Fiona McFarland’s push to raise lawsuit caps clears first hurdle amid local government opposition

Sarasota Rep. Fiona McFarland is seeking to raise Florida’s limits on how much citizens can recover in lawsuits against state and local governments, once again reviving a proposal that narrowly failed to clear the Legislature last year.

HB 145 would increase the cap on awards against government entities from $200,000 to $500,000 per person and from $300,000 to $1 million per incident beginning in 2026, with an automatic increase after five years to $600,000 and $1.2 million, respectively.

The measure would also let cities, counties and other public agencies settle claims above those limits without having to seek special approval from the Legislature, as is currently required. It also aligns the statute of limitations for negligence claims against government entities with those against private parties.

Under current law, anyone seeking additional compensation from a municipality must win support from state lawmakers through a separate claims bill process.

“The families have to hire attorneys and lobby us to find a bill sponsor, wait for a special masters report, and even after all that only about a quarter of the claims bills that are filed up here in Tallahassee actually make it through to passage,” McFarland told the House Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee on Wednesday.

She said the change is a “responsible update to a centuries-old doctrine” meant to ensure fairness and accountability when people are harmed by government actions.

“The concept of sovereign immunity has deep roots in our country,” McFarland said. “It comes from an old English law where the king was said to be beyond reproach. In other words, the king could do no wrong, and the people therefore had no legal recourse against him.”

“Now, as Americans, we’ve always been a little bit allergic to monarchs, certainly to unchecked power, but we also have a healthy skepticism of taxes,” she added. “Although we’ve carried forward a version of that old English law, we’ve shaped it to fit our own system. Today, our sovereigns are not kings, but our government entities. While they’re not completely immune from accountability, our laws make it incredibly difficult for an ordinary citizen to be compensated.”

HB 145 cleared its first committee Wednesday on a 16-1 vote, though it drew strong opposition from local government associations and municipal officials who warned it could drive up insurance premiums and strain local budgets, especially amid looming property tax cuts that will appear on the ballot next year. The bill now heads to the House Budget Committee for further consideration.

Jacksonville Rep. Dean Black, who supported the measure, said it restores fairness to victims while modernizing outdated limits.

“Someone has to pay the bill for these compensatory damages, the only issue is who that should be,” Black said. “It could be those who made the mess, or it could be the person or party that has been injured. When the entire cost must be borne by the injured person, they are often devastated, their family is devastated, driven by excessive expenses to bankruptcy.”

Opponents, including representatives from municipalities across the state, the Florida League of Cities and school district groups, warned the changes would force cuts to public services. Chris Doolin, representing the Small County Coalition, said the proposal adds financial pressure to local governments at a time of fiscal uncertainty.

“We’re not in the same environment politically, and the dynamics are different,” Doolin said. “The dynamics will be defined in November 2026, when the public goes to vote on reduction of property tax. We’re in an undefined environment as to how much revenue will be available for the public. This bill will increase the cost of government.”

McFarland pushed back on those concerns in her closing remarks, arguing that critics have raised similar warnings for years.

“There’s always uncertainty,” McFarland said. “These caps were last adjusted in 2010, and when we tried in the past it was COVID; that wasn’t the right time to have this discussion. Then there was runaway inflation, and that wasn’t the right time either. I don’t know when that right time will be. I can’t imagine the circumstances.”