Florida lawmakers vow to protect the ‘little guy’ — but not from insurance companies | Opinion

In the name of protecting the “little guy,” lawmakers are advancing a bill to make it easier to sue the media. Meanwhile, they are also trying to make it harder for that same little guy to sue negligent insurance companies and nursing homes.

As the Legislature picks who is worthy of bringing legal action — and against whom — it is the “little guy” who could be left holding the bag when their ability to seek remedy in civil court for wrongs committed against them, or their loved ones, is diminished.

One bill would would add obstacles to filing wrongful-death lawsuits against nursing homes and assisted-living facilities at a time when incidents at nursing homes have nearly doubled since 2019, as the Tampa Bay Times reported in February. Luckily, so far, House Bill 1029 and its Senate companion aren’t moving through the legislative process. But another piece of legislation to protect the insurance industry is on the fast track.

The legislation is a push to reform Florida’s tort laws, also known colloquially as “the law of wrongful injuries.” Proponents say it will help lower insurance costs for businesses and Floridians and rein in what Gov. Ron DeSantis described as a “cottage industry of litigation.”

“We have got to do something to fix this mess,” sponsor Sen. Travis Hudson said at a Thursday Senate hearing.

Certainly, South Florida is littered with billboards and your typical slip-and-fall radio and TV ads by personal-injury law firms. But it’s unclear whether making it harder to sue insurance companies will help lower premiums for policyholders, the Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau reported. Under that premise, the Legislature already limited lawsuits against property insurance providers. It’s too early to tell whether that will work, though premiums for homeowners are expected to continue to rise this year.

House Bill 837 and Senate Bill 236 expand those limits to other types of insurance, such as auto, life, liability and health. There’s little evidence the highly profitable insurance industry is suffering, at least judging by the $74 million it’s donated to politicians and business groups since 2010, according to the Herald/Times. Auto insurers made nearly $30 billion in profit in 2020, according to the Consumer Federation of America.

Even former President Trump has weighed in, accusing DeSantis — his likely adversary in the fight for the GOP presidential nomination — of delivering an “insurance company BAILOUT.”

What’s changing

The bill would do away with the requirement that insurance companies pay a policyholder’s attorney fees if that person wins in court. This requirement dates back to the 1980s and was put in place to level the playing field between regular people and insurance companies — and their high-caliber lawyers — that draw up the terms of a policy. This would make lawyers less likely to take up cases.

In negligence lawsuits, like after a car crash, plaintiffs would get nothing in damages if they are found to be more than 50% responsible for the accident. Currently, a jury calculates the amount of blame between both parties and awards damages accordingly. Under this new scenario, a defendant found 51% responsible would pay damages, but if they are found to be 2% less responsible, they are off the hook.

Motorcyclists have organized against the legislation. They worry they could be found more than 50% at fault for not wearing a helmet, even though Florida allows them not to do so. Hudson doesn’t believe that would be the case.

Say a hotel gets sued in civil court for negligence by failing to secure its property, leading to a crime against a guest. The guest sues. The bill would require juries to consider not only the hotel’s actions but the criminal’s contribution to the injury.

Hudson said in Georgia, which has laws similar to his bill, that information hasn’t dissuaded juries from finding businesses liable in big cases. But it’s hard to believe that the intention of this provision is not to present juries with information that would dissuade them from holding a property owner accountable. Think of the Parkland school shooting. Should the gunman’s actions minimize the failure by schools and police to protect students?

The legislation also would limit how much victims could be reimbursed for their medical expenses and future care. In the case of uninsured patients — about 12% of the state population — they would receive the equivalent of 120% of the Medicare reimbursement rate or 170% of the Medicaid rate.

Those rates are notoriously low and would not be nearly enough to cover the costs for people who suffered catastrophic injuries, such as the 18-year-old woman who was T-boned by an off-duty Palm Beach County deputy. Farrah Fox, now 23, told a Senate committee she was on life support for 17 days and suffered a traumatic brain injury. She had to relearn to talk and requires continuing care that she said she would not get under this legislation.

“If this bill goes through, a lot of people will be forced to be trapped inside their own bodies,” Fox said.

Critics point out this legislation means the difference between victims of catastrophic injuries getting state-of-the-art treatment versus institutional, bare-minimum care. This might be good for insurance companies, and maybe — maybe — for policyholders’ premiums.

But is it good for Floridians? We don’t think so.