Jesse Scheckner – May 29, 2025

A bill to repeal the unique Florida restriction derisively dubbed ‘free kill’ passed overwhelmingly in both legislative chambers. The Governor vetoed it Thursday.

Following through on his mid-May vow to do so, Gov. Ron DeSantis has blocked bipartisan legislation that would have repealed a decades-old Florida law that critics derisively dubbed “free kill.”

In a letter to House Speaker Daniel Perez, DeSantis confirmed he vetoed the measure, maintaining the state’s existing prohibition on lawsuits by unmarried adults over 25 and their parents from suing for pain and suffering due to a wrongful death caused by medical malpractice.

He framed his decision as one based on financial impact, keeping Florida attractive to doctors and maintaining the state’s level of health care as its insurance market stabilizes.

“What would this legislation do for the cost of health care in Florida, access to care in Florida and our ability to recruit and keep physicians?” he said at a Thursday press conference announcing his plan to kill the bill. “It would lead to higher costs for Floridians. It would lead to less access to care in Florida. It would make it harder for us to keep, recruit and maintain physicians in the state of Florida.”

As he did earlier this month, the Governor cited a lack of caps on legal damages in the bill as a significant flaw.

Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo agreed, calling the Governor’s veto “the right thing to do.”

“The issue of justice, legal justice, economic damages, non-economic damages — there simply isn’t enough justice to go around and have the system be able to stand up on its two feet,” Ladapo said.

“It’s just not possible. And the right thing to do, the wise thing to do in that situation, is to have caps. Frankly, it’s insane to have a system with no caps on non-economic damages and expect for that system to continue to sustain itself and function as it was intended to function, which is to provide care to patients.”

Florida is the only state to have a law like “free kill.” It was enacted in 1990 as part of an expansion to the state’s Wrongful Death Act, with proponents saying at the time that doing otherwise would send medical malpractice insurance premiums skyrocketing and doctors fleeing to other states.

Proponents of the repeal bill (HB 6017) — including Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, Orlando Democratic Rep. Johanna López and Fort Pierce Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy — said insurance costs have gone up anyway and maintain that the restriction should never have passed.

But DeSantis proclaimed the measure dead on arrival at a May 15 press conference, echoing financial concerns detractors shared as HB 6017 and its Senate companion (SB 734) advanced in their respective chambers.

He also pointed to the failure of an amendment Yarborough proffered that would have capped payouts at $1 million. Stuart Republican Sen. Gayle Harrell, a health care information technology executive, also cited the amendment’s narrow failure as her reason for voting against the bill, which passed 33-4 in the Senate and 104-6 in the House.

“If you had caps on the amount of damages, people could see that would disincentivize a lot of jackpot justice,” he said, noting that plaintiffs today aren’t blocked from seeking economic damages related to medical malpractice, only non-economic ones pertaining to grief and sorrow.

“You can already do economic damages (and with caps), then you would be able to do non-economic damages, but you would not be able to hit the lottery.”

Karen Aguilar, whose elderly father died in January due to alleged negligence at a Pasco County hospital, called the Governor’s choice of words “disgraceful.”

“No, we’re not sitting here trying to get rich,” she told WFLA a day after the press conference. “We want accountability.”

Aguilar wasn’t alone in noting that for most people, losing a 25-year-old child or parent to medical malpractice wouldn’t feel like winning the lottery.

After DeSantis announced the veto, Yarborough released a statement expressing disappointment in the decision but deference to the Governor and his role in state policymaking. He also confirmed he would not seek a veto override, which would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

That’s still possible, given the support HB 6017 received this year, but unlikely without the Senate sponsor’s support of such action.

“I accept the Governor’s decision,” Yarborough said. “For me, this discussion has always been about the dignity and the inherent, God-given value of every human life. While no sum of money can replace the loss of life, our laws should not place some lives at a higher value than others when it comes to the profound and lasting impact of medical negligence on a family. From the time the Governor took office, his actions have demonstrated he shares these views on the value of every life.”

Trabulsy, meanwhile, unsuccessfully urged DeSantis to reconsider in a letter Thursday, arguing that removing the exemption would restore fairness and accountability to the state’s legal system.

“We are the only state that shields bad actors from accountability in such a sweeping way,” she said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle praised HB 6017 as a humane change, righting a long-standing wrong.

Zephyrhills Republican Sen. Danny Burgess said he believed “a clean repeal is the right thing to do,” adding that because a “negligible amount of claims” fit the bill’s narrow scope, ending “free kill” wouldn’t be a significant cost-driver in raising insurance premiums.

“There’s no difference between a 25-year-and-364-day-old adult and a 26-year-old’s value of life, in my opinion, and I don’t think anyone believes that, for the record,” he said, calling the current law “one of the most arbitrary of laws we have on our books.”

Sen. Jason Pizzo, a Hollywood Democrat-turned-independent, said arguments that doctors wouldn’t be able to secure medical malpractice insurance if HB 6017 passed were “ridiculous.” No separate insurance category exists, he said, that excludes “doctors who specialize in making sure they operate on or treat people who have only adult children who can’t recover” damages under Florida law.

“Let’s not race to the bottom,” Pizzo said. “Let’s make our doctors better, more responsible.”

(L-R) Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, Fort Pierce Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy and Orlando Democratic Rep. Johanna López sponsored successful legislation this year to delete ‘free kill’ from Florida Statutes. Images via Florida Politics and the Florida House of Representatives.
Ocoee Democratic Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis, a lawyer, said the measure would help wipe away “a stain on our state’s moral conscience.”

“Grief does not expire at 25. The bond between a parent and child does not dissolve with age, and the right to seek justice should never be determined by a birthday,” she said. “This legislation is more than legal reform; it’s a declaration of humanity.”

Public testimony during the committee process, particularly from surviving family members of malpractice victims, was overwhelmingly supportive of HB 6017.

Cindy Jenkins, whose daughter died two years ago due to what she described as “horrific negligence” at a hospital in Orlando, said medical malpractice premiums are high in Florida because Florida has a lot of medical malpractice.

“The way you decrease medical malpractice premiums is to stop medical malpractice,” she said. “My child is a free kill. I have no justice.”

Lauren Korniyenko’s 70-year-old mother died in a hospital two days after what she called an “uncomplicated surgery to repair a fractured hip.” Brevard County law enforcement cordoned off the room as a possible homicide scene, she said, and the autopsy revealed staff ignored at least 10 “critical signs of a surgical site infection” that led to her death.

“In an era focused on greater scrutiny of government spending, this law enables the waste and abuse of taxpayer money,” she said.

Republican Joel Rudman, a doctor and former House lawmaker, endorsed the legislation in March, arguing that the only medical professionals who want to see the statute remain in place are bad at their jobs. He also rejected arguments that there is a “medical malpractice meltdown” in Florida, with a surge in such legal actions in recent years.

“As a physician, my malpractice rates have remained static in the last decade. It’s not even one of (my) top three expenditures,” he said. “Doctors aren’t going to leave Florida because of this bill — no good doctor. If a bad doctor wants to leave, bye.”

Karen Murillo of AARP Florida said the existing statute “discriminates against older and vulnerable adults” and should be deleted.

But there were numerous opponents of the measure, too, who warned Florida’s sky-high insurance and medical costs could increase further if HB 6017 became law.

“You’re seeing the highest rates in the country in Miami-Dade County in four categories: family practice, emergency room physicians, orthopedists, and we’ve talked about obstetricians,” said David Mica Jr., Executive Vice President of Public Affairs at the Florida Hospital Association.

“One-third of your rural hospitals in this state are operating in the negative margin. … We are talking about receiving care in the areas where we need it.”

Andy Bolin of the Florida Justice Reform Institute said his clients “face the highest medical malpractice premiums” in the U.S. He argued that “infusing” new cases into the system would make that problem worse and suggested that if the bill goes forward, damages must be capped.

Associated Industries of Florida’s Adam Basford urged lawmakers to take a “holistic” view of the problem and “mitigate” the impact on providers.

The Florida Chamber’s Carolyn Johnson said the bill would increase litigation, insurance rates and health care costs while decreasing access to care.

About a week after lawmakers passed the bill, the American Tort Reform Association urged DeSantis to kill the legislation, which it argued “takes Florida in the wrong direction.”

“Signing this legislation is likely to hurt Florida’s health care environment, which already faces physician and specialist shortages and high insurance premiums,” the group’s President, Sherman “Tiger” Joyce, said in a statement. “We expect legislation like this in New York, not in Florida.”

The group applauded DeSantis’ veto on Thursday, calling it a “decisive stand for fairness and common sense in Florida’s courts.”

So did Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse Florida (FL CALA), a Plantation-based nonprofit.

“Once again, the residents of Florida have been safeguarded by the Governor’s strong commitment to civil justice. HB 6017 would have reversed key protections and expanded non-economic damages while opening the door to limitless intangible loss verdicts in areas like pain and suffering,” the group’s Executive Director, Tom Gaitens, said in a statement. “On behalf of our advocates across the state, FL CALA thanks Gov. DeSantis for his commitment to end abusive lawsuits.”

Meanwhile, the Tallahassee-based Florida Justice Association (FJA), which repeatedly advocated for HB 6017 and its Senate analog (SB 734) as they advanced this year through their respective chambers, decried the continuation of what it called “a legal loophole that denies justice to families whose unmarried adult loved ones die due to medical negligence.”

FJA President Todd Michaels pointed out that 93% of the Legislature supported HB 6017. He also noted that when DeSantis announced his plan to veto HB 6017 earlier in the day, he did so without any input or support from people who lost loved ones due to the issue at hand.

“In a room filled with doctors, hospital executives, the insurance industry and other caps proponents, but not a single family or victim of medical negligence — the Governor called for caps in all medical malpractice cases, a clear signal that he prioritizes the financial interests of hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies over the lives and rights of everyday Floridians,” Michaels said in a statement.

Aaron Davis, a partner at the Miami-based law firm Davis Goldman, which specializes in personal injury and medical malpractice cases, also said he was disappointed with the Governor’s decision to veto HB 6017, calling it “a devastating setback for families seeking accountability in the wake of medical negligence.”

“For decades, this outdated provision has denied justice to grieving parents and adult children, and the veto preserves a system that protects negligent providers over victims,” he said in a statement. “This move signals continued barriers in personal injury litigation for families in Florida, but it also underscores the urgency of pushing for reform in future Legislative Sessions.”

‘Everybody now has skin in this game’: House advances ‘loser pays’ rules for insurance lawsuits

Jesse Scheckner – March 22, 2025

Sympathy for insurers has plunged in the wake of bombshell reporting last month.

After years of passing insurer-friendly bills to stabilize the market and attract companies to the state, Florida lawmakers are now advancing legislation to give policyholders more even footing with providers.

This week, members of the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee voted 15-1 for HB 1551, which would create a prevailing party standard — the loser pays, essentially — for attorney’s fees in insurance-related lawsuits.

Proponents say the measure will hold insurers more accountable to their policyholders. Opponents contend it’ll line the pockets of attorneys while raising costs for consumers.

The prevailing party standard is different from “one-way attorney’s fees,” an arrangement under which insurers had to pay the attorney’s fees of policyholders suing them if the plaintiffs secured any financial award in the case.

The GOP-controlled Legislature nixed that provision through a sweeping insurance reform package (SB 2A) in December 2022 that won plaudits from insurance companies and denouncements from Democrats and policyholders who decried it as a “bailout” for companies raising rates while denying claims.

One of those Democrats, now a Republican, was Dania Beach Rep. Hillary Cassel, HB 1551’s sponsor. She called the 11-page proposal a “win-win, which we don’t often see in this process.”

“This is a win for consumers. This is a win for valid claims. This is a win to hold those insurance companies that don’t want to do the right thing accountable. And this is a win for insurance companies to defend against frivolous litigation,” she said.

“Everybody now has skin in this game.”

Cassel, a lawyer who specializes in representing Floridians against their property insurance companies, made clear that key aspects of SB 2A and its 2021 predecessor, SB 76, would remain in place. Among them: a reduced timeframe to file claims — now one year, down from three — and a requirement for policyholders to file a notice of intent to litigate before they sue.

Both bills preceded a steep reduction in insurance-focused litigation and the arrival of 11 insurers to the state to scoop up policies state-run Citizens Property Insurance shed through its “depopulation” program.

But they didn’t reduce premiums, which for many policyholders have rocketed up in recent years, outpacing inflation and leading some to opt out of having property insurance altogether.

Delray Beach Republican Rep. Mike Caruso, who cast the sole “no” vote Thursday, noted that according to a House staff analysis of the bill, HB 1551 isn’t likely to lower premiums either. In fact, he said, staff predicted it could lead to higher costs for consumers.

Caruso suggested instead to give Florida’s still-relatively-new insurance laws more time to work — which they have, he said, referencing an announcement Gov. Ron DeSantis made last month about declining premiums and a growing market.

“Why now?” he said. “I’m not saying it’s a perfect world and that we’ve completely rectified it, but because of the legislation, in addition to having these companies come in and bringing down the number … of policies Citizens carries, we’ve seen insurance rates stabilize.”

Cassel said that since the passage of SB 2A, Florida has seen a 40% decrease in insurance litigation.

“I don’t believe any of our constituents have seen a decrease in their premiums by 40%, but we’ve seen claims being denied,” she said. “This allows the valid claims to move forward in litigation and hold those insurance companies that aren’t doing the right thing accountable.”

 

Cassel’s bill and others aimed at rectifying Florida’s insurance woes come in the wake of massive costs from severe storms like last year’s Hurricane Milton. They also follow revelations from a 2022 state report the Tampa Bay Times obtained after a two-year wait for public records, which revealed that as Florida insurers claimed to be losing money, they were sending hundreds of millions of dollars to their out-of-state parent companies. The study’s author concluded most insurance executives in Florida violated state regulations.

The bombshell report was never given to state lawmakers. Cassel filed HB 1551 six days after the Times’ story went live.

Palm Bay Republican Rep. Monique Miller said the state insurance report, which was never made public until the Times published it, has led to something of a quandary for lawmakers.

“While that report was sitting there, some information (in it) made its way into a Special Session in which this Legislature voted to change substantially how we manage this marketplace, and so we find ourselves today (where) we have citizens who have paid their insurance premiums, as high as they were … and now they’re not getting the relief they need,” she said.

“And they have no recourse. So, we’re finding ourselves again having to act in an urgent situation, and while it’s not ideal, I think we have to do something to relieve that market pressure until we find out what’s actually happened with the insurance companies.”

Several organizations and companies attended the meeting to oppose HB 1551, including the Florida Justice Reform Institute, Americans Prosperity Casualty Insurance Association, Florida Insurance Council, National Federation of Business, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Florida.

Brandon Blake of the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida said that contrary to Cassel’s characterization of it, HB 1551 would not improve the insurance market’s equilibrium and will instead incentivize lawyers to sue insurers rather than represent clients in medical malpractice or personal injury claims.

He added that despite carrying a different title and general description, there is little that differentiates the prevailing party standard from the one-way attorney’s fees Florida jettisoned years ago.

“Instead of going back to balance, this will go back to the issue of having 76% of lawsuits where we only have 8% of claims nationwide,” he said. “This is going to gob back to seeing the 20% increases (yearly in premium) rates as opposed to just 8% now.”

Mark Wilson, President and CEO of the Florida Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that if HB 1551 would “effectively reverse the elimination of the one-way attorney fee provision causing explosive litigation that the Florida Chamber fought to remove for nearly a decade.”

Other organizations, including the Florida Medical Association, Florida Chiropractic Association and the Merlin Law Group, signaled support for the change.

Laura Youmans of the Florida Justice Association said HB 1551 is, in essence, about an individual’s right to freely contract, and the contracts at issue — the ones insures offer — are “contracts of adhesion,” meaning they’re documents the companies prewrite that policyholders must sign or be denied coverage.

“The problem … is that this imbalance means you will never see an insurance company suing a consumer for failing to comply with a contract,” she said. “If they don’t comply, (then) they’re canceled, so (insurers) don’t have to use the courts to access the value of their contracts like we do.”

HB 1551, co-sponsored by St. Coud Republican Rep. Paula Stark, has one more hearing before the House Judiciary Committee before going to a floor vote. Its Senate analog (SB 426) by Fort Myers Republican Sen. Jonathan Martin awaits a hearing before the first of three committees to which it was referred this month.

Jesse Scheckner – March 20, 2025

‘If a bad doctor wants to leave, bye.’

House lawmakers are moving closer to repealing a unique Florida law that today blocks many medical malpractice lawsuits.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted 20-1 for HB 6017, which would erase a state provision referred to by critics as Florida’s “free kill” law. Members of the committee sided with the families of lost loved ones over doctors and insurers who warn of adverse consequences.

The bill will next be heard on the House floor.

Florida law today prohibits adult children and parents older than 25 from collecting negligence and noneconomic damages for medical malpractice after the death of patients. Florida enacted the law in 1990 and remains the only state with the restriction.

It was an update to the state’s Wrongful Death Act in 1972, which in part reads, “It is the public policy of the state to shift the losses when a wrongful death occurs from the survivors of the decedents to the wrongdoer.”

The standard applies to all cases except for those involving patient care. And that, by definition, makes it a double standard, according to the bill’s sponsors, Reps. Dana Trabulsy and Johanna López.

Trabulsy, a Fort Pierce Republican, said Thursday that the purpose of her bill isn’t to hurt those working in medicine; it’s to provide equal legal protections to everyone in the Sunshine State.

“Do you believe that the life of someone lost due to negligence or malpractice is less than any other case where someone could regain noneconomic damages for wrongdoing?” she said.

“We do a very good job in the medical field here. This is not an attack on doctors whatsoever. This is creating parity in the statute and among folks that can recover noneconomic damage.”

López, an Orlando Democrat, said the measure would deliver “fairness and justice” to people who have long had little recourse after a doctor’s carelessness devastated them.

As was the case in the bill’s prior stop and in Senate discussions about its upper-chamber analog (SB 734), advocates for and against the proposal were numerous and impassioned.

Travis Creighton, one of many surviving family members, cited several Florida Supreme Court rules that conflict with the statute in question (768.21). The statute that HB 6017 aims to repeal, he said, “arbitrarily discriminates between classes of survivors (and strips) rights not for lack of harm but through a last-minute legislative carve-out.”

Karen Murillo of AARP Florida said the statute “discriminates against older and vulnerable adults” and should be deleted.

“This law has been on the books for years. It was put in place because medical malpractice insurers promised that this was going to reduce the cost for health care practitioners in this state and reduce the cost of health care,” she said. “It did not. Instead, it protected insurers from indefensible acts of medical negligence.”

Former Navarre Republican Rep. Joel Rudman, a long-practicing physician, spoke for HB 6017 too, arguing that the only doctors who want to see the statute remain in place are bad doctors. He also rejected arguments that there is a “medical malpractice meltdown” in Florida, with a surge in such legal actions in recent years.

“As a physician, my malpractice rates have remained static in the last decade. It’s not even one of (my) top three expenditures,” he said. “Doctors aren’t going to leave Florida because of this bill — no good doctor. If a bad doctor wants to leave, bye.”

A slew of medical and insurance organizations urged the committee to vote down the bill, including the Small Business and Consumers Alliance, ProAssurance Corp., The Doctors Company, Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Medical Association, Florida Osteopathic Medical Association, Florida Justice Reform Institute, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Council for Safe Communities and the Small Business and Consumer Alliance.

Shelly Nick, a registered nurse now working in health care risk management, called HB 6017 “compassionate but misdirected” and predicted it would lead to at least 500 additional wrongful death lawsuits yearly.

Vivian Gallo, Managing Director of health care casualty coverage and claims for Marsh McLennan, said that since 2019, Florida’s medical malpractice insurance premiums have been up to 70% higher than national rates. And over the same stretch, she said, premiums and deductibles hospitals must pay have both risen 60%.

That’s unusual since increased deductibles often accompany level or declining premiums, she said, and it’s because of the rising number of so-called “nuclear verdicts” in medical malpractice suits — awards of $20 million or more — that since 2017 have seen numerous insurers exit the Florida market.

It’s not unique to Florida — nuclear verdicts have increased 400% in recent years — but it’s worse here, Gallo said.

“In Florida, between 2010 and 2020, there were 11 nuclear verdicts,” she said. “Since 2023, there were eight.”

Ocoee Democratic Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis said she’s seen firsthand the unhealed wounds that “free kill” causes.

“This statute says that if you’re over 25 and lose a parent to medical negligence, your grief is worth nothing in the eyes of the law. It tells grieving families that their loved ones’ lives didn’t count,” she said. “This is not justice.”

Rep. Hillary Cassel, a Dania Beach Republican, said the bottom line is that Florida doesn’t want bad doctors, and the ones here should be held accountable.

“I don’t want to have to go through what these families went through,” she said.

She then chastised Mark Berlick of the Florida Justice Reform Institute for asserting that HB 6017 would incentivize out-of-town opportunists to sue doctors and hospitals after the death of estranged family members.

“(He) doesn’t have an ounce of data to support that, and that was nothing more than a scare tactic, (an) insult on our intelligence and an insult to the people who are here today who are clearly not estranged from the loved ones they have lost,” she said. “If you’re going to come before this committee and make assertions about what’s going to happen if we pass legislation, I expect you to bring facts and data and not scare tactics and opinions.”

Miami Lakes Republican Rep. Tom Fabricio cast the sole “no” Thursday. He didn’t ask questions or argue against the bill.

It marked the only vote in two committee stops against HB 6017, which has co-sponsorship from Republican Reps. Debbie Mayfield of Melbourne and Susan Plascencia of Orlando, as well as Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani of Orlando.

HB 6017 awaits scheduling for House floor consideration. SB 734, sponsored by Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, pends a hearing before the Senate Rules Committee before heading to a floor vote. It passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services by 9-2 and 8-2 votes, respectively.

Florida Phoenix – March 7, 2025

‘I don’t want to do anything that’s going to raise the rates.’

Gov. Ron DeSantis seems determined to put the brakes on efforts in the Legislature to scrap the state’s no-fault automobile insurance laws, including a requirement for drivers to buy personal injury protection.

The Governor already vetoed one bill to repeal the state’s no-fault system and replace it with a fault-based one instead. Following his State of the State speech Tuesday, DeSantis indicated he has not changed his mind.

“If they have a reform where we can show that it’s going to lower rates, it’s fine. But let’s just be clear. I mean, you know, we know that’s something that people from the legal and the trial bar have wanted to do. And so why would they want to do that? Obviously, they see that there’s opportunities for them to make money off of it,” DeSantis told reporters.

“I think that goes without saying. So, I don’t want to do anything that’s going to raise the rates.”

Republican Sen. Erin Grall of Vero Beach and Rep. Danny Alvarez of Hillsborough County have both filed bills to eliminate the requirement that drivers carry personal injury protection. Instead, the bills require drivers to carry $25,000 in bodily injury coverage for one person and $50,000 for two or more people per incident plus $10,000 in property liability coverage.

Alvarez’s bill (HB 1181) has been referred to three House committees: the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee; Insurance & Banking Subcommittee; and the Judiciary Committee. Grall’s bill (SB 1256) faces hearings before the Banking and Insurance; Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government; and Rules committees.

Define ‘PIP’

Personal injury protection (PIP) is a type of car insurance that pays medical expenses, lost wages and other costs of drivers and passengers injured in automobile accidents, regardless of who caused the accident.

Florida drivers are required to carry $10,000 in PIP coverage on their insurance policies under Florida’s no-fault automobile insurance system, plus $10,000 in property damage liability coverage. Those are minimum requirements and drivers can, and do, purchase additional coverage.

According to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, just under 6% of the drivers on Florida roads were uninsured as of February.

The state’s no-fault automobile insurance laws ban injured parties from bringing lawsuits against at-fault parties to recover noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering and loss of consortium, although there are some exceptions (if a person suffers a permanent loss of an important bodily function; a permanent injury; a permanent scar or disfigurement; or death).

The Florida Justice Association, representing the trial bar, supports PIP repeal and notes that a Forbes analysis of automobile insurance rates pegs Florida as the most expensive state for car insurance in the nation. To meet the requirements of the law costs an average $1,529 annually.

Lobbying surge

A cadre of insurance lobbyists oppose the repeal, as does Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large. They argue lawmakers should allow the state’s no-fault laws and PIP to remain in place for at least another three years to ascertain the effect the elimination of one-way attorneys fees will have on rates going forward.

Since 1893, state law allowed policyholders to force carriers to pay any attorneys fees they rack up if forced to sue to enforce claims — hence “one-way” fees. The idea was to counterbalance insurers’ financial and legal clout. In 2023, the Legislature required both parties to pay for their own attorneys fees.

The Legislature agreed in 2021 to repeal the no-fault system and the minimum mandated coverages and return to a fault-based system, but DeSantis vetoed the bill (SB 54). In his veto letter, DeSantis stated at the time that although the “PIP system has flaws,” repeal could bring unintended consequences for the market and the consumer.

House Speaker Daniel Perez, who was Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee at the time, voted for the repeal.

___

Christine Sexton reporting. Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.

 

Jacob Ogles – September 19, 2024

Florida Justice Association acknowledged it wanted David Shoar, but Leek won an SD 7 Primary anyway.

After denying involvement in a smear campaign against Senate candidate Tom Leek, a trial lawyer group is praising members for participating.

“As an organization, we sent a necessary message to any legislator that would consider acting against the Civil Justice system,” wrote Todd Michaels, president of the Florida Justice Association (FJA), in an email to members obtained by Florida Politics.

Leek won the Republican nomination in the Senate District 7 race in August, securing 47% of the vote to former St. Johns County Sheriff David Shoar’s 28% and former wrestler Gerry James’ 25%.

Michaels’ email, sent out through the Florida Justice PAC, clarifies that it’s not the outcome FJA wanted.

“Despite the incredible efforts of our organization, David Shoar did not secure a win in the Republican Primary election for Senate District 7,” Michaels wrote. “While the data seemed to indicate that the race would be very tight, Tom Leek won the race by a significant margin. There is no sugarcoating that.”

But what’s most striking about the email isn’t the bitterness over Leek’s win but the openness about rooting against it.

Before Shoar entered the race, speculation arose that trial lawyers wanted Leek to lose after a new political committee, The Truth Matters, started financing ads attacking the sitting House member. Immediately, ties to the law firm Woolsey Morcom were immediately apparent, and fundraising reports eventually showed trial attorneys from across Florida donated to the effort. Once Shoar filed, The Truth Matters started running ads supporting the candidate.

Yet throughout the Primary campaign, officials with FJA made statements to Florida Politics such as “our PAC didn’t contribute one lick to that effort.” Technically, it never did. Instead, attorneys, including Michaels, donated individually to a committee called Floridians for Accountability, Freedom and Opportunity, which in turn donated to The Truth Matters, but money did not pass through the Florida Justice PAC.

The email from Michaels, however, leaves no doubt that FJA coordinated the rhetorical assault on Leek. Despite Leek’s 19-percentage-point win, the email blast suggests that it was money well spent.

“Though Leek won, he is bloodied,” Michaels wrote. “He has been significantly weakened, and his self-dealing and anti-consumer record has been exposed.”

 That doesn’t likely apply to the General election. Leek faces Democrat George ‘T’ Hill in November, but Hill through Sept. 6 spent just over $36,000 to Leek’s more than $699,000, and the candidates are running in district where more than 62% of voters supported Republican Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

The FJA email recognizes Leek will likely fill a seat in the Florida Senate after November. But Michaels said by dragging the candidate on TV, digital and mailers, the association sent a message that lawmakers promoting policies that hinder the work of trial lawyers will regret it. It explicitly said Leek brought the attacks on himself by co-sponsoring a lawsuit abuse bill (HB 837) in the 2023 Legislative Session.

“While one of the biggest enemies of justice continues on, he does so as a cautionary tale of what will happen if your legislative record puts insurance company profits over policyholders’ rights,” Michaels wrote.

After discovering Michaels’ email, Florida Politics asked for a reaction from soon-to-be-Senator Leek. Known for his calm demeanor, Leek nonetheless pulled no punches:

“After reading Michaels’ message, the fingerpointing and backstabbing by all of those involved desperately seeking to deflect, divert and deny FJA’s spectacular failure in SD7 is something special.” said Leek. “Yet, there it is, undeniable, for all to see. The pretense that this was not an FJA sanctioned hit, just the effort of rogue members, gone as if the lie had never been uttered, only to be replaced by another unbelievable assertion that it was the pollster and the consultants who failed them. Perhaps the fault lies within, or among them all. There may be no shame in losing, but there is shame in lying – at least for the rest of us.”

Leek had more to say about the outcome of his primary election, specifically in response to Michaels’ efforts to shift the blame for his organization’s defeat.

“The FJA lost this race by 20 points. That’s right, 20 points. Despite spending more than $11 million on attack ads and running a former St. John’s County Sheriff against me – 20 points. But, it was worse than that. 88% percent of the votes came from counties in which I was an entirely unknown candidate. My home county of Volusia, the only part of SD 7 I had represented in the State House, made up only 12% of the voters in the District. Nonetheless, the FJA managed to run a campaign that lost every county in the District. Their candidate came in 3rd place in his own backyard of St. Johns County. Of the 135 precincts in the District, we won 124 of them, and the FJA won exactly ZERO precincts in St. John’s County. They only won four precincts overall in the District.”

Continued Leek, “their attacks were clumsy and ludicrous, started too early, were too frequent, and were so over the top as to immediately lose credibility. Their mail pieces against me landed 2-4 per week starting in April, more than four months prior to the election. Their constant text messaging numbed cell phones from Ponte Vedra to Palatka to Ormond Beach. Television commercials aired three and four times per hour, then per half hour from 4:30 in the morning till beyond midnight daily, originating out of just two media markets. The FJA easily dropped over four million dollars in the Orlando media market alone, and in those two counties they won not a single precinct and their candidate received less than 7,000 votes.”

That volume of negative campaigning directed against him can probably explain why Leek is so keen at making sure those responsible do not escape accountability.

“Todd Michaels and Steven Cain personally travelled to St. John’s County waving signs on street corners wearing the t-shirt of the FJA’s preferred candidate,” said Leek. “Yet, the attacks fell flat and poll after poll had me winning by double digits before the 4th of July, even before the first mail ballots went out. Yet, they spent even more.”

“FAFO, indeed,” concluded Leek in a nod to the trial lawyers cut-by-half-named political committee.

Below is the full text of Michaels’ email:

Colleagues,

I want to begin by thanking each and every member of the FJA for your support, your commitment to the fight for justice for all and for supporting bold efforts as we endeavor each and every day to seek that justice in the courts, in your firms and certainly in the halls of the Florida Capitol. 

Despite the incredible efforts of our organization, David Shoar did not secure a win in the Republican Primary election for Senate District 7.  While the data seemed to indicate that the race would be very tight, Tom Leek won the race by a significant margin.  There is no sugar coating that. 

However, as an organization, we sent a necessary message to any legislator that would consider acting against the Civil Justice system. Though Leek won, he is bloodied. He has been significantly weakened, and his self-dealing and anti-consumer record has been exposed. 

As an organization, we made a decision to engage in this race fully. In doing so, we took on the establishment in a way we haven’t done in years.  

Power does not relinquish itself easily, and this battle was fought day-in and day-out for months.  It is the easiest thing in the world to find an excuse not to do something hard, but we made a decision as an organization to fight a necessary and important battle.  There is always risk involved in taking on a project of this magnitude, but it is the only way to control our own destiny.  

While the race did not work out as we had hoped for and worked for, it was still important that we ran it and saw it all the way through. A message has been sent. 

Tom Leek was one of the leaders of the cohort in the Legislature that attacked our clients, our practices, and the Civil Justice system. It was a moral imperative that we stood up and fought to make sure that he did not walk into the Senate and continue his attack on Justice.  

This should be the norm in this organization for years going forward.  There must always be a consequence for those who oppose Justice.  There is no shame in losing, there is only shame in not standing up and fighting back when we are attacked.   

This campaign was a true group effort. Our staff was beyond compare. They worked tirelessly to support this effort.  Everyone played a role, but I want to specifically recognize our Political Director, Lydia Claire Brooks who was the mastermind of this effort, Ami Wheeler who organized the fundraising, and our fundraising team that did the hard work day to day to make sure that the campaign could be fully funded. I also want to recognize our Executive Director, Jeff Porter who led us through this fight. 

Likewise, the efforts of our members were astounding.  We gave more than we ever have to a race in terms of time, money, and effort.  So many people spent their Saturdays walking the district, their workdays on phone calls, and left it all out on the field. 

I simply could not be more proud. 

After the 2023 legislative session and HB 837, we knew that we were going to need to send a message during the 2024 election cycle.  

The resources and support that were invested in the SD 7 race still delivered that message:  If you harm Floridians, if you stand in the way of justice for all and access to the courts, there will be consequences.  

The effort in SD 7 was a testament to what this collective group of fighters can and will do to those who seek to limit justice for all.  

We headed into this election cycle knowing that it was going to be a generational election. Like all elections, it presented an opportunity to elect a new set of legislative leaders that will protect Florida’s civil justice system. It also represented an opportunity to send a message in response to HB 837 and would-be enemies of open courts: there are consequences for hurting Floridians. 

Of course, Senate District 7 was not the only battle we fought.  Despite the disappointment of that race, we had an extremely successful night in backing winning pro-justice candidates in House and Senate races around the State. 

Look for a Political Update from Political Director Lydia Claire Brooks in your inbox tomorrow with more details about specific primary races. 

And while one of the biggest enemies of justice continues on, he does so as a cautionary tale of what will happen if your legislative record puts insurance company profits over policyholders’ rights.

While this election was about sending a message, it was also about the future leadership of the Florida Legislature. Leaders for both chambers are selected six years out, meaning this primary election cycle will dictate who the leaders of the 2031 and 2032 sessions will be.  We are proud of our role in that. 

As defenders of justice, FJA members take bold action, we believe the fight for justice requires bold action, and continue to fight BECAUSE we can all rely on each other to put an oar in the water when bold action is called needed.  

FJA members have stepped up.  FJA past leaders have provided invaluable guidance, and our current crop of leaders on FJ PAC and our Executive Committee have shown unwavering enthusiasm, leadership, and dedication.   

I am grateful for the opportunity to serve as President at this time as we face these fights and challenges. Now we turn our attention to the general election and to electing a growing roster of pro-civil justice leaders to the Florida Legislature.

Thank you for standing with us.

Sincerely,

Todd J. Michaels, President

Florida Justice Association

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/696672-trial-attorney-committee-admits-it-organized-smear-on-tom-leek/