1 day Ago By Jim Saunders
TALLAHASSEE — As the 2025 legislative session enters its final weeks, the Florida House and Senate are divided about a series of potentially high-stakes issues involving personal-injury and insurance lawsuits. The House has supported changes that could lead to people collecting increased damages in personal-injury and wrongful-death cases and force insurers to pay more in attorney fees. The Senate, however, has taken little action on the issues.
The dynamic has been on display this week. The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a bill (HB 301) that would lead to cities, counties and other government agencies paying more in lawsuits if negligence causes people to get injured. The Senate has not taken up the issue, which involves revamping sovereign-immunity laws.
On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a measure (HB 947) that combines two controversial proposals dealing with attorney fees in insurance disputes and evidence that can be presented about medical damages in personal-injury and wrongful-death lawsuits. The Senate has not taken up the proposals, which would largely undo laws that were approved during the past three years. As an example of the issues, lawmakers in 2022 passed a law that shielded property insurers from paying customers’ attorney fees.
Before that law, Florida had what is often described as a “one-way” attorney fee system for property insurance. Essentially, that meant If a policyholder successfully sued an insurer over a wrongfully denied claim, the insurer would be responsible for paying the policyholder’s attorney fees. The 2022 change eliminated one-way fees, making each side responsible for their own fees.
The House bill would shift to what is sometimes described as a “loser pays” fee system. If a policyholder sues an insurer, the judge would award attorney fees to whichever side prevails in the case. Supporters of the 2022 law said eliminating one-way attorney fees has been crucial in trying to turn around the state’s troubled property-insurance system.
Former Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty, now a consultant, told the House committee Thursday that changing the law could lead to such things as higher reinsurance costs, which can be passed on to consumers through higher premiums. But opponents of the 2022 law have long said it would make it harder for policyholders to get attorneys to represent them. Rep.
Hillary Cassel, R-Dania Beach, said Thursday the 2022 law has led to insurers closing more claims without making payments to policyholders. “It tells you we have insurance companies who aren’t being held accountable for their decisions,” said Cassel, an attorney who represents consumers in lawsuits against insurers. Battles about legal damages and attorney fees play out during every legislative session, pitting insurance and business groups against plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Throughout this year’s session, it has been widely believed that House leaders would be more amenable than Senate leaders to the positions of plaintiffs’ attorneys. With this year’s session scheduled to end May 2 — and leaders of both chambers trying to pass their priorities — it remains unclear whether the House and Senate will reach agreements on the legal issues. One issue that has received support in the House and Senate is a proposal that could lead to more medical-malpractice lawsuits.
The House passed its version of the bill (HB 6017) in late March, and the Senate bill (SB 734) has cleared committees, though it has not been taken up by the full Senate. The proposal involves wrongful-death lawsuits and what are known as “non-economic” damages for such things as pain and suffering. The proposal would repeal part of a 1990 law that prevents people from seeking non-economic damages in certain circumstances.
People who are 25 years old or older cannot seek such damages in medical-malpractice cases involving deaths of their parents. Also, parents cannot seek such damages in malpractice cases involving the deaths of their children who are 25 or older. Supporters of the proposed repeal contend the law has prevented family members from holding doctors and hospitals accountable for malpractice.
But opponents argue repealing the law would lead to higher medical-malpractice insurance rates and could lead to doctors leaving the state. The sovereign-immunity bill that passed the House on Wednesday would change a law passed in 2010. Under that law, government agencies’ liability in such cases is capped at $200,000 for payments to a single person and $300,000 if multiple people are involved in an incident, though the caps can be exceeded if lawmakers pass a special type of measure known as a “claim” bill.
Under the bill, the caps would increase to $500,000 and $1 million, respectively. Also, the bill would allow government agencies to settle lawsuits for higher amounts without needing to go through the lengthy and uncertain claim-bill process..
