It should be a bright, red flag that Florida is the only state with this special protection for negligent practitioners.

 A billboard reads: “END THE FLORIDA  FREE KILL LAW; REPEAL STATUTE 768.21(8); EndTheFloridaFreeKillLaw.US; PAID FOR BY MARY JO CAIN REIS, is near the intersection South Semoran Boulevard & Gatlin Avenue in Orlando, on Thursday, November 2, 2023. [ RICARDO RAMIREZ BUXEDA | Orlando Sentinel ]

March 27, 2025 – Scott Maxwell

You may have read about something known as Florida’s “free kill” law — a bizarre law that exists only in Florida.

It basically says that, even if you can prove that a health care provider’s negligent actions killed an adult member of your family, you can’t sue for pain and suffering — unless the dead family member has a spouse or minor children.

In other words, the lives of single Floridians, including widows and widowers and those over 25 who haven’t yet married, are worth less here. The law essentially channels George Orwell’s satirical declaration that all animals are equal — but some are more equal than others.

If you know nothing else about this law, it should be a bright, red flag that Florida is the only state with this special protection for negligent practitioners.

Well, after decades of criticism, there’s momentum to change that. A repeal bill has already cleared several committees this legislative session with broad bipartisan support.

But first, it’s worth understanding how Florida ended up with a law like this is the first place — namely because Florida lawmakers have systematically stripped you of your rights to sue companies that do you wrong.

You’ve seen it before. Most recently, GOP lawmakers teamed up with insurance lobbyists to make it harder for you to sue your insurance company — even when your company tries to stiff you out of benefits to which you’re clearly entitled.

The rationale for stripping you of your right to go after bad actors is usually the same: Businesses shouldn’t be bothered with frivolous lawsuits. They drive up everyone’s costs.

But these laws strip everyone’s access to the courts, not just frivolous filers. And the arguments about savings for consumers are usually a bunch of trickle-down fiction. On the heels of Florida’s so-called insurance “reform,” rates shot up for nine consecutive quarters. And “free kill” critics say Florida never saw the benefits that health care lobbyists promised in exchange for shielding negligent doctors and hospitals from lawsuits.

South Florida Republican Rep. Hillary Cassel lit into a health-care lobbyist last week when he made another round of dubious claims, suggesting that repealing this law would simply enrich estranged family members looking for a cash grab. Cassel said the representative for the Florida Chamber of Commerce-created Florida Justice Reform Institute didn’t have “an ounce of data to support that,” calling the claims “scare tactics.”

Florida’s business lobby does more than just try to scare lawmakers, though. It also threatens them.

In 2021, the Florida Chamber of Commerce warned that any lawmaker who voted in favor of repealing the “free kill” law that year would have their vote negatively double-weighted in the chamber’s annual “How They Voted” report card, according to a Tampa TV station. (The report card lets business lobbyists know which politicians will follow their orders and are consequently worthy of endorsements and campaign checks.)

The Chamber wields this double-counting strategy when it knows it’s on the wrong side of public opinion and needs to exert extra pressure. It used a similar tactic last year when pressuring lawmakers to make it illegal for Florida counties to pass laws that would guarantee outdoor workers the right to things like shade and water on blistering hot days — a law I dubbed “The most shameful law Florida passed this year.”

Historically, the heavy-handed lobbying tactics have been effective with both parties. Democrats, after all, controlled Florida when the “free kill” provision was enacted in 1990. But this year, both parties seem poised to push back, probably because the horror stories are piling up: A father who died after being given a toxic dose of medication. Or a son whose routine hospital visit ended in death.

This year’s measure that would repeal Florida’s “free kill” provision, HB 6017, has passed committees with votes along the lines of 20-1. Its local sponsors include Democrat Johanna Lopez with co-sponsorship from Republican Susan Plasencia and Democrat Anna Eskamani.

Lawmakers were moved by stories they’ve heard from people like Mary Jo Cain Reis, who says her father died of medical negligence. “These bad doctors and medical personnel cannot continue to keep killing people and be able to move on,” said Reis, who put up billboards in Central Florida that called for reform. “There needs to be accountability.”

Theoretically, the state has other accountability measures for medical negligence. Families can still sue for economic damages. But complaints to the state are often ignored or slow-rolled. A 2018 investigation by the South Florida Sun Sentinel found Florida’s system was slow to punish doctors and quick to let them settle charges without accepting responsibility.

Certainly some doctors make earnest mistakes. Some are unfairly sued. But Florida’s “free kill” law doesn’t address that. It just says that a health care provider could negligently kill your 75-year-old mother without being sued for pain and suffering — as long as your mom isn’t still married. And what kind of sense does that make?

Not much, even according to one physician and former GOP legislator who urged lawmakers to repeal Florida’s “free kill” law this year. As Florida Politics reported, Dr. Joel Rudman told lawmakers to ignore the scare tactics. “Doctors aren’t going to leave Florida because of this bill — no good doctor,” Rudman said. “If a bad doctor wants to leave, bye.”

©2025 Orlando Sentinel.

https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2025/03/27/florida-should-repeal-free-kill-law-column/

Florida could make it harder to sue polluters, assisted living owners

The bills are backed by powerful business groups

An aerial of a massive sinkhole that opened up underneath a gypsum stack at a Mosaic phosphate fertilizer plant in Mulberry in 2016. [ Times (2016) ]

By Lawrence Mower Times staff – Published Feb. 18, 2024

TALLAHASSEE — Florida lawmakers in recent years have passed sweeping changes that make it harder to sue insurance companies.

This year, they could extend protections to a variety of companies, including in instances where businesses pollute communities or lose consumers’ personal data to hackers.

The bills are backed by powerful business groups, but most of them have seen some bipartisan pushback.

Here’s what lawmakers could pass in the final weeks of this year’s session:

Polluters
HB 789SB 738

These bills would make it harder to sue polluters for economic damages or personal injuries under Florida’s Water Quality Assurance Act

In 2004, fishermen used the act to sue the fertilizer giant Mosaic after one of its sites spilled toxic water into a creek leading to Hillsborough Bay.

During committee testimony last week, the executive director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association said fishermen would no longer be able to sue for damages under the act if the bills passed.

Mara Hatfield, a lawyer representing Palm Beach County residents who were victims of a cancer cluster in the early 2000s, also raised concerns. The residents sued nearby aircraft engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney for allegedly mishandling radioactive materials. A jury in 2022 found the company wasn’t responsible for the cancer, although it found it “failed to exercise reasonable care in the use and disposal of radioactive materials,” according to WPTV

“If you pass this amendment … those parents cannot sue for the cancer that was caused by the unpermitted discharge of hazardous material on their neighbor’s property,” Hatfield said.

House bill sponsor Toby Overdorf, R-Palm City, said the intent of the water act was never to include personal injuries, only economic ones in certain situations.

 2019 decision by the Florida Supreme Court, however, ruled that the plain reading of the law included personal injuries. The case involved a tow truck operator who was badly burned while removing a truck carrying batteries that crashed and spilled battery acid on the road.

Under the proposed legislation, the driver could sue for damages to his tow truck, but not for his burns, an advocate for trial lawyers said last week.

The bills are supported by two powerful big-business groups in Tallahassee, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Florida.

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision created a “chilling effect” for businesses, said Adam Basford, Associated Industries of Florida’s vice president of governmental affairs.

“There is an underlying sense of unknown as far as what could be out there as far as personal injury liability,” Basford told lawmakers on Thursday.

Republican lawmakers voted for the bill this week, but several expressed concerns.

Pesticide resellers and applicators
SB 1252HB 347

Under this legislation, people wouldn’t be allowed to sue businesses that distribute, sell or apply pesticides unless the businesses were involved in manufacturing or modifying the pesticide.

Sen. Jay Collins, R-Tampa, said the bill was important after a 2016 lawsuit against Monsanto’s parent company resulted in a $290 million verdict in California. It was later reduced to $21.5 million

In that case, a school groundskeeper claimed the company’s Roundup product caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A California jury ruled that the company disregarded the dangers around its pesticide’s active ingredient, glyphosate. (The Environmental Protection Agency’s opinion is that the ingredient is not harmful.)

The jury’s verdict led to thousands of subsequent lawsuits, which have had a “chilling effect” on the agricultural industry, causing some distributors and vendors to stop carrying products, Collins said.

Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns with the bill.

“Those who profit from the sale of a product should be held accountable for harms resulting from the use of that product,” Rep. Yvonne Hinson, D-Gainesville, said this week.

Asbestos
HB 1367SB 720

Since the 1970s, asbestos-related lawsuits have surged. Asbestos and silica are known lung carcinogens, and manufacturers and distributors were repeatedly cited for downplaying the danger.

When filing an asbestos-related lawsuit in Florida, a victim has to include a form with basic information.

Under this legislation, plaintiffs would have to disclose more information on that form: their smoking history, the types of products they were exposed to and the names and addresses of anyone who is “knowledgeable” about the victim’s exposure.

House bill sponsor Robbie Brackett, R-Vero Beach, said the form isn’t admissible in court, and it would help screen out frivolous cases.

But Democratic lawmakers questioned why a person’s smoking history must be disclosed up front. They also questioned how a plaintiff could expect to find the names and addresses of people they worked with decades ago.

Assisted living facilities
HB 995SB 238

Unlike nursing homes, which provide more complex medical care, assisted living facilities typically offer a more homelike environment for seniors.

According to Sen. Colleen Burton, R-Lakeland, the number of lawsuits against the companies has grown, causing costs to go up.

“It should be concerning to all of us,” Burton said.

Burton’s proposal would make it impossible to sue the facilities’ “passive investors” — companies or people that might own the facility but are not involved in its day-to-day operations.

Assisted living facilities are increasingly owned by real estate investors, which have been accused of prioritizing profits over care, The Washington Post reported in December.

Lawmakers have raised questions about whether the legislation makes the industry less safe. Burton conceded the Senate bill “needs some work.”

Data breaches
HB 473SB 658

With data breaches by hackers on the rise, lawmakers are considering shielding companies and local governments from lawsuits. Under the bills, companies and governments would not be liable for data breaches as long as they “substantially comply” with federal security protocols.

Rep. Mike Giallombardo, R-Cape Coral, said the goal is to “incentivize” companies and governments to adopt best practices.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2024/02/18/florida-legislature-lawsuits-pollution-assisted-living-tort/ 

Florida Republicans relying on trial lawyers to enforce conservative agenda

“It’s a sea change” for the GOP, which has traditionally resisted using lawsuits to enforce laws.

Visitors walk into Florida’s Capitol building in 2019. [ SCOTT KEELER | Tampa Bay Times ]

By Lawrence Mower – March 2, 2022
 
TALLAHASSEE — For decades, Republicans have railed against frivolous lawsuits and litigation, blaming them for driving up costs for businesses and governments.

But this year, Florida Republicans are turning to trial lawyers, one of their historic foes, to help enforce their agenda.

GOP legislators are advancing legislation that would allow Floridians to sue Big Tech companies over data privacy, sue primary schools that teach about gender identity or sexual orientation and sue cities for passing ordinances that damage their businesses.

The expanded use of lawsuits to enforce Republicans’ agenda is a shift for the party, and it has business groups concerned.

“There’s a populist strain of Republicans who have allied with supportive trial lawyers, and they’re working to create a slew of opportunities for social grievance lawsuits,” said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a tort reform advocacy group.

“It’s a troubling trend,” he added.

Gov. Ron DeSantis has been one of the primary drivers behind the philosophical shift. Last year, he pushed the Legislature to pass laws allowing Floridians to sue Big Tech companies if they’re censored and to sue schools for imposing mask or vaccine mandates.

He’s also supported the “don’t say gay” bill, which would allow parents to sue their school district if they believe their child’s school is teaching gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade. The bill has yet to pass.

And DeSantis proposed legislation moving through the House this year that would allow Floridians to sue technology companies for selling or sharing user data without consent. The Senate has yet to take it up.

That bill is strongly opposed by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, which are some of the largest donors to GOP lawmakers and routinely complain about the amount of litigation in Florida’s courts.

The chamber said Florida already ranks among the most litigious states and that the legal climate hurts local business.

“Any increased frivolous litigation against these local businesses would only further impact Florida’s competitiveness,” Florida Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Mark Wilson said in a statement.

Historically, Republicans have been against expanded litigation and in favor of tort reform. Trial lawyers, who are a powerful lobbying group, have usually found more support from Democrats.

That has changed both nationally and in Florida. In Congress between 2015 and 2018, Republicans were just as likely as Democrats to support legislation that creates individual rights enforceable by private lawsuits, according to a 2021 study by professors at the University of Pennsylvania and University of California at Berkeley entitled, “A New (Republican) Litigation State?”

In a January op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the head of the American Tort Reform Association criticized legislation allowing employees to sue their employers over vaccine mandates, titling it, “Conservatives for Abusive Lawsuits.”

Like Florida, Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country have introduced or passed laws allowing employers to sue over vaccine mandates and students and parents to sue over mask mandates. Texas lawmakers last year “deputized” citizens to sue abortion providers, a novel approach that amounted to a near-total ban on abortions.

The approach gets to the heart of Republican philosophy on increased regulation, which the party has traditionally opposed. Instead of having state agencies regulate behavior, Republicans are putting regulation in the hands of citizens.

“That’s the philosophical challenge: Do you regulate more? Or do you give access to your judicial system?” said Rep. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, a trial lawyer by trade who leads the House’s Judiciary Committee. “Is access to the courts critical? Of course I think it is, and is that better most days than overregulation? I feel like ultimately it can be.”

The shift is a “sea change” for policy in Tallahassee, said Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, one of the only Republicans in the Legislature to argue against the trend.

The influence of the trial bar has “dripped into everything,” he said, and it’s influenced the type of legislation lawmakers pass or refuse to pass. He cited last year’s decision to overhaul the state’s auto insurance laws without a study, a bill that was supported by trial lawyers but vetoed by DeSantis.

“Everybody feels harmed and wants to take action,” Brandes said. “And so the trial bar says, ‘We’re happy to glean off of that perspective.’ Everybody wants to sue everybody for everything.”

The Florida Justice Association, which represents trial lawyers, said the Legislature has consistently supported “a private market approach to accountability for wrongdoers.”

 “The best way to ensure these free-market principles of responsibility and accountability is through access to the courts,” association President Tiffany Faddis said in a statement. “When a government or private business violates an individual’s rights, we must allow these victims (to) seek justice for the harm caused to them by pursuing causes of action.”

Since last year, the association and its political committees have donated nearly $400,000 to statewide or legislative candidates, all of it going to Republicans or political committees supporting Republicans.

Last year, lawmakers passed a law allowing people to sue telemarketers for receiving unsolicited scam calls and text messages. One California lawyer estimates that about 100 lawsuits against telemarketers have since been filed in Florida.

This year, the scope of bills allowing more lawsuits has startled business groups.

After the accrediting body for the state university system raised questions about a recent Florida State University presidential search and “undue political influence” at the University of Florida, lawmakers proposed allowing institutions to sue their accrediting agency for “retaliatory action.”

In the Senate’s proposed budget, Senate President Wilton Simpson, R-Trilby, included language requiring school districts and some private employers who receive state money to pay employees a minimum of $15 per hour — or face lawsuits by those employees. (He’s also proposing spending $1 billion to help employers afford the increase.)

Meanwhile, the Legislature has been working to raise the caps on “sovereign immunity” — the amount that local governments and agencies can pay out in a settlement without needing legislative approval. The amount would be raised from $200,000 to $400,000 per person, and some Republican lawmakers said this week that it should be higher.

Such a proposal would have had no chance of passing just a few years ago, when lawmakers were resistant to approving such settlements.

Part of the shift, observers say, is that the Legislature has been dominated by lawyers in recent years — four of the last six Senate presidents and House speakers have been lawyers.

“I often say that for too many legislators, the definition of a frivolous lawsuit is one that doesn’t involve me or my family,” said Sen. Gary Farmer, D-Lighthouse Point, a trial lawyer by trade. “Your perspective sure changes when you have firsthand experience.”

Times/Herald staff writers Ana Ceballos and Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this report.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/03/02/florida-republicans-relying-on-trial-lawyers-to-enforce-conservative-mandates/ 

Abortion clinics are health care providers, Florida liability bill says

The bill’s author notes that abortion clinics are regulated as health providers by the state. But some abortion rights advocates are noting the irony of the Republican-backed legislation.

Joey Cousin, a transgender student from Broward county and an opponent of the SB 404,
known as the “parental consent” bill, speaks at a press conference at the Capitol on Jan. 22, 2020,

in Tallahassee. [ AILEEN PERILLA | AP ]

By Kirby Wilson – Published Feb. 16, 2021

TALLAHASSEE — Republican lawmakers don’t typically like to say abortion services are health care. In fact, in 2020, Republican U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott were co-sponsors of the “Abortion Is Not Health Care Act.”

But a new bill making its way through the Florida Legislature, Senate Bill 74, would provide greater liability protection to health care providers in COVID-19 related lawsuits, including abortion clinics. Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, the author of the bill, said this is not a political statement: clinics are regulated by the state under the same statute as other health care centers.

Some abortion rights advocates are noting the irony of Republican-led legislation apparently admitting what they have long contended.

“We do believe that abortion rights are health care rights,” said Barbara DeVane of the Florida chapter of the National Organization for Women at a news conference Monday. “What a bunch of hypocrites in the Capitol, the Republican legislators that say they are anti-abortion, and yet these clinics are on the list.”

The GOP is indeed strongly anti-abortion. The state Legislature last year passed a bill requiring a doctor to get parental consent before terminating the pregnancy of a minor. Despite the objections of abortion rights advocates, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed that bill — one of his top legislative priorities — into law.

So it’s noteworthy that one of Republican leaders’ signature pieces of legislation in 2021 would ensure that abortion clinics are protected from frivolous COVID-19 related lawsuits.

Brandes downplayed the role of abortion clinics in the bill. The senator noted that even if the clinics weren’t listed as health care providers, they would be covered under another bill Brandes is proposing, SB 72. That legislation would give other businesses additional legal protection from COVID-19 related liability.

“It’s just where they fell in the statute,” Brandes said of abortion providers.

There hasn’t been any talk among Republicans about removing abortion clinics’ liability protections from the bill, Brandes added. The bill cleared its first Senate committee last week after nearly two hours of discussion and a party-line vote.

When asked about the protections for abortion clinics at a news conference Monday, DeSantis said he hadn’t seen the bill. House Speaker Chris Sprowls, R-Palm Harbor, referred the question back to Brandes.

“Abortion is health care and it absolutely should be included in any effort by the Legislature to define who are the front line health care workers,” said Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando. Until 2018, Eskamani was the senior director for Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida.

Some 34 states have enacted liability protections for businesses or health care providers, according to the American Tort Reform Association, which supports such protections.

Attorney William Large, the president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, found that at least nine COVID-19 related lawsuits have already been filed against health care providers in Florida. None of those lawsuits involved abortion providers. (If it becomes law, SB 74 would apply retroactively. However, companies that are sued before the bill is signed into law would not have additional legal protection.)

Opponents of Brandes’ bill have argued that with so few documented lawsuits against health care providers, the extra liability protections are at best unnecessary. At worst, they shield abusive actors that showed little regard for people’s safety during a pandemic.

“The same government that gave little to no direction, that forced the economic reopening of the state outside the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines, is asking for a blank check for business owners,” said Rich Templin, the public policy director for the Florida AFL-CIO.

However, Large, who leads an organization backed by the pro-business Florida Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview that his list of lawsuits is far from comprehensive.

“There’s not like a centralized database that you could Google to say, ‘Hey, spit out all the COVID-19 lawsuits,” Large said.

It remains to be seen whether health care providers will face a rash of lawsuits. But if those lawsuits come and Brandes’ bill as written is signed into law, abortion providers would be covered.

That fact alone isn’t swaying many of the state’s progressive lawmakers.

“I have concerns about the liability legislation as a whole, no matter who’s listed,” Eskamani said.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/02/16/abortion-clinics-are-health-care-providers-florida-liability-bill-says/ 

Florida lawmakers respond to COVID-19 with … tort reform
Even the Republican sponsor of the bill that would limit lawsuits admitted there were “fewer than 10” lawsuits that have been filed in Florida with claims related to COVID-19.

The Columbia Restaurant during the pandemic last year. [ BOYZELL HOSEY | Times ]

By Mary Ellen Klas – January 14, 2021

TALLAHASSEE — In response to businesses, schools, churches and healthcare providers that worry they could be sued for legal liability for exposing people to COVID-19, Florida legislators are fast-tracking a measure to do what they know best: limit lawsuits.

Meeting for the first time since the onslaught of the pandemic, the House Subcommittee on Civil Justice and Property Rights approved HB 7 along party lines on Wednesday. It will establish new barriers to lawsuits related to COVID-19. An identical bill is pending in the Senate for consideration during the 2021 legislative session, which starts March 2.

A second measure that would shield nursing homes, hospitals and other healthcare providers by raising the standard for COVID-19 liability is being drafted by the House Health and Human Services Committee, which held a workshop on the issue Thursday.

But it’s unclear what the need for the measure is, and several lawmakers are calling for more immediate measures to help businesses address their financial woes.

Rep. Lawrence McClure, a Dover Republican who is sponsoring HB 7, admitted there were “fewer than 10” lawsuits that have been filed in Florida with claims related to COVID-19. But he said the bill was necessary “to reduce the threat of potential civil liability.” Other estimates of the number of COVID-related lawsuits are higher.

“This bill is intended to give clarity to Florida businesses that if they are making a good faith effort to comply with regulations, they will not have the cloud of potential frivolous litigation hanging over their head,’’ McClure said. “It’s the fear of frivolous lawsuits as this evolves.”

Opponents, which include consumer advocates, unions for healthcare workers, and plaintiffs lawyers, argued that the bill raises the standard of gross negligence and raises the burden of proof so high that it will make it almost impossible for anyone who accuses an employer or business for endangering them.

Sen. Gary Farmer, the Senate Democratic leader from Fort Lauderdale who is a trial lawyer, said there is no need for the legislation because the threshold for proving someone got COVID-19 from exposure to a business or a place of employment is already so high that few lawyers are willing to take the cases.

To win a case, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “breached the duty” to follow the established standards to protect customers or employees, and also prove they caught COVID-19 at that establishment, he said.

But because of the community prevalence of the virus “you’re never going to be able to prove that you caught COVID that any particular place,’’ Farmer said.

Burden of proof is on doctors

HB 7 puts the burden of filing a lawsuit almost entirely on the word of a physician who must attest “to the physician’s belief, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the plaintiff’s COVID-19-related damages, injury, or death occurred as a result of the defendant’s acts or omissions,’’ the bill states.

A judge would then determine whether the business “made a good faith effort to substantially comply with authoritative or controlling government-issued health standards or guidance at the time the cause of action accrued.”

Curry G. Pajcic of the Florida Justice Association, which represents plaintiffs lawyers, told the House Civil Justice Committee that the bill is unconstitutional because it “makes the judge the jury” and uses “impossibly high standards that no one can meet.”

Rep. Ben Diamond, a St. Petersburg Democrat, attempted to amend the bill to clarify how and when a physician’s affidavit would be used. The committee rejected the attempts along a party-line vote.

The measure is a top priority of the state’s influential restaurant, lodging and entertainment industry. A 40-member industry task force that included representatives of restaurants, hotels, nursing homes, retailers, home builders and insurers met over the summer and concluded the higher standards were needed.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, told the committee that he found 53 lawsuits have been filed against nursing homes by staff, patients and their families, cruise lines by passengers and crews, tour companies by customers in refund disputes and a host of workplace clashes tied to the coronavirus.

He argued that if Florida raises its litigation standards for COVID-19 liability it would join 16 states that have raised the standard of care in medical liability cases and 17 states that have addressed exposure liability.

The coalition had TaxWatch, the business-backed research organization, to draft a report that concluded that because of the threat of lawsuits employers could lose confidence in the economy and the state could lose billions in business activity and thousands of jobs.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed related to COVID-19 in Florida, according to a COVID-19 complaint tracking site created by the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth. Few of the cases relate to liability because of exposure to COVID-19, and the majority are a result of businesses suing their insurer for refusing to cover their business interruption insurance.

Samantha Padgett, general counsel for the Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association, said the legislation was necessary to put their industry “in a better position than they are in now.”

She spoke of unclear regulations and confusion “trying to adhere to conflicting regulations.” She made no mention of pending lawsuits or liability.

What about small business?

Democrats argued that legislators could do more to help small businesses by drafting bills to address concerns they said were more immediate, such as meeting their loan and rent obligations or creating bridge loans to keep them in business.

“What really frustrates me is that we have all these very real small-business challenges and no one’s saying this is one of them,’’ said Rep. Anna Eskamani, an Orlando Democrat. “The biggest phone calls I get are around, ‘I need rent relief, and I need my unemployment,’ and nothing comes to me about this issue.”

Rep. Michael Gottlieb, a Davie Democrat, urged the House to narrow the focus of the bill.

“We’ve got bad actors that are lawyers, there’s no doubt about that,’’ he said. “Why are we not having a bill that punishes the bad actors for filing frivolous lawsuits? And I think that’s a better solution to the problem that we have.”

Lakey Love of the Florida Policy Action Network said she represented working-class people and indicated she was concerned the bill would put workers at higher risk if employers were shielded from protecting them.

A separate bill for healthcare providers

The House Health and Human Services Committee also plans to draft legislation to give healthcare providers, including nursing homes, protection from lawsuits.

Mel Beal, CEO of Airamid Health Services, which represents 40 skilled nursing facilities and three assisted-living facilities across Florida, said that the absence of guidance from the state and federal authorities, as well as conflicting guidance about handling COVID-19, increased the exposure of businesses.

“The threat of litigation against long-term care professionals is not theoretical, it’s real, and it’s ongoing,’’ he said. He said relief was needed to protect against the expense of “sue to settle” threats in which attorneys demand information as a precursor to a lawsuit to force potential defendants to settle without going to court.

But Sam Brooks, project manager for the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, national consumer advocacy organization long-term care, said that most cases that are emerging are when nursing homes “fail to provide basic care” and residents and their families seek more information.

“In many situations, the courts may be the only potential source of justice for residents who were harmed,’’ he said. “Removing access to the court could be devastating and perpetuate harm to residents” and “make workers less safe by allowing participants to deteriorate inside a facility.”

But Thomas S. Edwards, Jr, a Jacksonville trial lawyer at a workshop before the House Health and Human Services Committee on Thursday called the measure “a solution in search of a problem.”

He said he has reviewed the cases filed so far and only six are from exposure to COVID.

He argued that if a healthcare facility “was not following the most basic standards or practices that have been in place for years, then they may get sued.” But because there are “fluctuating standards” and they’re following basic standards of care, “then they’re going to have protection from the standpoint of being sued.”

Beal said relief was needed to protect against the expense of “sue to settle” threats in which attorneys demand information as a precursor to a lawsuit to force potential defendants to settle without going to court.

A similar effort to expand COVID-19 liability protections for businesses was attempted in Congress, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried and failed to get a measure included in the stimulus plan that passed in December.

Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau reporter Lawrence Mower contributed to this report.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/01/14/florida-lawmakers-respond-to-covid-19-with-tort-reform/