip it through the legislature,” he said. “Recognizing, however, that this is not going to slip through the legislature, they are calling it tort reform, when of course, it is no such thing.”

“I can’t think of any lawyer who might be willing to give you a quote supporting bill, ” Jarvis added.

‘Taking on the trial lawyers’
But some business groups welcomed the bills.

Calling the proposed changes the most consequential civil litigation reform in a generation, William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, applauded.

“Governor DeSantis has repeatedly pledged to take on the toughest issues, and he has delivered,” Large said. “Now, with help from the legislature, he’s taking on the trial lawyers in dramatic fashion, and leading Florida towards a more predictable, stable legal environment that focuses on fairness and personal responsibility.”

Meanwhile, Fort Lauderdale attorney John Uustal, founding partner with Kelly Uustal, said the proposed changes sound great at first, but the bills’ authors need to consider the real-life ramifications if the bills were to have been law when the Parkland shooting occurred.

Parkland shooting victims and survivors were among the South Florida residents gathered Thursday in opposition to the proposed changes. They wanted to share their concerns about how they think the bill would affect others like them in the future, should something like the Marjory Stoneman Douglas massacre happen again.

“It would have destroyed the Parkland families’ ability to hold anyone else accountable,” Uustal said. “It would be a get-out-of-jail-free card for all types of businesses and government entities that violate the law or in other ways commit negligent acts that result in people getting killed or hurt.”

https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2023/03/06/proposed-florida-laws-are-good-news-for-insurers-as-plaintiff-lawyers-push-back-414-235060/

Florida Tort Reform Bill Goes Big, Checks Most Remaining Boxes for Insurers Hoping to Stem Litigation

March 6, 2023/in The Insurance Journal

By William Rabb | March 6, 2023

Outside of insurance attorneys, plaintiffs’ lawyers and some doctors, few people in Florida may be familiar with what are known as letters of protection.

But critics say the instruments, in which doctors agree to take a share of the judgment in an injury lawsuit, are responsible for greatly inflating some medical costs, which are often paid by liability and auto insurers.

And now, thanks to a tort-reform bill filed before the start of the March 7 Florida legislative session, those letters would have to be disclosed by plaintiffs.

It’s just one of several “monumental” legal changes proposed by House Bill 837, which was submitted by Florida Rep. Tommy Gregory, R-Lakewood Ranch.

“This has been a key priority for the business community,” said George Feijoo, a former Florida insurance regulator and now a government affairs consultant at Floridian Partners. “It’s a perfect alignment of the governor and the Senate and the speaker on these issues.”

Few people this year were talking publicly about another round of reforms designed to limit litigation costs for insurers, after Florida lawmakers approved sweeping legislation in December. But after huddling quietly with the Florida governor and the newly sworn Republican leaders of the House and Senate, along with some of the biggest business and legal reform groups in Florida, Gregory has drafted a bill that checks the remaining boxes that property-casualty insurers and other corporations have been asking for.

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys were caught off guard by the measure.

“This came out of nowhere,” said West Palm Beach attorney Gina Clausen Lozier, who represents policyholders in claims litigation. “They’re really trying to tie up all the loose ends.”

Here’s a look at some of the key provisions in the bill:

No more attorney-client privilege on treating physicians for plaintiffs. In Worley vs. Central Florida YMCA, the Florida Supreme Court in 2017 decided that when claimants’ attorneys refer their injured clients to doctors for treatment, the financial relationship between the lawyer and the doctor does not have to be revealed in discovery. Without that, the jury can’t fairly decide if the physician has an incentive to inflate medical treatments and costs, said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which has lobbied for tort reforms.

The Worley decision has stuck in the craw of the insurance industry for years, because insurers’ payments to their own medical expert witnesses are considered discoverable in litigation. HB 837 ends the perceived double standard.

50% at fault means no recovery. Florida statutes have allowed juries to allocate responsibility for an accident or negligent act that caused harm. HB 837 states flatly that if a plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, he or she cannot recover damages.

Policy limits equal damage limits. If two or more third-party claimants make competing claims on a single incident, which, taken together, would exceed the policy limits, an insurer cannot be liable beyond the policy limits, the bill reads. The claimants will be entitled to a prorated share, as determined by the court or arbitrator in the case.

Medical costs must be real. The bill would require that evidence provided by plaintiffs in injury claims must be limited to the “amount actually paid, regardless of the source of payment.” That means that if the injured party has health care insurance, the amount paid by insurance should be explained and damages should not be based on unsupported medical estimates.

Letters of protection. The letters are big reasons why medical costs and damages in an injury verdict have often seemed higher than what a health insurer would normally pay for treatment, critics have said. A Justice Reform Institute white paper in 2019 argued that even if an injured person has health coverage, the plaintiff’s lawyer might recommend an LOP in order to avoid damage awards based on the lower, negotiated rates generally paid by health insurers to medical providers.

Under HB 837, all letters of protection, along with the amount the third-party factoring company agreed to pay the doctor, would be divulged in the personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit proceedings. Doctors’ bills would have to be itemized and must include procedure codes where possible.

No more multipliers. What Senate Bill 2D did for property insurance litigation, HB 837 would do for auto and liability insurance claims litigation. Thanks in part to another 2017 opinion by the Florida Supreme Court, courts have allowed plaintiffs’ attorneys to use a multiplier. Gregory’s bill would allow only the Lodestar fee, except in rare circumstances when evidence shows that competent counsel could not otherwise be retained.

One-way attorney fees. At the heart of Florida’s property insurance crisis, many insurers have said, were Florida statutes and court rulings that granted hefty attorney fees, even if the insured prevailed by only a marginal amount in court. Gregory’s bill simply repeals Florida Statutes 627.428 and 626.9373, which authorized the fee structure. It would also apply to surplus lines.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-features/2023/03/06/710037.htm

WGCU | By Hayley Lemery Published March 29, 2023 at 12:16 PM EDT

Sophia Spero was driving and injured in a collision with another vehicle. She said the other driver was impaired, and Spero now works with

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Spero is concerned about changes to Florida laws on personal injury legal claims.