Florida Justice Reform Institute

Legislature OKs more wrongful-death suits against hospitals, docs

/in

Christine Sexton
Thu, May 1, 2025 at 6:26 PM EDT

  State Sen. Gayle Harrell says he’s been attacked via billboards for opposing liberalization of wrongful-death suits against doctors and hospitals without limiting potential monetary awards. (Screenshot, WPTV)

The Florida Legislature on Thursday sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis a bill that would put an end to a 35-year-ban that prevents people from filing lawsuits against physicians and hospitals for medical malpractice.

The 33-4 vote by the Florida Senate capped a tumultuous 24-hours in which the main sponsor paused action on his bill a day earlier after the Senate narrowly rejected his call to cap how much someone could collect in a medical malpractice.

“It needs to be repealed, it is unjust,” said Sen. Clay Yarborough, the Republican who sponsored the legislation, of the litigation ban.

State Sen. Clay Yarborough via: Florida Senate

The question is what will happen next. DeSantis has complained loudly about the influence of “liberal trial attorneys.” Yarborough on Thursday told reporters there was a chance the governor could nix the bill.

Under existing law, parents of single, childless, adult children cannot sue for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. Adult children, defined as those 25 and older, are also banned from pursuing wrongful death claims for single parents who die from medical malpractice.

HB 6017 would completely eliminate this prohibition in law. It passed over strong opposition from groups such as the Florida Hospital Association, Florida Medical Association, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, and insurance industry lobbyists.

Florida Justice Reform Institute William Large said he will ask the governor to veto the bill.

“This bill is bad for Floridians. It’s bad for consumers. This bill will only increase healthcare costs for all Floridians,” Large told the Florida Phoenix, adding that he estimates as many as 500 additional lawsuits annually will result from eliminating the ban.

The vote for final passage Thursday followed emotional testimony wherein state Sen. Gayle Harrell’s voice cracked as she explained that she was being targeted by billboards for her opposition to the bill.

Harrell, a long-time champion of the medical profession, said she would have supported the expansion of lawsuits against physicians and hospitals if, in exchange, the Senate agreed to put a $1 million limit on wrongful death recoveries for all medical malpractice incidents.

Harrell said she was moved throughout the session by testimony from residents who shared stories of how their children, parents, and loved ones died allegedly from medical malpractice but were prevented from seeking redress in court. But, at the end of the day, she said she believes that without damages caps, physicians and hospitals will face increased costs and stop practicing.

Sen. Gayle Harrell (Photo via the Florida Senate.)

“I can tell you we are going to have a huge increase in medical malpractice. And in addition we are going to have physicians not coming to the state of Florida,” she said.

Harrell said she has been targeted for her position. The Republican from Stuart didn’t say who was behind the intimidation.

“I can tell you this has become very difficult for me, personally. I am getting personal attacks on it because of my stand. There is now a billboard in front of my neighborhood saying Gayle Harrell supports profits over people,” she said, adding there is a “double billboard” “attacking” her in another nearby neighborhood.

“And I can tell you, that is very devastating to anyone in a political situation where they think Gayle Harrell puts profits over people. I do not. I do not,” she said.

Harrell’s remarks solicited anger from a bipartisan group of senators who came to her defense.

Former Senate Democratic leader turned independent Sen. Jason Pizzo said: “I want you to hear me now. Nobody has done more to provide access to health care than Gayle Harrell. So if you know the person who put up the billboard, I’m not affecting anyone’s First Amendment rights, but you can tell them that Jason Pizzo won’t like them when he finds out who they are.”

State Sen. Jim Boyd. Credit: Florida Channel

Pizzo announced later that he had reached someone who had promised to take down the billboards.

Sen. Jim Boyd, a Republican from Bradenton, extolled Harrell for her work over the years on issues involving children, the elderly, and people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

“There’s nobody more caring than you,” Boyd told Harrell. “An attack on you is an attack on us. Anybody from St. Augustine or anywhere else in Florida that would put up a sign like that ought to think twice about it. It’s not fair. It’s not right. And it can’t be tolerated.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/legislature-oks-more-wrongful-death-222648024.html

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Scott Maxwell: Florida should repeal ‘free kill’ law

/in

Scott Maxwell, Orlando Sentinel
Tue, March 25, 2025 at 2:47 PM EDT

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.”

smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scott-maxwell-florida-repeal-free-184700943.html?guccounter=1

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Lobbyist scolded for ‘scare tactics’ in committee debate on wrongful-death bill

/in

Christine Sexton
Thu, March 20, 2025 at 12:20 PM EDT

(Photo by Kieferpix/Getty Images)

Rep. Hillary Cassel on Thursday blasted a lobbyist for his testimony on a bill that would increase the potential for wrongful death lawsuits to be filed against Florida doctors and hospitals, accusing him of using scare tactics to try to sink the bill.

During public testimony on HB 6017 before the House Judiciary Committee, attorney Mark Berlick said allowing adult children of single parents to sue physicians and hospitals for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, would open the door to estranged children suing Florida’s hospitals and physicians.

Berlick, an attorney with the Bolin Law Group, said he represented the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which champions lawsuit limitations.

He testified that the “bulk” of people who would be filing medical malpractice lawsuits are going to be nonstate residents who are estranged from family members who live in Florida.

“So, though you’ll end up with the individuals that will end up with a check being sent to them for an individual that never sets foot in the state of Florida, they won’t receive any medical care here. They won’t have any taxes paid here. They’ll just simply receive a settlement check from the death of their relatives,” he said.

The comments didn’t sit well with Cassel, a Republican who noted that the majority of the people in the committee hearing who testified on behalf of the bill were Florida residents.

“We as members expect that the people that come before us to provide information are going to do so truthfully and with facts, and for the gentleman from the Florida Justice Reform Institute to come before us and assert that the people that are going to benefit from this don’t live in this state and must be estranged from their families, and we’re going to just be writing checks to estranged members, doesn’t have an ounce of data to support that,” Cassel said.

“And that was nothing more than a scare tactic to this committee, and it’s an insult on our intelligence, and it’s an insult to the people who are here today, who are clearly not estranged from the loved ones that they have lost. And of the ones that have testified, all but two are Floridians. So, 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 bring facts and data and not scare tactics and opinions.”

Quid pro quo
The insurance industry, Florida hospitals associations, and organized medicine such as the Florida Medical and Florida Osteopathic associations, oppose the bill in its current form. But they are willing to support eliminating the ban if the Legislature agrees to limit damages for pain and suffering.

Otherwise, increasing civil liability will further increase medical malpractice insurance rates and drive physicians away from practicing, the opponents say.

To date, neither the House nor Senate have included the industry-coveted caps in the bill. The Senate passed its version, SB 734, earlier this week.

Rudman returns
There are some individual physicians, though, who support the proposal, including former state Rep. Joel Rudman.

Rudman resigned from the House to launch an unsuccessful congressional bid but returned Thursday to testify in support of the bill.

A Navarre physician, Rudman said he came to Florida from Alabama during the 1990s and the high medical malpractice rates didn’t drive him away. The premiums he pays today, he said, haven’t changed in a decade. And the costs of the insurance protection from lawsuits isn’t among his top three overhead costs.

“I’ve had a license since 1997, and I’ve never been sued. I’m very proud of that,” Rudman said. “It’s not because of some bogus protections carve-out in the current statute. It’s because I’m damn good at my job. And this bill will not change that, either. The only doctors that want to see this statute remain in place are bad doctors and, unfortunately, we have a few of those in the state of Florida.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lobbyist-scolded-scare-tactics-committee-162025370.html

Florida Justice Reform Institute

How much do you pay for property insurance in Florida? Here’s some good news. | Opinion

/in

Palm Beach Post

Opinion

How much do you pay for property insurance in Florida? Here’s some good news. | Opinion

William Large

Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this month revealed good news when it comes to Florida’s insurance market. Yes, good news.

During the last three years, the Florida Legislature has passed meaningful reforms to address unrestrained litigation and reign in skyrocketing attorneys’ fees, and their efforts are bringing down the cost of insurance, inviting more competition into the market and giving consumers more choice for coverage on their home and auto.

Between 2019 and 2023, average homeowner premiums in Florida surged nearly 60%. Not only were homeowners paying more for property insurance, but they had access to less coverage and fewer providers to choose from.

Florida homeowners were left to foot insurance bill hikes

Unfortunately, the average Florida homeowner was left to foot the bill when insurance providers were forced to raise costs to cover excessive litigation. Many insurers determined that it was too costly to do business in Florida. By the end of 2024, more than 30 insurance providers had exited Florida’s marketplace.

The reforms began in 2021 when Senate Bill 76 required plaintiffs to notify an insurer before a lawsuit is filed. In turn, insurers are given an opportunity to reconsider a coverage denial and attempt to resolve a claim before it is the subject of litigation. The legislation also offered consumers additional protections from unscrupulous contractors.

Then in 2022, Senate Bill 2D, developed and passed during a special session called by the Governor, included additional tort reforms. This legislation prohibited assignment of the right to obtain attorney fees to anyone other than an insured or beneficiary named in the policy, thus eliminating abuse of these arrangements by third parties as a way to obtain attorney fees.

Later in 2022, another special session led to the passage of Senate Bill 2A. Senate Bill 2A eliminated the statutory right to recover attorney fees in a lawsuit arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy.

Importantly, this legislation also implemented greater protections for consumers. The law requires insurance companies to be more responsive to their customers by limiting the time they have to respond to claims.

Building on these reforms, the Florida Legislature also passed House Bill 837 in 2023 to eliminate exorbitant attorney’s fees, strengthen negligence standards and provide stronger defense to those targeted by excessive litigation.

While our state leaders acted swiftly to develop, pass and implement solutions, we knew it would take time for these policies to stabilize the market. Now, the trends are moving in the right direction, providing much-needed relief to Florida’s homeowners.

Florida has 11 new insurance providers

In 2024, Florida had the lowest average homeowners’ premium increases in the nation, with an average statewide rate hike of just 1%. At the same time, premiums in other states have surged by more than 20%.

In addition, there are 11 new insurance providers in the market. And the providers that remain are expanding their business and filing for rate decreases.

This is only the beginning. As timelines run out for trial attorneys to pursue litigation under the more litigation-friendly law, the environment will continue to stabilize, reducing the burden of excessive litigation and bringing down costs even further.
William W. Large William Large

Our state is proof that strong conservative leadership on the state level can lead to meaningful reforms. The steps our Governor and Legislature have taken are bringing stability to the market, leading to more choices and lower costs for Florida homeowners.

William Large is the president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute.

This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Florida home insurance costs less with more companies | Opinion

https://www.yahoo.com/news/much-pay-property-insurance-florida-090520712.html

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Increasing percentage of uninsured drivers adding to Florida’s car insurance woes for now

/in
Palm Beach Post

Increasing percentage of uninsured drivers adding to Florida’s car insurance woes for now

Anne Geggis, Palm Beach Post

Just like property insurance, what Florida drivers are paying for car insurance stands out nationally and part of what’s fueling those prices is the high number of motorists driving without insurance.

Nationally, the portion of drivers on the road without car insurance started accelerating with the pandemic in 2020 and it’s kept increasing, according to the Insurance Research Council, an organization the insurance industry supports. The same study also shows that Florida drivers are revving up the trend more than the average.

In 2022, an estimated 16% of Florida drivers were uninsured, ranking the state at 15th nationally for the proportion among the state’s 16.4 million licensed drivers. Now the latest figures, from 2023, reveal one in five drivers in Florida is uninsured. Only five states and the District of Columbia have higher rates: Mississippi has the highest proportion, followed by New Mexico, D.C., Michigan, Tennessee and Missouri, according to the study.

The state of Florida appears to calculate uninsured drivers differently than the Insurance Research Council. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles says a little less than 6% of state drivers are uninsured, according to data from this month.

Still, insurance industry officials are raising the alarm.

“It’s a very concerning trend to the industry that the uninsured rate continues to go up,” said Mark Friedlander, director of corporate communications for the industry-backed Insurance Information Institute, which is affiliated with the Insurance Research Council. “The laws are very clear in the state of Florida. Insurance is not discretionary.”

Ironically enough, though, no other state requires a lower level of insurance coverage to get behind the wheel, except for New Hampshire. And even though the Granite State doesn’t require it, 90% of residents there are insured, according to the study.

Most other states require that motorists sign on for at least $25,000 worth of bodily injury coverage. That compares to Florida, which requires only $10,000 in personal injury protection and $10,000 for property damage. North Carolina just increased its required minimums so that motorists must get coverage that would pay $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident when there’s bodily injury and $50,000 for property damage.

Even with Florida’s low bar for meeting minimum liability requirements, residents in only three other states — New York, New Jersey and Nevada — pay more than Floridians to meet the minimum coverage requirement for driving in their state, according to Bankrate, an online financial guide for consumers breaking down pros and cons of mortgages, credit cards and investments.

Florida’s current insurance coverage minimums have been in place since the 1970s.

Legislation was passed in 2021 that would have raised those minimums and repealed the state’s “no fault” laws, but Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it. The debate may be teeing up again — two similar bills have been introduced for the Florida legislature’s session now underway that would increase the minimum coverage and repeal the state’s no-fault accident law.

Changing the current system is a tough call, Friedlander observed, given that increasing the minimum insurance required would likely make getting on the road fully legal even more expensive when so many have already chosen to skip it because of the current high cost.
“I understand why they are not moving forward on it,” Friedlander said.

Lots of individual variables go into calculating the cost that the consumer sees on their car insurance bill, such as driving history, traffic citations and make and model of the car insured. In March, Bankrate found that the average annual cost of “full coverage” in Florida is the most of any other state, coming in at $4,210 per year. That bill is calculated using a 40-year-old with a good credit score and clean driving record who commutes five days a week in a 2023 Toyota Camry as a customer.

That policy would offer much more coverage than the minimum the state requires. That annual insurance payment of $4,210 would buy, in the event of an accident, $100,000 for personal injury coverage; bodily injury liability of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident; and uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage at $100,000 per person and $300,000 for an accident. It would also pay up to $50,000 for property damage after the $500 deductible is paid.
Driver gathering evidence after an accident.

Why are the premiums so high?

Besides the high probability of running into an uninsured motorist, the same factors that bedevil the state’s high property insurance costs — hurricanes and a high rate of lawsuits — also drive the car insurance market, according to Dustyne Bryant, who develops curriculum for insurance professionals and hosted a podcast “Awkward Insurance” for four years.

But leaders who support the current system say, just like with property insurance, automotive insurance premiums should be dropping soon as recent changes to lawsuit laws to stem the tide of litigation take hold.

DeSantis, at a news conference last month, highlighted filings that show car insurance carriers Geico, State Farm and Progressive have lowered their rates.

Costs remain high right now because the full effect of 2023 legislation that stops attorneys from suing over minimal amounts won’t be entirely realized until 2028, industry observers say. That’s when insurance companies see their litigation risk dropping, says William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute. He noted that before changes to the state’s tort laws, which his organization supported, lawyers were suing over amounts as infinitesimal as interest charges.

“We fixed PIP (personal injury protection) — that’s my opinion, and I believe it’s going to be proven out within the next five years,” Large said. “I and others want to see data come in. So why go change this before the data has really come in?”

 A damaged vehicle after a car accident on the road.

The sponsors of the legislation couldn’t be reached for comment.

Uninsured motorist coverage part of typical package

Still, given the one-in-five-chance that one might have an accident with an uninsured driver in Florida, Coral Springs insurance agent Andy Kasten says he strongly recommends that his clients buy uninsured motorist coverage.

“If someone causes you a lot of bodily injury, if they don’t have insurance, at least you can somewhat be made whole,” said Kasten, president of Creative Financial Property & Casualty Group.

In the current climate, that will add about 13% to the total, typical bill, Kasten said.

Anne Geggis is the insurance reporter at The Palm Beach Post, part of the USA TODAY Florida Network.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/increasing-percentage-uninsured-drivers-adding-154326502.html

Florida Justice Reform Institute

DeSantis opposes repealing Florida’s no-fault auto law. Will his stand stall Legislature’s efforts?

/in

Florida Phoenix

DeSantis opposes repealing Florida’s no-fault auto law. Will his stand stall Legislature’s efforts?

Christine Sexton – Thu, March 6, 2025 at 4:46 PM EST
Traffic on I-95 via Florida DOT.

Gov. Ron DeSantis seems determined to put the brakes on efforts in the Florida 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 lets 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 attorney fees will have on rates going forward.

Since 1893, state law allowed policyholders to force carriers to pay any attorney 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.

Perez, who was vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee at the time, voted for the repeal.

Note: This story has been updated to correct the name of the House bill sponsor.

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Here’s what lawmakers could change about property insurance in the next two months

/in

Florida Phoenix
Here’s what lawmakers could change about property insurance in the next two months
Jackie Llanos, Christine Sexton – Mon, March 3, 2025 at 5:52 PM EST
The coastline in Steinhatchee remains covered in debris on Oct. 3, 2024, following Hurricane Helene. (Photo by Jay Waagmeester/Florida Phoenix)

Insurance could prove the issue that dominates Florida’s 2025 legislative session, given that lawmakers have filed dozens of bills aimed at reining in homeowners’ insurance premiums and once again hope to repeal the requirement to carry no-fault car insurance policies.

Property taxes
Sen. Blaise Ingoglia Photo credit: Christine Sexton Florida Phoenix
Positioned as one of the most important lawmakers when it comes to insurance is Spring Hill Republican Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, who chairs the committee dealing with that industry. The Gov. Ron DeSantis ally has multiple proposals tackling home hardening against hurricanes and floods and reversing some of the legislative gains won by insurance companies.
“There are still a bunch of bills that have been filed, so we’re going to be going through the bills diligently,” Ingoglia told Florida Phoenix on Monday. “We want to make sure that any bill that winds up being heard in committee is holding insurance companies accountable, but making sure that we are doing everything that we possibly can to reduce premiums for homeowners.”

His most recently filed bill, SB 1740, would require carriers applying to conduct business in Florida to hold reserves of at least $35 million more than they need to cover obligations to policyholders.

Directors, officers, or attorneys of insurance companies that can’t pay their debts would be barred from joining another insurance company in that capacity if they were in their position within five years before the insurer becomes insolvent.

Under Ingoglia’s proposal, the state’s hurricane mitigation grants of up to $10,000 would go toward improvements that would result in a property insurance credit or discount. Republican newcomer Yvette Benarroch of Marco Island is sponsoring the House companion.

The senator also wants the Legislature to assume authority to freeze property taxes for homeowners who elevate and in other ways make their homes more resistant to winds and flooding. Two-thirds passage of that resolution, SJR 1190, in the Legislature would put that question in front of voters in 2026, and it would require 60% approval at the polls.

If voters want to make that change to the Florida Constitution, another bill, SB 1192, which Ingoglia filed on Feb. 25, would freeze property taxes for 20 years for homeowners who elevate their homes.

Pinellas Republican Reps. Adam Anderson and Kimberly Berfield filed the House companions.

Reports and more reports

Demands for more information and transparency are a common thread among the bills lawmakers have filed on property insurance this session.

During the insurance market upheaval following Hurricanes Irma and Michael, insurers raised premiums to cover their losses while their affiliate companies made billions, according to a recent investigation by the Tampa Bay Times. The affiliate companies increased their profits by overcharging the insurers for basic services.

A 174-page proposal, SB 1656/HB 1429, which Tampa Republican Jay Collins and Miami Lakes Republican Tom Fabricio filed on Friday, requires insurers to turn over to the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) documentation about fees paid to affiliates. The bill also requires the companies to tell residential property policyholders how the costs of litigation, reinsurance, and affiliate fees influence the rate the customer pays.

Sen. Don Gaetz (Photo/Florida Senate)

Former Senate President Don Gaetz — the Republican is once again representing the far western Panhandle in the upper chamber — is taking a similar approach with SB 554. His proposal, sponsored in the House by fellow Panhandle lawmaker Alex Andrade, requires OIR to create a report detailing the financial relationship between insurers and affiliates with at least 10% common ownership and another delving into insurance executives’ compensation.

Gaetz and Andrade also want to reinstate Florida’s old one-way attorney fees, which traditionally awarded litigation costs to homeowners who successfully sue insurance companies. In 2023, the Legislature required both parties to pay for their own attorneys’ fees, one of DeSantis’ priorities.

Across the aisle, Democrats have filed bills limiting property insurance rate increases and creating a trust fund to help people who can’t pay for their insurance. Meanwhile, Democratic House Leader Fentrice Driskell requested that House Speaker Daniel Perez and DeSantis investigate why the state concealed for two years the information the Tampa Bay Times reported.

PIP tussle

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

Florida drivers are required to carry a $10,000 in PIP coverage on their insurance policies under Florida’s no-fault automobile insurance system, which also requires drivers to purchase $10,000 in property damage liability insurance. Those are minimum requirements and drivers can purchase additional coverage on top of those mandated requirements.

The state’s no-fault automobile insurance laws ban injured parties from bringing lawsuits against at-fault parties to recover noneconomic damages, 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.)

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 Florida Justice Association, which supports a PIP repeal, notes that a Forbes analysis of automobile insurance rates shows that Florida is the most expensive state for car insurance in the nation. To meet the requirements of the law costs an average $1,529 annually.

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

Perez, who was vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee at the time, voted for the repeal at the time.

Fast forward to 2025 and there’s another concerted effort to repeal the PIP system, and Perez is speaker of the House of Representatives. The vehicles are SB 1256 by Sen. Erin Grall and HB 1181 by Rep. Danny Alvarez.

The bills would abolish PIP and instead 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.

Florida Justice Reform Institute William Large is lobbying against the repeal. Large, whose group advocates for lawsuit restrictions, says lawmakers should allow the state’s no-fault laws and PIP to remain in place for at least another three years while lawmakers gather market data. He says the pause would allow the state to ascertain whether elimination of one-way attorney’s fees reduced the costs of automobile insurance.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lashes-kentucky-republican-thomas-165649925.html

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida property insurance bill would repeal 2022 reforms that stabilized the market, insurers say

/in ,

South Florida Sun Sentinel
Florida property insurance bill would repeal 2022 reforms that stabilized the market, insurers say
Ron Hurtibise, South Florida Sun Sentinel
Florida property insurance bill would repeal 2022 reforms that stabilized the market, insurers say

A political titan has filed a provocative bill he says will reduce insurance costs in Florida — and the insurance industry doesn’t like his proposals.

One provision would roll back recent restrictions on fees that attorneys can collect when they sue insurers. Another provision would require insurers to publicly disclose their companies’ subsidiaries and affiliates and all of the ways their executives benefit from them.

The proposals are in similar bills filed in the state House and Senate this week. The House bill was filed by Rep. Alex Andrade, R-Pensacola.

The Senate bill was filed by Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Crestview, a longtime heavyweight in Florida politics and father of former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz.

Don Gaetz was reelected to the state Senate last fall after an eight-year absence. Last year, he campaigned on promises to fix an insurance system that has continued to raise costs for homeowners while saving significant money avoiding legal costs.

“Floridians pay far more for property insurance than anyone anywhere else in the nation,” the two lawmakers were quoted in a news release as saying. “Admittedly, Florida is a high-risk market, but we believe there are steps the Legislature can take to improve how rates are set and how individual claims can be processed faster and fairer.”

The release quoted Gaetz blaming high insurance prices for the slowing pace of new residents coming to Florida.

“High insurance costs make the Free State of Florida into the Unaffordable State of Florida for many seniors on fixed incomes trying to stay in their homes, young families including military families trying to buy their first homes, and businesses of every size,” Gaetz was quoted as saying.

Gaetz ran on fixing insurance

In an interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel, Gaetz said he came out of retirement and ran for Senate last year because he had heard from Northwest Florida residents going through “serious problems” caused by “bad actors in the insurance industry.”

Despite Gaetz’s stature and name recognition, the bills’ proposals will elicit pushback among members of the House and Senate who — assuming the bills are taken up by committees — will contend that the current set of reforms enacted between 2021 and 2023 are working as intended.

“We cannot support these bills,” said Michael Carlson, president and CEO of the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida, which represents national insurance carriers and their subsidiaries.

Stacey Giulianti, chief legal officer for Boca Raton-based Florida Peninsula Insurance, said the reforms enacted from 2021 to 2023 are working and should be left as is.

“My take is that it’s not necessary, at least from the attorney fee perspective,” Giulianti said. “There are still plenty of lawyers taking cases. In fact, we still get about 100 lawsuits per month. Moreover, to go back to the old days where we paid 70% of the monies to attorneys, which was basically a cottage industry, seems completely unnecessary now that the market is stabilizing and capacity is up.”

Insurers contended that prior to the reforms, a limited but prolific group of plaintiffs attorneys figured out how to profit from a century-old Florida law that held insurance customers harmless if they sued their insurers in claims disputes and lost, but paid 100% of their legal fees if the insurer agreed to pay as little as a $1 more than their original settlement offer.

That law, called the “one-way insurance fee statute,” made way for an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits, according to insurers, that attorneys could file without exposing themselves to the possibility that they or their clients might be stuck paying insurers’ fees.

Now, a policyholder who wants to sue an insurer has to pay an attorney upfront or guarantee a percentage of any award. Attorneys who make their livings taking cases on contingency — without requiring upfront payment — are turning away cases over small damage amounts that they once eagerly accepted.

The bills would create a framework for reprising payments to plaintiffs’ attorneys. They would get 100% of their fees if an insurer agrees to settle for at least 80% more than the policyholder demands.

If the judgment falls within 20% and 80% of the demand, the plaintiff would collect an equal percentage of their attorney’s fees.

Only if the award is less than 20% would insurers be required to pay none of the plaintiff’s attorney fees.

The language also enables full recovery of attorneys fees by plaintiffs if insurers fail to comply with timelines for responding to claims or participating in mediation, if the plaintiff’s demand “is deemed reasonable by the court,” or if a court finds evidence of bad faith or abuse of the litigative process.

Those provisions, said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, amounts to “inserting the one-way attorneys fee provision back into law.”

While the reforms required plaintiffs to risk losing to the insurance company and paying its legal fees, the bill would again leave policyholders harmless whether they win or lose.

Gaetz acknowledges that, but counters, “This bill is going after bad actors in the insurance industry who don’t respond in a reasonable, fair and prompt fashion to legitimate claims.”

He points to the experience of a Panama City mother of two disabled sons who he had known. They lost their home in Hurricane Michael in 2018 and for more than a year was “ping-ponged back and forth between adjusters and lawyers” before her insurance company offered her 40 cents for every dollar of damage, which would have left her unable to rebuild her home, Gaetz said.

Ultimately, “she was so grateful to get 85 cents on the dollar” to settle her claim, he said.

Bill would require disclosure of subsidiaries

Another proposal in the bills would require the state to create reports disclosing to the public information that insurers currently label as trade secrets.

One would list all of an insurers’ subsidiaries, management companies, captive vendors and reinsurers that they have ownership stakes in and share common officers or directors. The report would detail the financial relationships between the entities.

Another report would detail compensation of each executive officer, including salaries, benefits, stock options, bonuses, stock buybacks and other taxable payments, along with profits and losses of each entity and highlight any compensation exceeding the industry average. It would also be required to explain effects of the compensation on insurers’ rate change requests.

Gaetz says the information would have to be used in rate setting, which he says isn’t occurring now.

He says he’s aware of insurers who move funds to management companies and consultants — “basically captive and owned vendors” — so they can appear to have much lower capital and profit levels when filing for rate increases.

“So if we find there’s excessive compensation with stock options and bonuses and perks and salaries, or if we find that the insurance company is sliding money off of their books and into other subsidiaries … we need to have an honest set of books that tells us where the premium dollars came from and how the premium dollars are used.”

But Paul Handerhan, president of the Fort Lauderdale-based Federal Association for Insurance Reform, says the Office of Insurance Regulation already requires such reports to be submitted. They just don’t post them on their website because they include proprietary information about companies’ business strategies.

“The insurance commissioner 100% is looking at every expenditure, every expense the insurance company has, even if those contracts are with affiliate or captive organizations,” Handerhan said.

A Dec. 18 story posted on the industry website Insurance Journal reported that ratings firm AM Best found that 13 Florida insurers that went insolvent since 2017 had surrendered almost all of their premiums to subsidies known as Managing General Agencies. Handerhan and other industry representatives were quoted in the story as saying that Florida insurers are so scrutinized by regulators, reinsurance and ratings firms, they had little room for diverting revenue unnecessarily.

Other proposals in the bill would:

— Increase the interest rate on insurance judgments or settlements from 4% to 8%.

— Require insurance adjusters to use electronic estimating software with price data consistent with contractor rates in a home’s geographic market. A loss adjustment report would have to be provided to policyholders within seven days of the inspection.

— Require insurers and policyholders to share equally in the cost of mediation, when invoked. Insurers can no longer delay claims disputes by asserting the right to reinspect damaged property.

Gaetz says he’s aware that the bill has its critics and might not even be heard by a committee — a decision that would lead to its defeat.

“I would expect William Large and others who speak for the insurance industry to oppose the bill. I would be surprised if they didn’t. But I expect a fierce fight.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-property-insurance-bill-repeal-225900973.html

Florida Justice Reform Institute

The case for — and against — making it harder to sue health care facilities over COVID-19

/in

 

Yahoo News

The case for — and against — making it harder to sue health care facilities over COVID-19

Crowd Protesting

Kirby Wilson, Tampa Bay Times
Thu, March 4, 2021, 2:53 PM·

TALLAHASSEE — One of the top Republican priorities during the legislative session would make it harder for patients and their families to sue health care providers in COVID-19-related cases.

Although destined to pass, the measures, Senate Bill 74 and House Bill 7005, have proven to be quite controversial. Detractors say it would make it harder for mistreated patients to hold nursing homes or hospitals accountable in a state with an already troubled health care system. Supporters say the state should shield health care providers — the heroes of the coronavirus pandemic — from unnecessary lawsuits.

The liability bills are not to be confused with other bills — SB 72 and HB 7 — which would protect non-health care businesses from COVID-19 lawsuits.

Let’s break down key arguments for and against the legislation.

Pro: A wave of lawsuits is coming

Civil defense attorneys have testified before lawmakers that they’re staring down dozens of coronavirus-related lawsuits. Robin Khanal, an Orlando-area attorney who advocates for long-term care facilities, has said he’s got more than 60 cases or potential cases on his desk. William Large, the president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said at least nine COVID-19 related lawsuits have already been filed against health care providers in Florida.

The American Tort Reform Association, which is in favor of the liability protections, estimated that Florida plaintiff attorneys had spent more than $6.6 million in advertising for COVID-19 legal services as of December.

Opponents of the bill say warnings about a potential onslaught of litigation are still speculative. But even if lawsuits are coming, many of them are likely justified, they say. This is particularly true when it comes to long-term care facilities.

Two decades ago, Florida, considered then to have one of the worst nursing home systems in the country, was swimming in lawsuits against providers. In 2001, the state enacted a slate of sweeping reforms to the long-term care industry in exchange for making it harder to sue the facilities.

Since then, patient advocates argue, care standards have slipped. The tough legal environment for plaintiffs remains, however. The liability proposals would only further stack the deck against aggrieved families and patients, they say.

“This (bill) gives a pass to nursing homes that already may have been bad,” said Jeff Johnson, the Florida director of the AARP.

Con: Liability protections as a “shield”

Adequate procedures for controlling infections. Making sure facilities were adequately staffed. Properly communicating with residents’ families. Long-term care facilities should have been good at all of the above before COVID-19 hit Florida, patient advocates argue. If they weren’t, residents fared much worse during the pandemic.

That’s not a COVID-19 problem, but under the liability protection bills, caregivers would use new legal protections to paper over past shortcomings.

“We don’t want them to hide behind this liability protection in cases of abuse and neglect,” said Olivia Babis, a public policy analyst for Disability Rights Florida.

But Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, the Senate sponsor of the liability measure, said the issues health care providers had during the pandemic had little to do with how they performed previously.

“This is a global pandemic where we had conflicting guidance. No country in the world was prepared for this,” Brandes told the Times/Herald. “This swept over us like a tsunami, and our health care providers were told to swim through it,”

Pro: Frivolous lawsuits distract care workers

Those who work in long-term health care and support the liability bills warn of distracted workers.

Dedicated employees who worked night and day during a brutal pandemic will be forced to undergo endless depositions and legal wrangling, adding to their difficult day jobs.

“Lawsuits affect every single member of the nursing team,” said Kimberly Biegasiewicz, the Chief Nursing Officer for the long-term care firm Avante Group at a recent House committee meeting. “Unnecessary lawsuits put doubt in their mind that they have not given it their all.”

Union advocates argue, however, that the liability bills are not meant to protect workers. Rather, they exist to protect the bottom lines of health care conglomerates.

Roxey Nelson, the vice president of politics and strategic campaigns at 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, noted that the long-term care industry sees significant employee turnover because of the low wages offered to front line workers. (Employees bouncing from nursing home to nursing home may have exacerbated the the spread of the disease within facilities, researchers have noted.)

“The industry used COVID to say that they were having a hard time getting (certified nursing assistants) to stay at the bedside,” Nelson said. “At the end of the day, you’re not going to get (certified nursing assistants) to stay at the bedside for $11 per hour.”

Con: This shouldn’t be a top COVID-19 priority

Supporters of the liability legislation note that Florida would hardly be the first state to enact these protections. Nearly three dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted COVID-19 liability protections for businesses.

Those who support the law, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, point out that compared to many other states, Florida’s health care system fared well during the pandemic. Despite Florida’s large elderly population, the state’s per capita death rate ranks only 26th out of the 50 states.

Detractors of the legislation argue that Florida has little to celebrate. After a year of trauma which claimed so many lives in long-term care — more than 10,500 so far — the state has its priorities out of whack, they say. Rather than focus on systemic problems, they say, the state is protecting well-heeled health care interests. And they’re doing so with COVID-19 legislation.

“The disappointment coming out of the last year is that rather than focusing on how to address this, we’re looking for ways to forget about it, sweep it under the rug,” Johnson of the AARP said.

https://news.yahoo.com/case-against-making-harder-sue-195300284.html 

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Justice Reform Institute

  • Phone

    (850) 222-0170

  • Hours of Operation

    Monday – Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

  • Address

    210 S Monroe Street
    Tallahassee, FL 32301

Site Links