The Impact of Florida's HB 837 on Property Security and Liability

What is the Primary Goal of Florida HB 837?

For property owners, businesses, and individuals across Florida, understanding the sweeping changes introduced by House Bill 837 is crucial. This new law, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis on March 24, 2023, marks a significant shift in our state's civil remedies and tort reform efforts.

The primary goal of HB 837 is to curb what lawmakers describe as "frivolous lawsuits" and to reduce litigation costs. This has a direct impact on how negligence cases, premises liability claims, and even insurance disputes are handled in Florida. Businesses, property owners, and individuals alike should stay updated on Florida HB 837 compliance to ensure they understand the legal changes and adjust their strategies accordingly.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore the core purposes of Florida HB 837 and break down its most impactful provisions. We will cover key changes to negligence laws, new protections for property owners, how the bill reshapes insurance litigation, and its effect on medical damages evidence.

Understanding these reforms is vital for anyone operating or residing in Florida, as they can significantly affect legal strategies and potential liabilities.

The primary purpose of Florida HB 837 is multifaceted, yet its overarching aim is clear: to reform the state's civil justice system. At its core, the legislation seeks to curb what many legislators and business advocates have long termed "frivolous lawsuits" and to significantly reduce the overall litigation costs that have plagued Florida's economy. For years, Florida has been characterized by a challenging legal environment for businesses and insurers, often leading to higher premiums and operational expenses. HB 837 represents a decisive step to alter this landscape, providing greater protections for corporations, businesses, and property owners against certain types of lawsuits.

The bill's effective date was immediate upon Governor DeSantis's signature on March 24, 2023. However, the application of its provisions is nuanced. Generally, the changes introduced by HB 837 apply to causes of action filed on or after this date. This means that lawsuits initiated before March 24, 2023, would typically still fall under the previous legal framework. This distinction is critical for ongoing cases and for understanding the immediate shift in legal strategy for newly arising claims.

The potential impact of HB 837 on insurance costs is a key driver behind its enactment. Supporters argue that by reducing the frequency and severity of lawsuits, particularly those related to negligence and premises liability, the legislation will lead to a more stable and predictable legal environment. This, in turn, is expected to alleviate pressure on insurance companies, potentially leading to lower premiums for businesses and property owners in the long run. While it's too early to see the full economic effects, the bill's proponents anticipate a more favorable economic climate for businesses operating within the state.

How the Law Aims to Protect Businesses

HB 837 introduces significant lawsuit reform protections specifically designed to shield corporations, businesses, and property owners from certain types of litigation that were previously easier to pursue. The underlying philosophy is to balance the rights of injured parties with the need to prevent abusive or excessive lawsuits that can stifle economic activity and drive up costs.

One of the most direct ways the law aims to protect businesses is by altering the rules of negligence and liability. By reducing the statute of limitations for general negligence cases, it compresses the window during which claims can be filed, encouraging quicker resolution or deterring stale claims. The shift from pure comparative negligence to modified comparative negligence also places a greater onus on the plaintiff to bear responsibility for their own actions, effectively barring recovery for those found to be more than 50% at fault. This change is intended to discourage lawsuits where the plaintiff bears a significant portion of the blame.

Furthermore, the bill introduces specific provisions regarding premises liability, particularly for multifamily residential properties, by creating a presumption against liability under certain conditions. This incentivizes property owners to implement specific security measures, and in doing so, gain a legal shield against certain criminal acts occurring on their premises. These changes collectively represent a significant shifting legal landscape, moving towards a more business-friendly environment by reducing the pathways for certain types of litigation. The intended economic outcomes include not only lower insurance costs but also increased business confidence and investment within Florida, as companies perceive a reduced risk of costly and protracted legal battles.

Key Changes to Negligence and Liability Law

Negligence is a cornerstone of personal injury law, forming the basis for countless lawsuits where one party's carelessness causes harm to another. Florida HB 837 introduces some of the most significant changes to our state's negligence and liability laws in decades, directly impacting how personal injury lawsuits are filed, defended, and ultimately resolved. These reforms touch upon fundamental aspects, including the timeline for filing claims and how fault is apportioned among parties.

Shortened Statute of Limitations for Negligence

One of the most immediate and impactful changes introduced by HB 837 is the reduction of the statute of limitations for general negligence cases. Previously, injured parties had a four-year window from the date of the incident to file a lawsuit. Under HB 837, this period has been cut in half, reducing the statute of limitations to two years. This accelerated timeline means that individuals who suffer injuries due to another's negligence must now act much more quickly to preserve their legal rights.

It is crucial to understand that this two-year limitation applies broadly to most negligence claims, including those arising from car accidents, slip and falls, and other incidents where a party's carelessness leads to injury. However, the bill does include specific exceptions. The statute of limitations for wrongful death cases remains at two years, as it was prior to HB 837. Similarly, medical malpractice claims are not affected by this particular change, retaining their existing two-year statute of limitations from the date of findy of the injury or four years from the date of the incident, whichever is earlier.

The implications of this shortened deadline are profound. It places a greater urgency on injured parties to seek legal counsel promptly after an incident. Failure to file a lawsuit within this new two-year period will, in most cases, result in the permanent forfeiture of the right to pursue a claim, regardless of the merits of the case. This change is intended to ensure that claims are brought forward while evidence is fresh and memories are clear, but it undeniably puts more pressure on plaintiffs and their attorneys to move swiftly.

Shift to Modified Comparative Negligence

Perhaps one of the most significant shifts in Florida's personal injury landscape under HB 837 is the move from a pure comparative negligence system to a modified comparative negligence system. This change fundamentally alters how damages are awarded when multiple parties share fault for an injury.

Under Florida's previous "pure comparative negligence" system, a plaintiff could recover damages even if they were primarily at fault for their own injuries. Their recovery would simply be reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff was found 90% at fault for an accident but suffered $100,000 in damages, they could still recover $10,000 (10% of their damages). This system ensured that even partially responsible plaintiffs could receive some compensation for the portion of their damages attributable to another's negligence.

HB 837 abolishes this pure system and replaces it with a "modified comparative negligence" standard. Under this new rule, if a plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for their own injuries, they are completely barred from recovering any damages from other at-fault parties. This is often referred to as the "50% bar." If a plaintiff is found to be 50% or less at fault, they can still recover damages, reduced by their percentage of fault, similar to the pure system. However, crossing that 50% threshold now means zero recovery.

This change is a monumental win for defendants, including businesses and property owners, as it significantly reduces their exposure to liability in cases where the plaintiff shares substantial blame. It will likely lead to more aggressive defenses arguing for higher percentages of plaintiff fault, and it places a much greater emphasis on the plaintiff's conduct in assessing potential recovery.

Here's a comparison to illustrate the difference:

Scenario: Plaintiff suffers $100,000 in damages Pure Comparative Negligence (Before HB 837) Modified Comparative Negligence (After HB 837) Plaintiff 25% at fault Recovers $75,000 Recovers $75,000 Plaintiff 50% at fault Recovers $50,000 Recovers $50,000 Plaintiff 51% at fault Recovers $49,000 Recovers $0 (barred from recovery) Plaintiff 75% at fault Recovers $25,000 Recovers $0 (barred from recovery) New Rules for Medical Damage Evidence

Another critical aspect of HB 837's impact on personal injury lawsuits involves the presentation and calculation of medical expenses. The bill introduces stringent new rules that limit the evidence of medical damages that can be presented to a jury, aiming to prevent inflated claims and align recoverable damages more closely with actual costs.

Under the new law, evidence for past medical bills is generally limited to the amount actually paid, regardless of the amount initially billed. This means that if a healthcare provider bills $10,000 for a service, but an insurance company or government program (like Medicare or Medicaid) only pays $4,000, and the patient has no further out-of-pocket responsibility, only the $4,000 paid can be presented as evidence of damages. This is a significant departure from previous practice, where the full billed amount was often admissible, with defendants then arguing for reductions based on payments. The intent is to prevent plaintiffs from recovering "phantom damages" – the difference between the billed amount and the amount actually paid by insurers.

The rules also specifically address cases involving "Letters of Protection" (LOPs). LOPs are agreements where a healthcare provider agrees to treat an injured patient without upfront payment, in exchange for a promise of payment from any future settlement or judgment. HB 837 introduces new disclosure obligations for LOPs. If a plaintiff's medical treatment is received under an LOP, the amount recoverable for past medical expenses is limited to specific benchmarks:

• For services with Medicare reimbursement rates: The amount paid by the insurer or 120% of the Medicare reimbursement rate, whichever is greater.

• For services without Medicare reimbursement rates (but with Medicaid rates): The amount paid by the insurer or 170% of the state Medicaid rate, whichever is greater.

• For services without Medicare or Medicaid rates: 100% of the usual and customary charges for the services.

Furthermore, HB 837 makes significant changes regarding the admissibility of attorney referrals to medical providers. Previously, the fact that an attorney referred a client to a specific medical provider under an LOP was often considered privileged or inadmissible. The new law explicitly allows for the disclosure and admission of evidence regarding the referral source for medical treatment received under an LOP, including whether the referral came from the plaintiff's attorney. It also permits the findy and admission of evidence regarding any financial relationships between the referring attorney and the medical provider. These provisions are designed to increase transparency and allow juries to consider potential biases or financial incentives in medical billing and treatment.

These changes are expected to significantly reduce the value of many personal injury claims, particularly those involving substantial medical bills paid by third-party insurers or those treated under LOPs.

New Liability Protections for Property Owners

For property owners, particularly those managing multifamily residential properties, Florida HB 837 introduces crucial new protections concerning premises liability. Premises liability cases often involve claims of "negligent security," where an injured party alleges that a property owner's failure to provide adequate security measures led to a crime or injury on their property. HB 837 aims to redefine the landscape of these claims, offering a significant presumption against liability if certain conditions are met.

Understanding the Presumption Against Liability

A cornerstone of HB 837 for property owners is the creation of a "presumption against liability" for owners or operators of multifamily residential properties. This presumption applies in cases where an injury or death on the property results from the criminal acts of a third party. Essentially, if a property owner implements specific security measures as outlined in the bill, they gain a legal advantage: they are presumed not to be liable for damages resulting from such criminal acts. This shifts the burden of proof significantly. Instead of the property owner having to prove they were not negligent, the injured party must now present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this statutory presumption and demonstrate that the property owner was indeed negligent.

This is a powerful tool for property owners, as it sets a clear standard for what constitutes reasonable security in the eyes of the law. By meeting these standards, owners can significantly reduce their exposure to costly and protracted negligent security lawsuits. The bill specifies a comprehensive list of security measures that must be implemented to gain this presumption.

To qualify for the presumption against liability, owners or principal operators of multifamily residential properties must ensure the following security measures are in place and maintained:

• Security Cameras: Installation and maintenance of working security cameras at all points of entry and exit to the property.

• 30-Day Footage Retention: The ability to retain video footage from these cameras for at least 30 days. This ensures that in the event of an incident, relevant video evidence is available for law enforcement and investigation.

• Adequate Lighting: Proper lighting in parking lots, walkways, and other common areas during nighttime hours. Well-lit areas are a proven deterrent to criminal activity.

• 1-Inch Deadbolts: A minimum 1-inch deadbolt on each dwelling unit door. This improves the physical security of individual units.

• Locking Windows and Exterior Doors: Locking devices on all windows and exterior doors of individual dwelling units.

• Employee Training: Provision of proper crime deterrence and safety training to employees. This ensures staff are equipped to recognize and respond to potential security threats.

By establishing these concrete requirements, HB 837 provides a clear roadmap for property owners to improve safety and simultaneously gain significant legal protection.

How to Meet the New Security Standards for Florida HB 837

Meeting the new security standards outlined in HB 837 requires a proactive and strategic approach from multifamily residential property owners. Beyond the specific physical security measures listed, the bill also mandates compliance with principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).

CPTED is a multidisciplinary approach to deterring criminal behavior through environmental design. It focuses on making spaces less attractive targets for crime by manipulating the built environment. Key CPTED principles include natural surveillance (designing spaces where people can be easily observed), natural access control (guiding people using pathways and landscaping), territorial reinforcement (creating a sense of ownership), and maintenance (keeping properties well-maintained to signal care and discourage neglect).

Under HB 837, properties must undergo a CPTED assessment conducted by a certified Florida CPTED Practitioner or a law enforcement agency. This assessment evaluates the property's design and existing security measures against CPTED principles and provides recommendations for improvements. The critical deadline for this assessment and for properties to be in substantial compliance with its recommendations is January 1, 2025.

Achieving "substantial compliance" means that the property has implemented the recommended CPTED strategies to a significant degree, even if every single recommendation cannot be met perfectly. This requires a diligent effort to review the assessment findings and make necessary upgrades to lighting, landscaping, access points, and surveillance systems. Proactive security management is essential for achieving Florida HB 837 compliance. Property owners should engage with certified CPTED professionals well in advance of the deadline to ensure their properties meet the legal requirements and can benefit from the presumption against liability. Investing in these measures not only provides legal protection but also improves resident safety and property value.

How HB 837 Reshapes Insurance Litigation

Beyond personal injury and premises liability, Florida HB 837 also introduces significant reforms that reshape insurance litigation, particularly concerning attorney's fees and "bad faith" lawsuits against insurance companies. These changes are designed to streamline the process, reduce incentives for prolonged litigation, and establish clearer standards for how insurers interact with policyholders.

Elimination of One-Way Attorney's Fees

One of the most impactful changes in insurance litigation is the elimination of the "one-way attorney's fees" statute in most insurance cases. Previously, Florida Statute 627.428 allowed policyholders who successfully sued their insurance company to recover their attorney's fees from the insurer. This provision was intended to level the playing field, ensuring that policyholders could afford to challenge large insurance corporations. However, critics argued it incentivized litigation, even for minor disputes, and contributed to rising insurance costs.

HB 837 largely repeals this statute for most property insurance claims and other types of insurance disputes. This means that in many cases, policyholders will now be responsible for their own attorney's fees, regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, unless specifically provided for by other statutes or contractual agreements. This change aims to reduce the volume of lawsuits against insurers and encourage more direct settlement negotiations.

The bill also creates a rebuttable presumption that a "lodestar fee" is sufficient and reasonable in most civil actions. The lodestar method calculates attorney's fees by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. While this method was already common, HB 837's emphasis on it, coupled with the repeal of one-way fees, signals a legislative intent to rein in what were sometimes perceived as excessive fee awards. The impact on insureds is significant: they must now carefully weigh the costs and benefits of litigation, as the financial burden of attorney's fees will more often fall on their shoulders. This shift is expected to lead to fewer, but perhaps more substantive, lawsuits against insurance companies.

Higher Standards for Bad Faith Lawsuits

HB 837 also introduces higher standards for bringing "bad faith" lawsuits against insurance companies. A bad faith claim arises when an insurer fails to act fairly and honestly in handling a claim, often by unreasonably denying or delaying payment, or failing to settle a claim when it should have. Previously, Florida's bad faith laws were considered relatively plaintiff-friendly, allowing for significant leverage against insurers.

The new legislation makes it more challenging to prove bad faith by clarifying that negligence alone is insufficient to establish a bad faith claim. Instead, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the insurer acted with actual malice, ill will, or a reckless disregard for the policyholder's rights. This raises the bar for what constitutes actionable bad faith, moving away from simple errors or delays towards more egregious conduct.

Crucially, HB 837 introduces a mandatory "90-day cure period" for most bad faith claims. Before a policyholder can file a bad faith lawsuit, they must now provide the insurance company with a written notice detailing the alleged violations. Upon receiving this notice, the insurer is given 90 days to "cure" the alleged bad faith by taking corrective action, such as paying the claim, settling the dispute, or otherwise remedying the situation. If the insurer acts within this 90-day window to resolve the claim, the policyholder is generally barred from pursuing a bad faith lawsuit.

This 90-day cure period is a significant procedural hurdle that aims to give insurers an opportunity to resolve disputes without escalating to litigation. It encourages communication and resolution outside of court, potentially reducing the number of bad faith lawsuits and the associated legal costs for both parties. This change reflects a broader effort to reduce litigation and foster a more collaborative approach to insurance claim resolution.

Conclusion

Florida's House Bill 837 represents a monumental shift in the state's civil justice system, with far-reaching implications across various sectors. From personal injury claims to property management and the insurance industry, the legislation is designed to fundamentally alter how legal disputes are initiated, processed, and resolved.

In summary, HB 837 has significantly impacted Florida's legal landscape by:

• Reducing the statute of limitations for most negligence cases from four years to two years, demanding quicker legal action.

• Transitioning to a modified comparative negligence system, where plaintiffs found more than 50% at fault for their injuries are barred from recovering damages.

• Limiting admissible evidence for medical expenses to the amount actually paid, rather than the billed amount, and introducing specific rules for Letters of Protection.

• Creating a presumption against liability for multifamily residential property owners who implement specific security measures and comply with CPTED assessments, offering a shield against negligent security claims arising from third-party criminal acts.

• Eliminating one-way attorney's fees in most insurance disputes, shifting the burden of legal costs more directly onto policyholders.

• Establishing higher standards and a mandatory 90-day cure period for bad faith lawsuits against insurance companies, encouraging pre-litigation resolution.

For individuals, these changes mean a greater imperative to understand their rights and act swiftly following an injury. For businesses and property owners, the bill offers improved protections and clearer guidelines for mitigating legal risks, particularly in premises liability. The insurance industry is expected to benefit from reduced litigation frequency and severity, which proponents hope will translate into more stable premiums for consumers.

The long-term consequences of HB 837 are still unfolding, but the intent is clear: to foster a more predictable and less litigious environment in Florida. Proactive risk management, improved security measures for property owners, and a thorough understanding of the new legal framework will be paramount for all parties navigating this reformed landscape. Continuous adaptation to these significant changes will be key to successful operation and effective legal strategy within the Sunshine State.