Today in Florida, if government negligence harms someone physically or financially, the most that hurt person can hope to receive in legal damages — without additional action by state lawmakers — is $200,000.
This is due to a centuries-old concept known as sovereign immunity, which shields Florida’s government, its local subdivisions and agencies from having to settle pricey lawsuits without its consent.
It’s led to a backlog of measures, called claims bills, of which state lawmakers carry dozens each year. Few ever pass, regardless of each case’s merit.
Among them: a 15-year effort to pay about $10 million to a former Broward County deputy who suffered life-altering injuries in an entirely preventable shooting; a repeatedly filed proposal to clear millions to a Fort Myers boy with severe brain damage due to the gross negligence of the Department of Children and Families; and a push to provide $7.5 million to a mother for the medical costs of three sons maimed in a state trooper crash.
Despite court findings of culpability or admissions of negligence by the state entities involved and numerous legislative attempts by lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, none of those people have gotten relief.
There’s something wrong with that, according to state Rep. Fiona McFarland. She’s trying to update Florida law to make it easier for the state and its governments and agencies to right their wrongs.
“These are cases where the government is found guilty as negligent or admitted they made a terrible mistake. There’s a big dollar sign award to compensate the victim, and their stories are heartbreaking,” she told Florida Politics.
“But we don’t ever (approve legislation to pay them properly). Under (former House Speaker Paul) Renner, it was the first time in a long time that claims bills had even been heard. It doesn’t feel fair, and I think that’s what people sent me up to Tallahassee to do, to identify things that don’t feel quite right and address them.”
McFarland, a Sarasota Republican, filed a bill (HB 301) Wednesday to address the issue. It’s the second straight year she’s carried a measure to amend Florida’s sovereign immunity statutes. Last year’s version, which had Senate support from Republican Jason Brodeur and Democrat Daryl Rouson, died in its last committee stop.
If passed, HB 301 would raise the liability cap for claims against the state, something several other lawmakers have tried but failed to do in recent years. More notably, the bill would allow local governments to voluntarily settle claims exceeding those caps without approval from the Legislature and prohibit insurance companies from having policies in Florida that condition benefits on the enactment of claims bills.
For incidents on or after Oct. 1, 2025, McFarland’s bill would increase the pre-claims bill payout limit from $200,000 to $1 million for one person. For multiple claims from the same incident, the cap would increase from $300,000 to $3 million.
Those levels would rise slightly in five years, with incidents on or after Oct. 1, 2030 having a pre-claims bill payout cap of $1.1 million per person and $3.2 million for multiple claims from the same incident.
HB 301 would not be retroactive. Any claims brought against the state, its agencies or local governments before Oct. 1 would still be restricted to the $200,000/$300,000 caps. However, as would still be the case with the new payout levels, people could still pursue larger sums through Florida’s claims bill process.
All settlement sums before state legislative action must be within the limits of a government or agency’s insurance coverage.
McFarland said she understands that passing HB 301 would hike costs for the state, its counties, municipalities and agencies, and not just from the higher settlement levels the bill contemplates. Local governments would see their liability risks increase, which in turn would require them to carry more insurance.
“And when it’s more expensive for government to exist, they could pass it on to the residents through the tax base. But we don’t really like to raise taxes in this state, so what that means for our local governments is that they might have to save somewhere else,” she said.
“I don’t like that, and I’m sensitive to that. That’s a real argument. My heart is just with the victim.”
Post Views: 0
