Bill Watch

Recap of Week 5 & Preview of Week 6 of Session

Given the increasing momentum of pro-litigation measures in the Florida Legislature, we are adding HB 881 and HB 947 to this week’s Bill Watch.  Despite the fact there are no further Senate policy committees scheduled to meet – and that no companion bills to any of these measures have seen the light of a Senate committee – there nonetheless will be attempts to incorporate them into final bills before both chambers in the remaining four weeks of the session. 

HB 881 by Rep. Griff Griffiths (R-Bay County) – Titled “Insurer Accountability to Insureds,” the original version of the bill was supported by the CFO’s office and contained many consumer protection provisions.  The version released April 1 has anything but and in fact, has provisions that would inhibit a vibrant competitive market, not reduce rates, and thwart the market momentum currently in place.  It adds language that would require insurance companies to provide more details on their affiliate relationships (including Managing General Agents) and allow regulators much greater powers, including even determining the amount of payments and dividends allowed.  When weighing whether a fee or commission is fair and reasonable, OIR must look at the actual cost of the service the affiliate provided to the insurer, the financial condition of both companies, the level of debt, the amount and purpose of payments and dividends, whether the contract benefits the insurer, and other information the office needs to make the determination.  We recommend that you peruse the proposed committee substitute that became the new bill version.  It contains some very charged language as well, including “The Legislature finds that criminal activity of insurers poses a particular danger to the residents of this state.”  Many are shaking their heads in disbelief at this defaming characterization within formal bill drafting. 

This bill passed the Insurance and Banking Committee on April 3 on a 17-1 vote, but not without some members questioning if it would continue the improvements in the marketplace.  The bill’s next and last stop is the House Commerce Committee but is not scheduled to be heard at today’s (April 7) 3pm meeting.  The Senate Bill, SB 1428 by Senator Nick DiCeglie (R-Pinellas County), was temporarily postponed from having its first hearing last week.  While awaiting a committee hearing, it is now vastly different than its 881 counterpart.  We don’t anticipate the Senate to entertain the House’s philosophy in HB 881.  Of note: identical provisions of oversight of an insurance company’s affiliated entities have now been added to HB 1429, further below in this Bill Watch.

HB 947 by Rep. Omar Blanco (R-Miami) – Titled “Evidence of Damages to Prove Medical Expenses in Personal Injury or Wrongful Death Suits,” and scheduled to be heard on the House floor last week, was sent back to a House Committee instead in a rare procedural move. The business community and other leaders have been vehemently opposed to HB 947’s provisions which would reverse the impactful 2023 tort reform legislation by repealing parts of the accuracy in damages law while changing other parts.  In essence, the 2023 tort reform requires juries to see all the relevant medical costs versus the often inflated “sticker price” of medical care which could lead to higher damage awards, increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums.  Former House Speaker Paul Renner, who presided over the 2022-2023 litigation reforms, urged lawmakers to vote “no” on HB 947 in an explosive tweet last week, warning “Billboard lawyers want those savings back in their pockets.”

As you will see in reading our Bill Watch, many of the House of Representatives’ proposed legislation are aimed at restoring and/or increasing attorney fees in many lines of insurance – PIP, Medical Malpractice, Homeowners and in local government.  Please let us know if we can add any additional information for you.

“Updated” bills are so noted with updates within each bill noted in blue font: 

Property Insurance – Litigation & Claims:
Property Insurance Claims
Court Judgment Interest Rates and Insurance Reports and Practices
Attorney Fee Awards in Insurance Actions
Insurance (Truenow)
Insurance (Berfield)
Litigation Financing
Mandatory Human Reviews of Insurance Claim Denials

Property Insurance – Regulation:
Office of Insurance Regulation Updated
Insurance and Hurricane Mitigation Grants
Uniform Mitigation Verification Inspection Form
Property Insurer Financial Strength Ratings
Residual Market Insurers Updated

Property Insurance – Citizens Property Insurance Corporation:
Coverage by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

Property Insurance – Condominiums:
Condominium Associations

Automobile Insurance:
Motor Vehicle Insurance Updated
Attorney Fees and Costs for Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Protection Benefits

Resilience:
Resilient Buildings
Nature-based Methods for Improving Coastal Resilience

Property Insurance – Litigation & Claims:

Attorney Fee Awards in Insurance Actions  ̶  HB 1551 by Rep. Hillary Cassel (R-Dania Beach), an attorney, and the similar SB 426 by Senator Jonathan Martin (R-Fort Myers), another attorney, would essentially undo the 2023 session’s elimination of one-way attorney fees signed into law under HB 837.  The Senate bill would require courts to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in both admitted and surplus lines insurance litigation.  It would also allow the plaintiff to move to declaratory judgment after the insurance company issues a reservation of rights, but before a coverage denial.  The House bill also repeals the attorney fee for declaratory judgments enacted by the 2023 tort reforms.

The Senate bill has yet to receive its first hearing.  A recent report by the Consumer Choice Center says 2023’s HB 837 has proved “worthwhile,” citing “steady insurance rates, transparency in medical costs at trial, reduced litigation, and spurred innovation and competition.” HB 1551 still awaits its third and final committee stop.

HB 1551 was last heard on March 20 in the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee, its second committee stop.  The bill passed 15 to 1 and as a reminder, the bill passed its first committee stop 16 to 1.  Fortunately, the Senate has yet to hear its bill.  HB 1551 reverses Florida’s 2022-23 tort reform that has stabilized the Florida property insurance market, leading to reduced or flat premiums.  Supporters of the bill say that tort reform went too far and with the advent of the recent newspaper story alleging “billions went to investors and affiliated companies,” the legislature needs to rethink the changes made to property insurance litigation.  One of the opponents of the bill suggested that the bill be changed so that if an insurance company prevails in court, the company can pursue the plaintiff lawyer for fees and not the policyholder, recognizing that companies would not pursue their policyholder for fees if the policyholder loses their case. 

This subcommittee was respectful in its discussion of this bill although the undercurrent is still prevalent of the recent news reports which assert that insurers were paying investors versus keeping themselves solvent, which nothing could be further from the truth.  As expected, doctors, plaintiff lawyers, and chiropractors support the bill and the Florida Chamber, insurance industry associations and defense lawyers oppose the bill.  We are happy to discuss this bill further with each of you.  (Return to Top of List)

Insurance  ̶  HB 1047 by Rep. Kim Berfield (R-Clearwater) is a wide-ranging bill that touches on various aspects of Florida’s insurance laws.  HB 1047 is comparable to SB 230 by Senator Truenow below (the “Bills Not in Play” section) and SB 790 by Senator Bradley, which is also not in play.  A new version of HB 1047 added a provision making it easier for liability lawsuits to be filed.  The new language shrinks the notice requirement and timeline for insurers to react to a lawsuit.  It passed the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee on March 27 on a 12-6 vote, with most Democrats opposing the bill.  The bill’s next and last stop is the House Commerce Committee but is not scheduled to be heard at today’s (April 7) 3pm meeting.

The bill focuses mostly on property insurance claims, conduct of adjusters, and regulation of insurance companies.  But it also touches on agents.  The bill’s webpage includes a section titled “Why I filed this bill,” authored by Rep. Berfield herself.  She wrote, “The bill aims to ban adversarial practices by public adjusters that could undermine the trust in and delay the claims adjusting process.  Additionally, it aims to protect policyholders and improve consumer awareness by clarifying disclosures about flood insurance exclusions in homeowners’ policies and statements required when an insurer provides a preliminary or partial estimate of damages or a partial settlement for damages.  The proposed changes seek to enhance transparency in insurance, streamline claims handling, and balance the interests of policyholders and insurers.”

You can read the March 25 bill analysis.  Among the bill’s current provisions:

• Defines “sufficient evidence” for precluding bad faith actions against liability insurers.
• Reduces the requirement from 200 hours to 60 hours of coursework to become a general lines insurance agent.
• Changes the required language that insurance companies must use in providing a preliminary or partial estimate of damage regarding a claim, striking the words “the covered” from “This estimate represents our current evaluation of the covered damage to your insured property…”
• Changes the required language that insurance companies must use in providing a partial payment on a claim to say “We have issued a partial settlement,” in place of “We are continuing to evaluate your claim.”
• A public adjuster may not engage in any adversarial conduct with insurance company claims personnel during the course of adjusting claims, including recording them without their consent.
• A public adjuster need only identify their appointment type during an initial text message with a policyholder.
• An insurance company adjuster need only provide their name and license number in an initial text message with a policyholder.
• Clarifies that only property insurance companies with active residential policies in Florida need to have a claims-handling manual.
• Allows an insurance company to cancel or nonrenew a residential policy before the dwelling is repaired upon 45 days’ notice if the named insured does not have an insurable interest in the property.
• Tightens-up existing language about flood insurance exclusions in homeowners policies.  (Return to Top of List)

Mandatory Human Reviews of Insurance Claim Denials  ̶  SB 794 by Senator Jennifer Bradley (R-Fleming Island) defines “qualified human professional” and requires an insurance company’s decision to deny claims to be reviewed, approved, and signed off on by the professional.  The bill passed unanimously in its March 25 hearing before the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee.  Its second of three committee hearings was scheduled for the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government which has not yet scheduled a meeting in the coming days.

It prohibits artificial intelligence, machine learning algorithms, and automated systems from serving as the basis for denying claims.  Of note: Section (4) In all denial communications to a claimant, and insurer shall: (a) Clearly identify the qualified human professional who reviewed the denial decision.  There is a comparable House bill (HB 1555) by Rep. Cassel that has yet to receive a hearing. (Return to Top of List)

Property Insurance – Regulation:

(UPDATED) Office of Insurance Regulation  ̶  SB 1656 by Senator Jay Collins (R-Tampa) and an earlier version of  HB 1429 by Rep. Tom Fabricio (R-Miami Lakes) were a 100+ page omnibus bill from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) that covers a variety of issues in different insurance lines.  The original version of HB 1429 proposed regulatory measures intended to improve transparency and target fraudulent practices without overburdening insurance companies.  SB 1656 is awaiting its second of three committee stops in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government which has not yet scheduled a meeting in the coming days.  But on April 1, HB 1429 morphed into a new version that has identical additional oversight of an insurance company’s affiliated entities that is contained in HB 881 in the introduction of this Bill Watch.  Its provisions would thwart a competitive insurance market, does nothing to reduce rates and even worse, would harm consumers because of its attempt to stranglehold free market principles.   The bill was “temporarily postponed” however and was not heard this past week.  We are unsure if HB 1429 will re-surface in the remaining four weeks of session.  You can read more in the HB 1429 bill analysis produced on April 2.  (Return to Top of List)

Property Insurance – Condominiums:

Condominium Associations  ̶  HB 913 by Rep. Vicki Lopez (R-Miami) is a 99-page bill yet again refining Florida’s condominium laws but with one striking provision: It bars Citizens from providing coverage to condominiums that fail to comply with laws requiring associations to fully budget for future building repairs after a milestone inspection.  It also allows associations to take on loans or levy special assessments “without the approval of the membership” to pay for the repairs, along with other provisions.  It allows insurance companies to price coverage on the replacement value of the property “as determined by an independent insurance appraisal or update of a previous appraisal…and must be determined every 3 years, at a minimum.”

This House bill has received some public pushback from a few Senate lawmakers.  The comparable Senate bills, SB 1742 by Senator Jennifer Bradley (R-Fleming Island) and SB 1600 by Senator Kristen Aston Arrington (D- Kissimmee) don’t have the Citizens prohibition. Both Lopez’ and Bradley’s bills allow condo association members to vote to seek lines of credit, in place of reserves, to fund maintenance and repairs.  Bradley’s bill would also authorize a condo board to invest its reserve funds.  It would also require creation of a standard inspection form with specific items and establish a statewide database of buildings subject to inspection.

SB 1742 was unanimously approved by the Senate Regulated Industries Committee on March 25. It is awaiting its second of three committee stops in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government which has not yet scheduled a meeting in the coming days.  You can read more about it in this post-committee March 27 bill analysis.  HB 913 unanimously passed the Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee on March 11.  It is awaiting its final hearing in the House Commerce Committee but is not scheduled to be heard at today’s (April 7) 3pm meeting.  SB 1600 is awaiting its first hearing.  

More than half of the 18,468 condominium buildings insured by Citizens are located in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties.  Per published news articles, approximately 12,000 (3 stories or higher) are required to comply but only 4,096 have done so as of February, according to state officials who said compliance is self-reported and therefore difficult to verify.  (For more, read Plea for Condominium Relief Reflected in Bills from our March 3 newsletter.)  (Return to Top of List)

Automobile Insurance:

(UPDATED) Motor Vehicle Insurance  ̶  SB 1256 by Senator Erin Grall (R-Fort Pierce) and the identical HB 1181 by Rep. Danny Alvarez (R-Brandon) are a perennial effort to do away with Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage under Florida’s No-Fault insurance law and replace it with bodily injury (BI) liability coverage.  The primary difference between PIP and mandatory BI is that under PIP, someone injured in an auto accident seeks coverage first under their own PIP policy, whereas under mandatory BI, someone injured in an auto accident would seek recovery from a responsible third-party’s (other driver’s) BI coverage.  And more to the point for the trial bar that supports these measures: After an accident, the victim could sue the offending driver directly rather than their insurance company.  The bills are similar to the bill vetoed in 2021 by Governor DeSantis, and filed again in 2022, 2023, and 2024.  Last year’s bills never received a hearing.  Governor DeSantis remains opposed to the idea, telling reporters in early March “I don’t want to do anything that’s going to raise the rates.”  HB 1181 passed on a 13-2 vote before the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee on March 27, its first of three committee stops.  HB 1181 passed on a 17 to 1 vote in the House Insurance and Banking Committee on April 3 and is awaiting its last committee stop in the House Judiciary Committee but is not on tomorrow’s (April 8) agenda.  This is yet another bill in a growing list that would allow more insurance lawsuits.  “This feels good for the trial attorneys, and maybe we should call this the ‘Insurance and Trial Attorneys Subcommittee’,” said Rep. Mike Caruso (R-Delray Beach) before voting against the bill.  SB 1256 never received its first hearing and its referenced committee of first stop is no longer scheduled to meet this session.  (Return to Top of List)

Attorney Fees and Costs for Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Protection Benefits  ̶  HB 1437 by Rep. John Snyder (R-Stuart) and the identical SB 1840 by Senator Jonathan Martin (R-Fort Myers), an attorney, provides that prevailing parties in lawsuits by health care providers for overdue medical benefits under motor vehicle personal injury protection policies (PIP) are entitled to reasonable attorney fees & costs. 

HB 1437 passed its first committee stop on March 20 and awaits its second of three stops before the Insurance & Banking Subcommittee.  In testimony, one expert pointed to a 2021 study that indicated auto rates would increase over 40% should a bill of this nature pass.  Its Senate counterpart has still not had a hearing. 

It is abundantly clear that a major theme in the House of Representatives is to provide additional avenues for plaintiff attorneys to increase their income.  From reversing the 2022-23 property insurance litigation tort reform in HB 1551 this session, to creating a path for plaintiff lawyers to be a “prevailing party” in PIP claims in HB 1437.

The bill addresses overdue medical benefit disputes between medical providers and auto insurers under PIP.  Interestingly, there are no provisions determining prevailing party.  The bill would leave the decision of who prevails to the courts.  The two sides warring over this bill: the insurance and business communities oppose the bill and the Florida Medical Association and the Florida Chiropractic Association support the bill.  The common case pattern is where trial attorneys diligently dig into physician files looking for an innocuous insurer payment mistake so they can file a case with this small dollar amount yet leading to large attorney fee awards.  It is a familiar pattern.  (Return to Top of List)

Resilience:

Nature-based Methods for Improving Coastal Resilience  ̶  SB 50 by Senator Ileana Garcia (R-Miami) and HB 371 by Rep. Jim Mooney, Jr. (R-Islamorada) would require the Florida Flood Hub for Applied Research and Innovation to develop guidelines and standards for “green and gray infrastructure” to improve coastal resilience to storms.  It would also require the Department of Environmental Protection to adopt rules for nature-based methods for coastal resilience and require a statewide feasibility study with the Department of Financial Services Division of Insurance Agent and Agency Services on the value of applying those methods.  SB 50 unanimously passed the full Senate on March 19 and is in House messages.  The comparable HB 371 passed the State Affairs Committee on March 20 and is awaiting consideration by the full House.  Whichever version passes would then head to the Governor for signature.  (Return to Top of List)

Property Insurance – Litigation & Claims:

Property Insurance Claims  ̶  SB 1508 by Senator Tom Leek (R-Ormond Beach) and the similar HB 1087 by Rep. Randy Maggard (R-Dade City) remove the existing alternative procedure for resolving disputed residential property insurance claims (mediation) and replaces it with a mandatory one.  The bills are still awaiting their first hearing and are not on the agenda this week.

The bills also specify that a homeowner’s insurance policy is the primary policy and any separate flood or wind policy is subject to subrogation – meaning that homeowners insurance companies would have to pay for the flood claims themselves and seek reimbursement later from the National Flood Insurance Program. 

The House bill’s stated goal is “to ensure the efficient delivery of the coverage offered under the policy, helping to restore an owner’s property and livelihood to normalcy after a disaster or loss, while maintaining reasonable costs to the insurer.”  It takes a page from the Citizens Property Insurance Corporation’s playbook by requiring disputes be presented and resolved by the state Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), rather than in the traditional court system.  As such, it eliminates appraisal and arbitration clauses.  Among its provisions:

• Either the policyholder or the insurance company can elect to use the procedure on unresolved claim disputes.
• Participation by lawyers is not required.
• The petitioner or their counsel must certify that a good faith effort was made to resolve the dispute.
• Upon receipt of a petition, the administrative law judge would review it and dismiss it if it “does not on its face specifically identify or itemize all of the following information:
  • The policyholder’s name, address, telephone number, and social security number.
  • The insurer’s name, address, and telephone number.
  • A detailed description of the loss or damage, including the date it occurred.
  • The alleged acts or omissions of the insurer giving rise to the dispute, including, if applicable, a denial of coverage.
  • An estimate of damages, if known, and the amount that is disputed by the insurer.
  • A specific explanation of any other disputed issue that the administrative law judge will be called to rule upon.
• The dismissal of any petition or portion of a petition is without prejudice and does not require a hearing.
• Within 14 days of receiving the petition, the insurance company must pay the requested claim or file a response to the petition with DOAH. The response must specify all claims requested but not paid and explain the company’s reason for nonpayment.
• The DOAH judge in ruling on the petition and the response will follow the process outlined in f.s. 25, except the judge must make a determination within 60 days after the filing of the petition.
• The procedure involves disputes over claims relating to a material issue of fact and excludes claims where:
  • The insurance company has a reasonable basis to suspect fraud.
  • The insurance company has determined there is no coverage under the policy.
  • The insurance company has a reasonable basis to believe material misrepresentation.
• All motions to dismiss must be handled as specified in f.s. 192(5)

DFS, OIR and DOAH administer the mandatory procedure.  There are requirements on the state and insurance companies to notify consumers of the mandatory claims resolution process.  It does not apply to liability coverage disputes.  There is insurance industry concern about losing the safeguards inherent in the appraisal and arbitrations clauses that these bills eliminate and fears of increased litigation as a result.

The bill also seeks to “better coordinate payment of claims.”  It provides: “If a claim is submitted under a homeowner’s insurance policy and the insured also has a separate windstorm or flood insurance policy, the homeowner’s insurer is the primary insurer. Such insurer must pay the insured’s loss…and has the right to seek subrogation from the windstorm or flood insurer.”  This part of the bill is the most problematic for the industry, with concerns it will create liquidity and cash flow risks for private insurers, forcing them to absorb flood-related losses before ever receiving federal reimbursement – sometimes a lengthy process.  There’s a broader market concern that shifting a federal responsibility onto state-based private insurance companies will drive higher premiums and loss of capital as reinsurers and investors lose confidence in a more unpredictable system.  (Return to Top of List)

Court Judgment Interest Rates and Insurance Reports and Practices  ̶  HB 451 by Rep. Alex Andrade (R-Pensacola) and the similar SB 554 by Senator Don Gaetz (R-Pensacola) would essentially undo the 2023 tort reform under HB 837 that eliminated one-way attorney fees for plaintiff attorneys and reverts to something similar to previous attorney fee calculations under SB 76 that were part of the 2021 reforms.  The bills are still awaiting their first hearing and are not on the agenda this week. 

HB 451 features:

(Section 1) – Increased Judgment Interest Rate – The bill raises the interest rate on court judgments from 400 to 800 basis points.

(Section 2) – Insurance Transparency Reports – The Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) must compile reports on:

• Business relationships between insurers and related entities that share executives or ownership.
• Executive compensation, detailing salaries, bonuses, and stock options as a percentage of the company’s revenue.
• These reports must be public and cannot be labeled “trade secrets” to avoid disclosure.

(Section 3) – Rate Review Consideration 

• The newly required insurance reports from Section 2 will now be factored into the state’s insurance rate approval process.
• Executive compensation and company relationships will be used to determine if rate increases are justified.

(Section 4) – Claims Adjustments and Documentation 

• Insurance company adjusters must use electronic estimating software. Deletes the requirement of the DFS emergency rule from October 2024 that public adjusters are subjected to these provisions
• If an adjuster manually changes pricing data, they must:
  • Document all modifications.
  • Provide explanations for changes.
  • Identify who made the changes.
  • Retain records for at least seven years.

(Section 5) – Claim Mediation Timeline – Insurers can no longer reinspect a property before a claim becomes eligible for mediation.

(Section 6) – Dispute Resolution & Attorney Fees 

• When a policyholder sends a presuit demand, the insurer must either:
  • Accept the demand.
  • Make a counteroffer.
  • Decline the demand.
• Before filing a lawsuit, both parties must go through mandatory mediation, splitting the cost equally.
• Attorney fees in property insurance cases are awarded based on how much the final judgment matches the original demand:
  • 80% or more: Claimant gets full attorney fees.
  • 20%-80%: Attorney fees awarded proportionally.
  • Less than 20%: No attorney fees awarded.
• Exceptions: Attorney fees may still be awarded if:
  • The insurer violates deadlines.
  • The claimant’s demand is reasonable.
  • The court finds bad faith on either side.

(Section 7) – Arbitration Disclosure – If an insurer offers mandatory arbitration with a premium discount, they must clearly show the discount amount in dollars in the policy quote.

(Sections 8, 9, 10) – Technical Adjustments – These sections update cross-references in existing laws to align with the changes introduced in HB 451.

(Section 11) – Effective Date – The bill goes into effect on July 1, 2025.  (Return to Top of List)  

Insurance  ̶  SB 230 by Senator Keith Truenow (R-Tavares) would put new restrictions on bad faith claims by first requiring a court ruling and final judgment that an insurance company breached the policy contract before a bad faith claim could be filed.  The bill is still awaiting its first hearing and is not on the agenda this week.

It would also:

• Prohibit a bad faith claim simply because the insurance company paid a claim following a Notice of Intent to Litigate or a demand for judgment;
• Require the plaintiff to cite specific bad faith laws that were allegedly violated;
• Require the plaintiff to note the amount of damages required to cure the violation;
• Require any damages sought to be available under the terms of the insurance policy; and
• Prohibit attorney fees or costs from any damages sought.

The bill is meant to close loopholes identified since the initial bad faith law reforms that were part of the 2022 insurance consumer protections and market reforms.  The bill contains other tweaks to current insurance law.  It would prohibit public adjusters from engaging in certain adversarial conduct, revise the circumstances under which a carrier or agent may cancel certain policies, and revise the required disclaimer statement on policies that do not provide flood insurance.  The bill would also reduce the current coursework requirement from 200 hours to 60 hours to become a general lines insurance agent.  (Return to Top of List)

Litigation Financing  ̶  SB 1534 by Senator Jay Collins (R-Tampa) picks up where past efforts in recent sessions made no progress in regulating third-party funding of lawsuits against businesses, including insurance companies.  SB 1534 is still awaiting its first committee hearing and has no House companion bill.

To be called the  “Litigation Investment Safeguards and Transparency Act,” the bill requires a court’s consideration of potential conflicts of interest which may arise from the existence of a litigation financing agreement in specified circumstances; prohibits specified acts by litigation financiers; requires certain disclosures related to litigation financing agreements and the involvement of foreign persons, foreign principals, or sovereign wealth funds; and requires the indemnification of specified fees, costs, and sanctions by a litigation financier in specified circumstances, among other provisions.  Last year, Senator Collins’ bill made it through all of its committees and a House companion got through its initial committee, but neither reached a floor vote.  There is a similar effort on the federal level to get Congress to pass needed legislation.  (Return to Top of List)

Property Insurance – Regulation:

Insurance and Hurricane Mitigation Grants  ̶  SB 1740 by Senator Blaise Ingoglia (R-Spring Hill) and the identical HB 1433 by Rep. Yvette Benarroch (R-Marco Island) cover both insurance regulation and wind mitigation efforts.  SB 1740 is awaiting its second of three committee stops in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government which has not yet scheduled a meeting in the coming days.  HB 1433 is still awaiting its first hearing before the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee.

It specifies that hurricane mitigation grants funded through the My Safe Florida Home Program may be awarded only to projects that will result in rate credits or discounts.  On the regulation side, it increases the Certificate of Authority minimum surplus requirements from $15 million to $35 million for not wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign insurers; from $7.5 million to $10 million for carriers offering only sinkhole coverage; and from $10 million to $12.5 million for carriers offering only renter’s insurance.  It also increases the lookback period from 2 years to 5 years for Directors and Officers of insolvent companies and adds attorneys in fact to the lookback period; it prohibits future service as a director of a reciprocal, carrier, MGA, or affiliated entity; but does not change the director’s burden for proving ‘not at fault’ past service.  (Return to Top of List)

(UPDATED) Residual Market Insurers  ̶  HB 643 by Rep. John Snyder (R-Stuart) and the identical SB 1184 by Senator Nick DiCeglie (R-St. Petersburg) did not progress during the week of March 31.  Most likely the bills did not move because the House intended to add a provision in HB 643 that would give Citizens Property Insurance Corporation customers the option to resolve their claims disputes at the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) versus the current practice of Citizens using DOAH exclusively for all claims disputes needing alternative dispute resolution proceedings.

On March 27, 2025, the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee approved on a 17 to 1 vote a revised version of HB 643 and this bill has two more committee stops.  The bill repeals a long-standing consumer protection required of insurance agents to “diligently” search the market for an admitted insurer to write a risk before placing that risk in the surplus lines market.  Called “diligent effort,” the process isn’t perfect but is considered the only firewall available in keeping surplus lines companies “in their swim lane” as one expert put it.  Currently, surplus lines companies aren’t supposed to offer a more generous policy than their admitted counterparts and the premium is to be higher than an admitted quote.  Interestingly, HB 643 changes Citizens Property Insurance’s mandatory arbitration provision so that it now would be voluntary where the policyholder must elect to resolve their disputes via arbitration with an administrative law judge.  SB 1184, scheduled for its second of three committee hearings on April 1 (tomorrow), is the senate version of this bill and has an added provision repealing a requirement that surplus lines agents file quarterly reports and doesn’t contain the Citizens’ arbitration language.  (Return to Top of List)

Uniform Mitigation Verification Inspection Form  ̶  SB 1596 by Senator Nick DiCeglie (R-St. Petersburg) authorizes the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Financial Services Commission to incorporate flood mitigation criteria into the uniform mitigation verification inspection form.  The current form includes only wind mitigation criteria.  There is no House bill companion.  The bill is still awaiting its first hearing and is not on the agenda this week.  (Return to Top of List)

Property Insurer Financial Strength Ratings  ̶  SB 792 by Senator Jennifer Bradley (R-Fleming Island) would require annual insurance reports prepared by the Office of Insurance Regulation for the Legislature and the Governor to include financial strength ratings of property insurance companies issued by third-parties whose fees are not paid for by insurance companies.  There is no House companion bill.  The bill is still awaiting its first hearing and is not on the agenda this week.  (Return to Top of List) 

Property Insurance – Citizens Property Insurance Corporation:

Coverage by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation  ̶  SB 1020 by Senator Ana Maria Rodriguez (R-Doral) and the identical HB 1073 by Rep. Jim Mooney, Jr. (R-Islamorada) would allow higher-priced homes in Miami-Dade and Monroe counties to get coverage from state-backed Citizens Insurance.  Current law restricts Citizens from selling policies for homes with replacement dwelling costs of $700,000 or more except in those two counties, where the limit is $ 1million.  The bills would raise the limit in those two counties to $1.5 million.  The bills would also require Citizens to annually raise rates by up to 10% in counties without a reasonable degree of competition, such as Miami-Dade and Monroe, as designated by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR).  It would also exclude properties in X flood zones from the Citizens flood insurance requirement for wind policies.  The Senate bill is still awaiting its first hearing as is HB 1073.  (Return to Top of List)

Resilience:

Resilient Buildings  ̶  HB 143 by Rep. Webster Barnaby (R-Deltona) and the similar SB 62 by Senator Ana Maria Rodriguez (R-Doral) would authorize owners of resilient buildings to receive a specified tax credit for those improvements and outlines specific LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) requirements of a building.  The bill also creates the Florida Resilient Building Advisory Council which would work with the Department of Environmental Protection.  SB 62 passed unanimously in the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee on February 11 and awaits its next stop in the Finance and Tax Committee.  HB 143 passed by a 17-1 vote in the House Natural Resources & Disasters Subcommittee on March 4 and awaits it second of four committee stop.  The lack of progress makes these bills very unlikely to pass.  (Return to Top of List)

LMA Newsletter of 4-7-25