Florida HB 837 Tort Reform:
What Fort Lauderdale Injury Victims Need to Know
On March 24, 2023, Governor DeSantis signed Florida HB 837 (House Bill 837) into law, fundamentally changing how personal injury cases work in Florida. If you were hurt in a Fort Lauderdale car accident, slip and fall, trucking collision, or any other incident caused by someone else's negligence, this law directly affects your rights, your timeline, and how much compensation you can recover.
The Statute of Limitations Dropped from 4 Years to 2 Years
Before Florida HB 837, the state gave injury victims four years to file a negligence lawsuit under Florida Statute § 95.11(3)(a). That deadline has been cut in half. If your injury occurred after March 24, 2023, you now have just two years from the date of the accident to file your case in court under the amended § 95.11(4)(a).
Two years may sound like enough time, but in practice it disappears fast. Serious injuries require months of medical treatment before your doctors can determine whether you've reached maximum medical improvement. Insurance companies know this, and they have every incentive to drag out the negotiation process until your deadline passes.
What this means for Fort Lauderdale injury victims: If you were injured in a crash on I-95, a slip and fall in a Broward County shopping center, or any other negligence-based incident after March 24, 2023, your clock is already running. Every month you wait is a month of leverage you lose.
Important Exceptions to the 2-Year Rule
The shortened deadline applies specifically to general negligence claims (car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle crashes, pedestrian accidents, and most premises liability cases). Several important categories retain different timelines:
Wrongful death claims still carry a two-year statute of limitations under § 95.11(4)(e), which was already in place before HB 837. Medical malpractice claims retain their own discovery-based framework under § 95.11(4)(c), with a two-year window from discovery and a four-year statute of repose. Product liability claims retain a four-year SOL under § 95.11(3)(d), with a 12-year statute of repose from the date of first delivery under § 95.031(2). Construction defect claims retain a four-year limitation period under § 95.11(3)(b), though a separate 2023 law (SB 360, signed April 13, 2023) shortened the absolute outer deadline (statute of repose) from 10 years to 7 years, measured from the earliest of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, certificate of occupancy, certificate of completion, or date of abandonment.
If your injury occurred before March 24, 2023, you may still have the old four-year deadline. Florida's Fifth DCA confirmed in Wolf v. Williams, No. 5D2023-3234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), that HB 837 applies only to cases filed after March 24, 2023. The statute of limitations change is even more protective: it applies only to injuries accruing after that date, meaning a pre-March 2023 injury retains the four-year window regardless of when you file.
For a complete breakdown of every limitations period, see our guide: Florida Statute of Limitations for Injury Claims.
Florida's New 50% Fault Bar: Modified Comparative Negligence
This is arguably the most consequential change under Florida HB 837 for Fort Lauderdale accident victims. Florida replaced its "pure" comparative negligence system with a "modified" comparative negligence standard under § 768.81(6).
How It Worked Before HB 837
Under the old system, you could recover compensation even if you were mostly at fault for your own injuries. If a jury found you 80% responsible for a car accident, you could still recover 20% of your damages from the other driver. This was called "pure" comparative negligence, and Florida had used this standard for nearly 50 years, since the Florida Supreme Court adopted it in Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973). Notably, pure comparative negligence was adopted by the Supreme Court as a matter of judicial authority, not by the Legislature. HB 837 represents the Legislature's first successful intervention in the opposite direction, replacing a court-created standard with a statutory one.
How It Works Now
Under modified comparative negligence, if you are found more than 50% at fault for your own injuries, you are completely barred from recovering any damages. Zero. Not a reduced percentage. Nothing. The statutory language in § 768.81(6) bars recovery for any party found to be "greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm."
If your share of fault is 50% or less, your damages are still reduced proportionally. For example, if you are 30% at fault and your total damages are $500,000, you would recover $350,000 (70% of $500,000). But if that fault allocation shifts to 51%, your recovery drops to $0.
Why This Matters in Practice
Insurance companies have always tried to shift blame onto the injured person. That tactic is now far more powerful. If an insurer can convince a jury that you were even slightly more responsible than the at-fault party, your case is worth nothing. This makes the evidence-gathering phase of your case critical: dash cam footage, surveillance video, witness statements, accident reconstruction, and police reports all become essential tools to establish that the other party bore the majority of fault.
One mechanism that makes this especially dangerous is fault allocation to non-parties. Under the Fabre doctrine, Fabre v. Marin, 597 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1992), defendants can ask the jury to assign fault percentages to people or entities who are not even parties to the lawsuit. Before HB 837, this reduced your recovery proportionally but never eliminated it. Now, if the defendant can spread enough fault across non-parties to push your share above 50%, your entire case goes to zero. That means a defendant in a car accident case can point the finger at a road maintenance contractor, a vehicle manufacturer, or even another driver who was never sued, and if the jury assigns you 51% of the combined fault, you recover nothing. Identifying and neutralizing potential non-party fault targets early in the case is now a critical part of litigation strategy.
Both personal injury and wrongful death claims arising from medical negligence under Chapter 766 remain governed by the old pure comparative negligence standard. HB 837's 50% bar does not apply to those cases. This is an explicit statutory carve-out in the second sentence of § 768.81(6).
Unlike the statute of limitations change (which applies to injuries accruing after March 24, 2023), the modified comparative negligence standard applies to all cases filed after March 24, 2023, even if the injury itself occurred before that date. This distinction is governed by Section 30 of the Act.
For a deeper analysis of how fault allocation affects your claim, see our dedicated guide: Florida Comparative Fault and the 50% Bar Rule.
New Limits on Medical Expense Evidence at Trial
Florida HB 837 fundamentally changed the evidence juries see when calculating your medical damages in both personal injury and wrongful death actions. Before this law, plaintiffs could generally present the full amount billed by their medical providers. Under § 768.0427, jurors now see only what was actually paid or what insurance would have covered, which is often a fraction of the original bill.
To understand how dramatic this change is, consider the law it replaced. For decades, Florida courts held that the proper measure of medical damages was the "reasonable value" of services rendered, not the amount paid. If your insurance company negotiated a hospital bill down from $100,000 to $35,000, you could still present the full $100,000 to the jury, because the collateral source rule prevented the defendant from benefiting from your insurance. Courts across the country, including Florida's appellate courts, consistently upheld this principle. HB 837 legislatively overruled that entire body of law. The collateral source rule still exists in Florida, but § 768.0427 now controls what medical expense evidence reaches the jury, effectively gutting the rule's practical impact on damages.
Past Medical Expenses That Have Been Paid
For medical bills that have already been satisfied, § 768.0427(2)(a) limits admissible evidence to "the amount actually paid, regardless of the source of payment." If your hospital billed $100,000 but your insurer's negotiated rate was $35,000 and your copay was $5,000, the jury sees $40,000, not $100,000.
Unpaid Past Medical Bills and Future Treatment
For medical expenses incurred but not yet paid, admissible evidence depends on your insurance status under § 768.0427(2)(b). If you have private health insurance, the jury sees the amount your insurer is contractually obligated to pay. If you have Medicare, Medicaid, or no insurance, the amount is limited to 120% of the applicable Medicare reimbursement rate. For services with no Medicare rate, the limit is 170% of the state Medicaid rate.
For future medical expenses, § 768.0427(2)(c) applies the same framework pegged to reimbursement rates in effect at the time of trial rather than the time of treatment.
Letters of Protection Under HB 837
Letters of protection (LOPs) have been a critical tool for injured people who cannot afford medical treatment out of pocket. A LOP is an agreement where a medical provider treats you now and accepts payment from the proceeds of your settlement or verdict.
HB 837 created extensive disclosure requirements under § 768.0427(3). If you receive treatment under a LOP, you must now disclose: all itemized billings with proper coding; whether any third party purchased the right to collect on the debt and the dollar amount; whether you had health insurance at the time; and whether you were referred for treatment under the LOP, and if so, by whom.
If your attorney referred you for treatment under a LOP, that fact is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege in this context. Additionally, the financial relationship between a law firm and the medical provider (including the number of referrals, their frequency, and the financial benefit obtained) is discoverable and relevant to the provider's potential bias at trial.
Perhaps most critically, if you have health insurance but choose to treat under a LOP instead of using your coverage, the defense can introduce evidence of what your insurer would have paid, often dramatically reducing the apparent value of your treatment in front of a jury.
Bottom line: These changes reduce the dollar figures juries see, which directly translates into lower verdicts and lower settlement offers. Insurers know the math has shifted in their favor. Working with an experienced Fort Lauderdale personal injury attorney who understands how to present medical damages under the new rules is essential.
Insurance Bad Faith: New Protections for Insurers
Before HB 837, Florida was one of the most plaintiff-friendly states for insurance bad faith claims. When an insurer unreasonably delayed or denied a valid claim, the insured or claimant could pursue extracontractual damages, often far exceeding policy limits. HB 837 rewrote the bad faith framework under § 624.155.
Negligence Alone Is No Longer Enough
Section 624.155(5)(a) now provides that "mere negligence alone is insufficient to constitute bad faith." The insurer must have engaged in conduct going beyond simple mistakes or processing delays. This applies to both statutory and common-law bad faith claims.
Mutual Good Faith Obligations
Under § 624.155(5)(b), HB 837 imposes a duty of good faith on both sides. The insured, the claimant, and their representatives must act in good faith when furnishing information, making demands, setting deadlines, and attempting to settle. If the claimant acts in bad faith, the factfinder may reduce (though not eliminate) the damages assessed against the insurer. This duty does not create a separate cause of action against the claimant; it functions as a damages-reduction mechanism.
The 90-Day Safe Harbor
Section 624.155(4)(a) created a safe harbor for third-party liability insurance claims: if the insurer tenders the lesser of the policy limits or the demanded amount within 90 days of receiving "actual notice" of a claim accompanied by "sufficient evidence to support the amount," the insurer is protected from bad faith liability.
First: This safe harbor covers only liability (third-party) claims. It does not apply to first-party disputes such as property insurance, health insurance, or UM/UIM claims.
Second: The terms "actual notice" and "sufficient evidence" are not defined in the statute. Their meaning will be shaped by litigation in the years ahead, and what constitutes sufficient evidence to start the 90-day clock is already a contested issue in Fort Lauderdale courtrooms.
Elimination of One-Way Attorney's Fees
Before HB 837, several statutes (§§ 626.9373, 627.428, 631.70, and others) allowed policyholders to recover attorney's fees from insurers in coverage disputes. HB 837 repealed most of these provisions and created a strong lodestar presumption under § 57.104(2) that effectively eliminates contingency fee multipliers except in "rare and exceptional circumstances."
One narrow exception survived: § 86.121 preserves one-way attorney's fees for declaratory judgment actions following a total coverage denial. However, this right cannot be assigned or transferred and does not apply to residential or commercial property insurance policies.
For more on bad faith claims under current law, see: Insurance Bad Faith After HB 837.
Negligent Security: New Presumptions for Property Owners
HB 837 also changed the rules for premises liability cases involving crimes committed on someone else's property. Before this law, if you were assaulted, robbed, or otherwise victimized by a criminal on a negligently secured property, the property owner bore significant liability. The court could not apportion fault to the criminal actor.
Under § 768.0701, the trier of fact must now consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury, including the criminal actor. This is mandatory, not discretionary: the criminal's fault percentage will appear on the verdict form, directly reducing the property owner's proportional liability.
Additionally, § 768.0706 created a presumption against negligent security liability for owners and operators of multifamily residential properties (five or more dwelling units) who demonstrate substantial compliance with three categories of requirements: (1) seven physical security measures including cameras, lighting, deadbolts, and window locks; (2) a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessment no more than three years old; and (3) employee crime deterrence training. The CPTED assessment and training had a compliance deadline of January 1, 2025; the physical security measures must be in place at the relevant time but have no separate statutory deadline.
This presumption does not make it impossible to bring a negligent security claim, but it shifts the burden onto the injured person to overcome the presumption with evidence. For Fort Lauderdale residents injured in apartment complexes, hotels, or other multifamily properties, building a strong case requires thorough investigation of the property's actual security conditions versus what the law requires.
How HB 837 Affects Your Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Case
Nearly three years after Florida HB 837 took effect, its real-world impact is measurable: verdicts are lower, settlement offers are lower, cases with shared fault are being dismissed entirely, and valid claims are being lost because injured people did not know they only had two years to act.
Here is what you need to know to protect yourself under current law.
Act Immediately After Your Accident
The two-year clock starts running on the date of your injury. Do not wait to seek medical attention, document the scene, preserve evidence, and contact a Fort Lauderdale personal injury attorney. Early involvement ensures critical evidence is preserved, witnesses are identified, and your claim is positioned for maximum recovery before the deadline passes.
Do Not Give Recorded Statements Without Legal Counsel
Insurance adjusters will contact you quickly after an accident. Their goal is to get you on record making statements that can later argue you were more than 50% at fault. Under the new modified comparative negligence standard, that single argument can eliminate your entire case. Do not speak with insurance adjusters before consulting with an attorney.
Understand How Your Medical Treatment Decisions Affect Your Case
The choice between using your health insurance and treating under a letter of protection now has direct legal consequences. If you have insurance but opt for a LOP, the defense can introduce what your insurer would have paid, often a dramatically lower figure. Your attorney needs to evaluate these decisions with you from the very beginning of your treatment.
Understand the Post-HB 837 Economics Before Making Decisions
HB 837 changed the economics, strategy, and timeline of every personal injury case in Florida. The interplay between medical expense caps, the 50% fault bar, and the elimination of fee-shifting creates compounding effects that did not exist before 2023. An attorney evaluating your case under pre-HB 837 assumptions about case value and settlement leverage will undervalue your claim. Every strategic decision, from how you treat to when you file, must account for the current statutory framework.
HB 837 Three Years Later: Court Rulings, Legislative Updates, and Real-World Impact
Florida HB 837 is not just a bill on paper. It has been actively tested in Florida courts and challenged in the Legislature since 2023. Here is what has happened and what it means for your case.
Key Court Decisions
In November 2024, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its ruling in Wolf v. Williams, No. 5D2023-3234 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 25, 2024) (view HB 837 bill text), the leading appellate decision interpreting HB 837. The court held that the medical expense restrictions under § 768.0427 do not apply retroactively to cases filed before March 24, 2023, resolving conflicting trial court rulings across the state.
In 2024, the Florida Supreme Court's Standard Jury Instructions Committee adopted new jury instructions for modified comparative negligence cases. These instructions inform jurors about the consequences of assigning greater than 50% fault to the plaintiff. The development is significant because research suggests that informing jurors of the consequences may reduce the likelihood they will find plaintiffs predominantly at fault, potentially counterbalancing some of the defense advantage HB 837 was designed to create.
Constitutional Challenges Remain an Open Question
Legal scholars and practitioners have identified potential constitutional challenges to HB 837 on access-to-courts grounds under Article I, § 21 of the Florida Constitution, substantive due process, and the shortened limitations period. No Florida court has struck down any provision as unconstitutional through March 2026, but the question has not been fully litigated at the appellate level, and the arguments remain available to plaintiffs in appropriate cases.
Legislative Efforts to Restore Protections Have Failed
In 2025, HB 947/SB 1520 would have repealed portions of § 768.0427 and restored full billed medical amounts as admissible evidence. The bill passed the Florida House 80-20 but was blocked by the Senate and indefinitely postponed. No modifications to HB 837 were enacted in the 2024, 2025, or 2026 sessions. The 2026 session ended March 13, 2026 with HB 837 fully intact.
One related but separate 2025 enactment worth noting: HB 6017 eliminated the longstanding prohibition on recovery of non-economic damages when adult children lose a parent (or parents lose an adult child) due to medical negligence. This expanded wrongful death recovery for medical malpractice cases outside of HB 837's framework, and is relevant for families evaluating claims arising from fatal medical errors.
The Real Cost: Lower Recoveries for Injured Floridians
The insurance industry points to rate reductions as evidence that HB 837 is working. State Farm implemented over 20% in cumulative auto rate reductions since October 2024, and an analysis commissioned by the insurance industry's national trade association (The Perryman Group, February 2026) estimated Florida property and casualty insurance costs are roughly 14.5% lower than they would have been without the reforms. That figure is a modeled comparison against a hypothetical scenario, not a direct measurement of actual rate reductions.
Consider what the Perryman Report does not measure. It does not measure the value of the claims that were never filed because injured people did not know their deadline had been cut in half. It does not measure the cases that settled for a fraction of their worth because juries now see $35,000 instead of $100,000 in medical bills for the same injuries. It does not measure the families who accepted lowball offers because they could no longer afford to litigate against an insurer that faces no fee exposure for dragging the case out. The reductions came directly from the pockets of injured Floridians through lower jury numbers at trial, reduced settlement leverage, and the elimination of fee-shifting provisions that once held insurers accountable. And the 14.5% in "savings" flowed to insurance company balance sheets first. Whether policyholders see those savings at renewal depends entirely on whether insurers choose to pass them through, and Florida has no statutory mechanism requiring them to do so.
The insurance industry spent years arguing that Florida's legal system was broken and that premiums would drop if the Legislature restricted injured people's rights. The Legislature did exactly that. Premiums dropped. But the exposed wiring behind the wall is this: every dollar of premium reduction was funded by a dollar taken from someone who was hurt through no fault of their own and whose only recourse was the civil justice system that HB 837 restructured. The question is not whether insurance rates went down. The question is whether the person rear-ended on I-95, or the family whose child was killed by a distracted driver, can still get full and fair compensation under the system that replaced the one Florida had for 50 years. The data from the courtroom says the answer is: less than before, and often not at all.
Frequently Asked Questions About Florida HB 837
What is HB 837 in Florida?
How long do I have to file a personal injury claim in Florida?
What happens if I am partially at fault for my accident in Florida?
Does HB 837 apply to my case if my accident happened before 2023?
What is a letter of protection, and how did HB 837 change it?
How does HB 837 affect insurance bad faith claims?
Can I still file a personal injury lawsuit in Fort Lauderdale after HB 837?
What do lawyers charge for personal injury cases in Fort Lauderdale?
Did HB 837 change the rules for wrongful death cases?
How has HB 837 affected settlement values in Florida?
Your Deadline May Be Closer Than You Think
Under Florida HB 837's new two-year statute of limitations, injured people in Fort Lauderdale have half the time they used to. Every week you wait is a week of evidence that degrades, witnesses whose memories fade, and leverage that shifts to the insurance company.
Available 24/7 · No fees and no costs unless we recover for you
Disclaimer. The information on this page about Florida HB 837 is provided by SinglePoint Law Group for general educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney.
Florida law changes frequently through legislation, rulemaking, and judicial interpretation. The statutes, rules, and case law discussed here are current as of the date of publication but may have been amended, superseded, or overruled since that date. This page is not updated on a set schedule.
If you are an attorney, verify all cited authorities through independent research before relying on them in any proceeding. If you have been injured and are evaluating your legal options, contact a qualified Florida personal injury attorney who can analyze the specific facts of your situation under current law.
SinglePoint Law Group · Daniel P. Melrose, Esq. · 200 S Andrews Ave, Ste 503, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 · 954.551.9090 · No fees or costs are charged unless we recover compensation for you. Prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results.
