Tort reform clears first hurdle in Senate

A mass overhaul of how Florida lawsuits against insurance companies are waged has cleared its first Senate committee. But the bill’s sponsor said more major changes are still on the way.

The Senate Banking and Insurance Committee advanced a major tort reform bill (SB 236) on a party-line vote.

“This bill’s purpose is to reform this toxic lawsuit environment, reducing nonsense lawsuits while ensuring that our civil justice system treats plaintiffs and defendants fairly,” said Sen. Travis Hutson, the bill’s sponsor.

The St. Augustine Republican argued lawmakers need to change the legal environment in Florida to discourage frivolous lawsuits and revive a struggling insurance marketplace.

But the bill still prompted hours of debate.

Democrats on the committee took issue with proposed limits on testimony about the potential long-term medical costs from injuries. The legislation would require juries to only hear the costs billed to individuals. As proposed, the bill allows juries to figure damages at 140% of Medicaid rates.

“Why are we using Medicare or Medicaid rates in this bill?” asked Sen. Bobby Powell, a Palm Beach Democrat.

Hutson noted those provisions, along with many parts of the bill, remain a part of active negotiations between the House and Senate. But he said the point is to make sure actual billed costs are what juries consider, not testimony from outside doctors, who may estimate higher costs than a plaintiff would ever suffer.

Critics also took issue with provisions of the legislation removing a burden on property owners to keep properties secure from reasonable threats.

Powell raised the civil case brought by families impacted by the Parkland shooting. Those families split a settlement worth more than $127 million with the FBI for inaction by the agency despite reported concerns about the individual ultimately convicted of killing 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in 2018.

“There were all kinds of warning signs that the shooter needed to be kept off campus, and he snuck through and killed a number of students and teachers in Parkland,” Powell said. “If this passes, what would be the result in a Parkland shooting case?”

Hutson offered an amendment passed in the committee that makes sure prior settlements like the Parkland agreement won’t be impacted by any bill passed. But he said the intent is for juries to have all appropriate information and decide in court what responsibility should fall on a property owner or an agency that should have followed different practices.

“We are not saying businesses, if you don’t have any security measures, are getting off scot-free,” Hutson said. “That is not correct. We’re saying you have to take protocol measures, but at the same time, the jury has to be able to hear about the criminal action, and that there may be other things in place that is beyond the control of the premise owner.”

Meanwhile, the committee shot down an amendment offered by Powell leaving the current system in place as far as testimony on damages. Another change proposed by Democratic Sen. Vic Torres would leave the responsibility on property owners to keep properties secure.

Insurance industry leaders say existing state law creates an environment of abuse. Ahead of Session, the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida (PIFF) voiced support for the proposed reforms in Hutson’s bill.

PIFF Executive Director Michael Carlson said that’s evident from billboards along every Florida highway advertising jury verdict rewards. He said issues like one-way attorneys fees, which require insurance companies to cover both sides’ court costs, have been abused for decades by trial lawyers filing lawsuits to secure their own fees.

“Every billboard is about money,” Carlson said.

But plaintiff lawyers say that while they make easy political targets, it’s consumers who will be most detrimentally affected by the proposed legislation.

“Insurance companies want to pocket the profits, then get in private jets and fly to New York and Illinois with the money and leave Floridians holding the bag,” argued Curry Pajcic, president of the Florida Justice Association.

Sen. Geraldine Thompson, a Windermere Democrat, also expressed concern whether consumers will have the means to bring legal action. She filed an amendment that would eliminate the change on attorneys fees in the bill, but that failed in a committee vote.

Thompson said a customer who sues an insurance carrier may be able to prove bad faith on the company’s part but still not be made whole.

“How is that person really going to be able to recover if they’re not able to get attorneys fees?” she asked.

Hutson said requiring both sides of a case to cover their own legal costs would create an environment that was more fair.

“The way that the scales are tilted are for the plaintiffs’ attorneys,” Hutson said, “we’re trying to get back to a more fair and balanced playing field.”

Sen. Jay Trumbull, a Panama City Republican, notably said he was voting for the bill in committee now but had significant concerns about “bad faith” proposals within the bill. He said he won’t be able to support the bill in future committees if that does not change.

Hutson stressed throughout the hearing that the House and Senate are not in an identical place with the bill, so further discussions are continuing. He hopes to address many concerns raised in the Senate committee meeting before the bill’s next stop.

Rep. Tommy Gregory, a Lakewood Ranch Republican, sponsored the House companion bill (HB 837). That bill cleared the House Civil Justice Subcommittee in February on a 12-6 vote and will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Hutson’s bill heads now to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It must also be heard by the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee.