It’s time once again for insurers vs. attorneys in Florida’s Legislature

Ron Hurtibise, South Florida Sun-SentinelSouth Florida Sun Sentinel

Like a sea monster that emerges every so often to stir up the populace, so too does the never-ending battle in Florida between the insurance industry and plaintiffs attorneys.

Three years after insurers persuaded legislators to end “one-way attorneys fees” that they claimed pushed the industry to the brink of bankruptcy, the 2025 Florida Legislative session began with four new proposals supported by plaintiffs attorneys.

Those proposals would reinstate those controversial fees. Only now they are renamed as “prevailing party” fees. And insurers are warning that they will undo price stabilization they say was made possible by declines in litigation that followed the ban on one-way fees.

This year’s return of insurers vs. attorneys comes with a new wrinkle: Some lawmakers say they were outraged when they found out in February that insurers break off their administrative functions into separate entities that can generate millions in profits even if the underwriting arms lose money. That outrage, and the report’s emergence just before the spring Legislative session, could provide momentum for passage of one of the prevailing party bills this year.

As in the past, not all of the most consequential bills will make it to the May 2 finish line this year. Some might not make it to a committee hearing — a necessary first step.

Here are key bills generating discussion, beginning with those that have already survived committee hearings:

Attorney fees in insurance matters

SB 426 (Sen. Jonathan Martin) / HB 1551 (Rep. Hillary Cassel) — Attorney fees would once again be paid to policyholders who prevail in insurance disputes if this bill is enacted. SB 426 requires fees for named or omnibus insured or the “prevailing party,” while Martin’s bill specifies fees would be paid to “third-party” litigants. The Senate bill would appear to revive incentives for benefit assignees — not just policyholders — to sue insurers. The House version passed 16-1 by the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee on March 13.

Commenting about the bill to the South Florida Sun Sentinel, Stacey Giulianti, chief legal officer at Boca Raton-based Florida Peninsula Insurance, said the bill would once again give billions to “trial lawyers” and reverse rate reductions he said resulted from the 2022 reforms. “They are throwing the consumers under the bus to save a cottage industry of a small number of lawyers,” he said.

But Anthony Lopez, CEO of Miami-based law firm Your Insurance Attorney, said the bill would “help level the playing field for Florida policyholders.” He added, “It is not fair to a policyholder that is forced to sue their insurance company, win and then have to pay a portion of the money earmarked to fix their home in attorney fees and costs. How are they supposed to fix their homes?”

Grants, reserves and officer disqualification

SB 1740 (Sen. Blaise Ingoglia) — Eligibility for $10,000 grants from the My Safe Florida Home Program must result in insurance credits, discounts or other rate differentials under this bill. It would require insurers that apply to operate in Florida to hold reserves of at least $35 million more than they need to pay claims. It would establish that anyone who serves as an officer of an insurance company that becomes insolvent within five years of the insolvency cannot serve as an officer, director, managing general agent or attorney in fact of any other insurer, or its affiliate, in the state.

The bill passed 7-0 by Senate Banking and Insurance Committee on March 17 with an amendment barring insurers from solely using artificial intelligence to deny claims. Republican Rep. Yvette Benarroch, of Marco Island, is sponsoring a similar bill in the House.

Lopez said the bill would provide “meaningful protections for Florida policyholders by promoting financial stability in the insurance market and ensuring homeowners receive tangible benefits from mitigation programs.” The ban on officers of failed companies from serving in other companies or affiliates, he said, would protect consumers from “unstable companies.”

Steve Rogosin, owner of Plantation-based insurance agency Rogosin Insurance, said he disagrees with the bill’s goal of only providing state funds for improvements that would reduce insurance bills. Some insurers require all of a home’s openings to be protected before providing discounts, he said. Providing funds to protect some of them, he said, “will greatly protect the home” while allowing homeowners to install the rest of their protections at a later time.

Transparency reports

SB 1656 (Sen. Jay Collins) / HB 1429 (Rep. Tom Fabricio) — This bill compiles changes requested by the Office of Insurance Regulation. It would require rate transparency reports written in precise and plain language to accompany every rate filing and every offer of coverage or policy renewal submitted to policyholders.

The bill would require adoption of rules to maintain cybersecurity of consumers’ nonpublic insurance data. Insurers would be limited to submitting only two “use and file” filings per year unless the filing is exclusively related to reinsurance. The report would reveal the percentages of rates attributed to reinsurance, claims costs, defense and containment costs, fees and commissions, profit and contingency and any other factor deemed necessary by regulators. The report must also include any adverse findings by the Office of Insurance Regulation over the previous three years, and whether the insurer uses affiliated entities.

The bill would remove property insurers’ right to designate county-level rating examples as “trade secrets” in filings to regulators. It would establish a statewide database of storm-hardening improvements undertaken by homeowners. It would also tighten regulation of warranty service companies, health maintenance organizations, reciprocal insurers and continuing care retirement communities. The Senate version was passed 7-0 by Senate Banking and Insurance Committee on March 17, while Collins said that revisions to the bill would continue as it progresses.

During a discussion of the bill at Monday’s Senate Banking and Insurance Committee hearing, several residents and officials of Florida’s continuing care retirement communities said the proposals would be too expensive. One resident said she liked the bill’s proposal to prioritize return-of-entry fees to residents when CCRCs file for bankruptcy.

Lisa Miller, former deputy insurance commissioner who is now a consultant, told the Sun Sentinel that requiring transparency reports for rates would not make premiums more understandable to consumers. Instead, she said, “let’s ensure agents explain the (the difference between the) premium and the rate. This discussion should occur at the time of sale.”

Mandatory dispute resolution

SB 1508 (Sen. Tom Leek) / HB 1087 (Rep. Randy Maggard) — Policyholders and insurers would be required to participate in mandatory dispute resolution hearings before litigation could commence. Either party could file a petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Legal counsel would be permitted but not required. Policyholders requesting hearings would be required to certify that they made a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute. Administrative law judges would have 180 days after petitions are filed to make final determinations. The bill would also require property insurers to pay claims and seek repayment from the homeowner’s flood or windstorm insurance provider.

Miller said the bill would remove choices for consumers to resolve disputes. She also said that insurers could go bankrupt if required to pay flood claims.

Joe Ligman, a plaintiffs attorney based in Palmetto Bay, said the requirement would likely reduce costs and avoid lawsuits, but could be challenged on constitutional grounds. Policyholders would be “denied due process and a right to a jury trial,” he said. “The bill gives one person (the administrative law judge) a lot of power.”

Establishes prevailing party attorney fee awards

SB 554 (Sen. Don Gaetz) / HB 451 (Rep. Alex Andrade) — Like the Martin-Cassel bill, insurers say this bill would reopen one-way attorney fees to policyholders and their attorneys who prevail in litigation. Insurers would not be required to pay any of their policyholders’ attorneys fees only if an award is less than 20% over what the policyholder demands. Payment of all plaintiffs attorney fees would be required under several circumstances, including if the plaintiff’s demand is deemed reasonable by the court. Enactment of the bill would eliminate any risk of policyholders having to pay their insurer’s legal fees.

Insurers would be required to create reports disclosing all of their subsidiaries, management companies, captive vendors, and reinsurers, as well as their financial relationships with the entities and financial details of the companies and their executive officers. Information obtained would have to be used in rate setting.

Other proposals would increase the interest rate on insurance judgments or settlements from 4% to 8% and require insurers and policyholders to share equally in any mediation costs.

Ligman says the bill would “level the playing field” by placing a check on insurers who he says have used the 2022 reforms to increase premiums and make “huge profits.” He also said the interest rate should be increased to keep up with inflation but pointed out that insurers have always paid for presuit mediation. “Why should the insured be penalized for disputing an underpaid claim?” he asked.

Mark Friedlander, corporate communications director for the industry-funded Insurance Information Institute, said the four bills that would enable policyholders to collect legal fees when they prevail against insurers amount to “a gateway to the next Florida risk crisis” that would generate “higher premiums for consumers and businesses while destabilizing the insurance market.”

‘Fallen Tree Act’

SB 724 (Sen. Jonathan Martin) / HB 599 (Rep. Nan Cobb) — Property owners would be liable for damage to others’ properties caused by their trees or shrubs. Currently, landowners are responsible for damage on their own properties regardless of where the fallen tree or shrub is planted.

Miller said the bill would “force homeowners to find their neighbors so the neighbor can file a claim.” She added, “the administration of this is unworkable.”

Ligman called it “a good bill to force landowners to maintain their trees,” but predicted it might increase litigation.

Prohibiting cancellation of insurance on flooded properties

SB 790 (Sen. Jennifer Bradley) / HB 841 (Rep. Adam Botana) — Insurance cancellations or nonrenewals on flood-damaged properties would be allowed only after repairs are complete, and one policy renewal would be required if the damaged property was not covered by flood insurance. Insurance could be canceled or nonrenewed before repairs are completed for reasons such as nonpayment of premiums or fraud. Repaired structures could be deemed insurable by licensed professionals including engineers, architects, and inspectors.

Insurance agent Brian Murphy, owner of a Brightway insurance franchise in Palm Beach County, said he agrees with the purpose of the bill. “Policyholders who complete timely repairs deserve protection,” he said, “while those who fail to do so after claims are paid should face consequences to ensure market stability.”

Christopher W. Heidrick, owner of the Sanibel-based Heidrick & Company agency, said that without the protection provided by the bill, insurers can cancel or nonrenew properties and leave homeowners exposed to damages from another storm and property owners in default of their mortgage loan terms. Most mortgage lenders require borrowers to keep their properties insured.

Property tax breaks for owners who elevate homes

SJR 1190 (Sen. Blaise Ingoglia) — Enactment of the Senate Joint Resolution would send to voters in 2026 a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting property tax assessments from reflecting higher values resulting from improvements to reduce flood damage risk to a homesteaded properties.

Rate freezes for home elevation

SB 1192 (Sen. Blaise Ingoglia) — Would freeze property taxes for 20 years for homeowners who elevate their homes.

Miller cautions that the two proposals would deplete counties of needed tax revenues. Murphy questioned whether the bills would benefit the broader market or only a select few who can afford to elevate their homes.

Rule changes for Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

SB 1020 (Sen. Ana Maria Rodriguez) / HB 1073 (Rep. Jim Mooney) — Annual rate increases for state-owned Citizens Insurance would be capped at 10% in counties determined by the Office of Insurance Regulation to lack a “reasonable degree of competition.” Currently that description applies only to Monroe and Miami-Dade counties. Properties designated as X zones by the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be exempted from Citizens’ requirement that its customers maintain flood insurance. The bill would also exempt properties that are elevated at least one foot above the flood zone’s minimum base flood elevation.

Citizens rate caps

SB 1448 (Sen. Nick DiCeglie) / HB 705 (Rep. Jose Alvarez) — Caps on rate increases by Citizens Property Insurance Corp., known as the “glide path,” would be exempted for new policies written after June 1.

Miller supports the bill, saying that new Citizens customers would be charged the “right” market-based rate while existing customers would be grandfathered in at the subsidized rate. “It is a great bill,” she said.

Ron Hurtibise covers business and consumer issues for the South Florida Sun Sentinel. He can be reached by phone at 954-356-4071 or by email at [email protected].