Ocala Star Banner – Florida Justice Reform Institute

A new bill provides a three-year statute of limitations to file suit.
Stephany Matat USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida
Feb. 12, 2026

Key Points

A Florida bill would allow lawsuits against vaccine makers if they advertise in the state and someone is harmed.
Critics argue the proposal could unconstitutionally restrict commercial speech protected by the First Amendment.
The bill’s sponsor says it aims to promote informed consent and ensure manufacturer liability for harm.

Someone who’s hurt by a vaccine could sue its manufacturer if the company has advertised the shot in Florida.

That’s the substance of a bill now under consideration by the Legislature, a proposal that critics say could restrict commercial speech under the First Amendment.

Commercial speech is a distinct category under the First Amendment, which protects speech used to sell products or services. It often involves advertising and marketing. But courts have determined that it can be restricted.

Lawmakers largely agreed that this year’s measure (HB 339) needed more work in defining harm and injury that leads to suing a manufacturer who advertises vaccines. In recent years, rare adverse events such as heart inflammation have been identified following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, particularly among younger men.

Vaccine manufacturers generally have very limited exposure to civil lawsuits for injuries allegedly caused by their product because of federal liability protections and compensation programs. If passed, this bill would create a new civil legal route to file a lawsuit by tying it to advertising.

Its sponsor, state Rep. Monique Miller, R-Palm Bay, said she filed the measure in part to promote informed consent and ensure vaccine manufacturers are liable for harm. The bill does provide a three-year statute of limitations.

But some public testimony before the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee on Feb. 11 highlighted concern over whether the bill played into the DeSantis administration’s efforts to roll back vaccine requirements amid a rising conservative movement against many childhood vaccinations.

“If they are (safe) and that harm is so rare, then what is the harm in standing by those products and saying we trust it enough that we’re willing to take on anything that comes out of it that’s harmful or debilitating to a patient?” Miller told the panel.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, countered that people already can hold manufacturers liable for harm caused by vaccine under federal law.

“It is preempted by three federal acts, violates the First Amendment and is bad policy,” Large said. “This violates the First Amendment because it’s directly aimed at protected speech, which is commercial speech, in terms of advertising.”

Courts have determined, however, that commercial speech can be restricted if the government can demonstrate the speech is misleading, prove a “substantial interest” in regulating the speech and not be more strict than necessary, according to the Freedom Forum.

Miller said her bill was inspired by a similar measure approved in Texas last year, which also raised alarms. The Texas Civil Justice League wrote at the time that it creates “significant legal consequences for exercising First Amendment rights” in terms of commercial speech.

The measure passed the panel on a 12-4 vote; it has two more committees before reaching the House floor. A companion Senate bill (SB 408) also is pending two committees.

This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@usatodayco.com. On X:@stephanymatat.

https://www.ocala.com/story/news/state/2026/02/12/florida-may-create-new-way-to-sue-vaccine-makers-for-harm/88623985007/

Opinion

Editorial: Insurance abuse driving rates up

Posted Apr 8, 2017 at 2:01 AM

Until Hurricane Matthew raked the Atlantic coast last October, Florida had been spared major storm damage since the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons devastated homes and businesses — and the state’s property insurance industry. That historically long respite was supposed to give insurers opportunity to regain solid financial footing, which should result in lower premiums for consumers.

Unfortunately, those potential savings have been eroded by an increase in what is known as “assignment of benefit” abuse. “Assignment of benefits” agreements, or “AOBs,” is the practice in which property owners sign away the task of negotiating with insurance adjusters and collecting payment to the contractors who are doing the repairs. In theory, it appeals to homeowners who can get work done immediately to fix roofs or water damage without having to go through the often lengthy insurance claims process. But in practice, it has led to some unscrupulous contractors and attorneys to inflate claims and perform unauthorized upgrades, which they then sue the insurance companies for payment. Insurers often settle these bogus claims to avoid costly court battles, and the price can include paying attorney fees as well.

According to William Large of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a subsidiary of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, from 2014 to 2015 AOB litigation increased 10.7 percent, and then 21 percent from 2015 to 2016.

Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the state’s taxpayer-backed insurer, slowly built up its reserve funds following the 2004-05 hurricane seasons and has shed more than a million policies as the private market improved. However, last week Citizens announced its first net loss since 2005 — $27.1 million — and that it expects to lose another $86 million by 2018. It attributes much of the red ink to AOB abuse.

Those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Citizens calculates that in South Florida, where AOB abuse is particularly prevalent, the annual cost of covering just a moderately priced home ($150,000) is expected to jump by $1,500 or more over the next five years.

Last year, state Sen. Dorothy Hukill, R-Port Orange, sponsored a bill that would clamp down on AOB abuse, but it died during the session. In February she refiled similar legislation (SB 1038) that would severely restrict AOB agreements and prohibit paying attorney fees. Alas, a competing bill (SB 1218) was filed a week later by Sen. Gary Farmer, D-Fort Lauderdale, a trial attorney. That measure imposes some restrictions on AOB contracts, but also maintains attorney fees and prohibits insurers from passing on such legal costs to consumers when the company loses in court; instead, they must dip into their profits.

While that sounds like a consumer protection, it doesn’t reduce incentives to abuse the AOB system, and could wind up discouraging insurers from writing more policies. Tightening the private market would send the state back to the post 2004-05 era when property insurance was hard to find.

Florida’s Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier opposed the Farmer bill, arguing that paying attorney fees was meant to protect homeowners against large insurers, not to apply to litigious contractors. Sha’Ron James, Florida’s insurance consumer advocate, also expressed concern about the long-term effects the measure would have on insurance rates.

So of course last week, Sen. Anitere Flores, R-Miami, chair of the Banking and Insurance Committee, refused to allow Hukill’s bill onto her committee’s agenda, killing it. Monday, the committee passed Farmer’s bill on a 6-2 vote.

The Legislature has allowed AOB abuse to fester for too long, but Farmer’s bill is the wrong solution. The state needs to get this right.

http://www.ocala.com/opinion/20170408/editorial-insurance-abuse-driving-rates-up

Florida may create new way to sue vaccine makers for harm_OSB

Editorial: Insurance Abuse Driving Rates Up

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Site Links