Florida Tort Reform Under HB 837 and Asset Protection

Florida’s tort reform legislation, House Bill 837, took effect on March 24, 2023, and fundamentally changed the litigation landscape for personal injury defendants. The law introduced a modified comparative negligence standard, shortened the statute of limitations for negligence claims, restructured how medical damages are calculated at trial, modified the bad faith framework for insurance disputes, and created new liability protections for property owners. Each of these changes directly affects the asset protection calculus for defendants in car accident and other personal injury litigation.

Modified Comparative Negligence

Florida previously followed a pure comparative negligence standard that allowed a plaintiff to recover damages regardless of their own percentage of fault. A plaintiff who was 90 percent responsible for an accident could still recover 10 percent of their damages from the defendant.

HB 837 replaced this system with a modified comparative negligence standard. A plaintiff who bears 51 percent or more of the fault for the accident is now barred from recovering any damages. A plaintiff at 50 percent fault or less recovers damages reduced by their percentage of responsibility. The change does not apply to medical malpractice claims, which retain the prior standard.

For defendants, the 51 percent bar creates a meaningful threshold that did not previously exist. A car accident defendant whose attorney can establish that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the primary cause of the accident may face no personal liability at all. Even when the plaintiff is partially at fault but below the 51 percent threshold, the proportional reduction in damages can bring the total award within insurance policy limits, eliminating the need for the plaintiff to pursue the defendant’s personal assets.

Shortened Statute of Limitations

HB 837 reduced the statute of limitations for general negligence actions from four years to two years. The shortened deadline applies to causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023. Medical malpractice and wrongful death claims retain their existing deadlines.

The two-year window affects both plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs must file suit earlier, which compresses the negotiation timeline and may result in more cases settling during the insurance claim phase rather than progressing to litigation. For defendants, the shorter window means that the period of uncertainty—during which a potential lawsuit could be filed—is cut in half. A defendant who has not been sued within two years of the accident can generally consider the exposure resolved.

The compressed timeline also affects post-accident asset protection planning. A defendant who begins asset protection planning shortly after an accident has a shorter window during which a plaintiff could challenge those transfers as fraudulent under Florida’s fraudulent transfer statute. The two-year deadline creates a practical marker: once the limitations period expires without a lawsuit being filed, the risk of a fraudulent transfer challenge based on the accident drops significantly.

Medical Damages Calculation

HB 837 created Florida Statute § 768.0427, which limits the medical expense evidence a party can present at trial to the amount actually paid for treatment rather than the amount originally billed. Before this change, plaintiffs could present the full billed amount of medical services, which is often substantially higher than the amount any insurer or patient actually paid.

The practical effect is a reduction in the dollar amount of medical damages that juries see at trial. Lower medical damage figures produce smaller verdicts, which makes it less likely that a judgment will exceed the defendant’s insurance policy limits. When verdicts stay within policy limits, the defendant’s personal assets are not at risk.

The statute also imposes disclosure requirements for medical treatment provided under letters of protection, which are agreements between a plaintiff and a medical provider to defer payment until the case resolves. These disclosures help defendants and insurers evaluate the actual cost of medical treatment and negotiate settlements based on realistic numbers rather than inflated billing.

Bad Faith Framework Changes

Florida’s bad faith statute, § 624.155, allows an insured to bring a claim against their own insurer when the insurer unreasonably fails to settle a claim within policy limits. HB 837 modified the bad faith framework in several ways that affect how excess judgments are handled.

The law now requires that negligence alone cannot constitute bad faith. A claimant must also act in good faith when furnishing information and attempting to settle the insurance claim. The statute now requires a 90-day written notice to the insurer specifying the alleged bad faith conduct before a civil remedy can be pursued. The insurer has an opportunity to cure the alleged violation within that notice period.

HB 837 also created a safe harbor for insurers facing multiple claims from a single occurrence that exceed policy limits. An insurer that deposits its total policy limits with the court before the entry of a consent judgment can limit its bad faith exposure. This provision is particularly relevant in multi-vehicle accidents or accidents with multiple injured parties, where the total claims may far exceed a single policy.

For defendants, the modified bad faith framework affects the likelihood of an insurer accepting a policy-limits demand. Because the law makes bad faith claims harder to establish and gives insurers a cure period, defendants should be aware that insurers may take a more measured approach to settlement demands. If an insurer declines a reasonable settlement demand and an excess judgment results, the defendant’s path to a bad faith recovery against the insurer involves a more structured process than under the prior framework.

Premises Liability and Negligent Security

HB 837 created new protections for owners and operators of multifamily residential properties. The law requires juries in negligent security cases to consider the fault of all parties, including the criminal actor. It also creates a presumption against liability for property owners who implement specified security measures including camera systems, deadbolts, window locks, and lighting in common areas.

These provisions are relevant to asset protection for property owners who face potential liability for incidents on their premises. The presumption against liability provides a defined set of security standards that, if met, substantially reduce the property owner’s exposure. For owners of apartment complexes, condominiums, and similar properties, compliance with these standards creates a demonstrable defense that can prevent claims from reaching the personal asset exposure stage.

Practical Effect on Car Accident Defendants

The combined effect of HB 837’s provisions is a meaningful reduction in the circumstances under which a car accident defendant’s personal assets are at risk. The 51 percent comparative fault bar eliminates liability entirely when the plaintiff was primarily responsible. Smaller medical damage figures at trial reduce verdict amounts. The two-year statute of limitations shortens the exposure window. The modified bad faith framework gives insurers a more structured process for handling settlement demands.

None of these changes eliminate the need for adequate insurance coverage or asset protection planning. A defendant in a serious car accident with low policy limits still faces personal exposure when the claim exceeds insurance. Florida’s exemptions from creditors remain the primary defense when a judgment reaches the personal asset level. The tort reform provisions reduce how often that scenario arises, but they do not prevent it.

For a comprehensive overview of post-accident asset protection strategies, see the car accident asset protection guide.