Florida Tort Reform Under HB 837 and Asset Protection

Florida’s HB 837, signed on March 24, 2023, reduced the circumstances under which a car accident defendant’s personal assets are at risk. The law changed comparative negligence rules, cut the statute of limitations in half, capped the medical damages juries can see, restructured bad faith insurance claims, and eliminated one-way attorney fees in most insurance cases.

None of these changes remove the need for asset protection planning after an accident. A defendant with low policy limits still faces personal exposure when a claim exceeds insurance. What HB 837 changed is how often that exposure arises and how large it tends to be.

How Does Modified Comparative Negligence Protect Defendants?

Florida previously allowed a plaintiff to recover damages no matter how much fault was theirs. A plaintiff who was 90 percent responsible for an accident could still collect 10 percent of their damages from the defendant. HB 837 replaced this with a modified comparative negligence standard that creates a hard cutoff: a plaintiff who bears 51 percent or more of the fault recovers nothing.

For defendants, the 51 percent bar is the single most important change in HB 837. If a defendant’s attorney can show that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the primary cause of the accident, the defendant faces zero personal liability. Even when the plaintiff is below the threshold, the proportional reduction can bring the total award within policy limits, eliminating any need to pursue the defendant’s personal assets.

Medical malpractice claims are exempt from this change and still follow pure comparative negligence under Chapter 766.

What Did HB 837 Do to the Statute of Limitations?

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

The two-year window matters for asset protection in two ways. First, the period of uncertainty after an accident is cut in half. A lawsuit could still be filed during that window, but a defendant who has not been sued within two years can generally treat the exposure as resolved.

Second, the compressed timeline affects post-accident planning. A defendant who begins restructuring assets shortly after an accident has a shorter window during which a plaintiff could challenge those transfers as fraudulent. Once the limitations period expires without a lawsuit, the risk of a fraudulent transfer challenge tied to the accident drops substantially.

How Does HB 837 Reduce Medical Damage Awards?

HB 837 created § 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, often two to five times what any insurer or patient actually paid.

Lower medical damage figures at trial produce smaller verdicts. Smaller verdicts are more likely to stay within a defendant’s insurance policy limits, which means the defendant’s personal assets stay out of reach. Letters of protection, where a plaintiff and a medical provider agree to defer payment until the case resolves, must also be disclosed. These disclosures help defendants and insurers evaluate actual treatment costs and negotiate settlements based on realistic numbers.

In 2025, HB 947 would have repealed portions of § 768.0427 and restored full billed amounts as admissible evidence. The bill passed the Florida House but was blocked by the Senate and never became law.

What Changed in Bad Faith Insurance Rules?

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 within policy limits. HB 837 modified these rules in ways that affect how excess judgments are handled.

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

HB 837 also created a safe harbor for insurers facing multiple claims that exceed policy limits after a single occurrence. An insurer that deposits its total policy limits with the court before entry of a consent judgment can limit its bad faith exposure.

For defendants, the practical effect is indirect but real. Because the law makes bad faith claims harder to establish and gives insurers a cure period, insurers may take a more measured approach to settlement demands. If an insurer declines a reasonable demand and an excess judgment results, the defendant’s path to a bad faith recovery against the insurer involves a more structured process than before HB 837.

How Do Attorney Fee Changes Affect Defendants?

HB 837 eliminated one-way attorney fees in most insurance lawsuits by repealing §§ 626.9373 and 627.428. Under the old system, a plaintiff who won even a nominal recovery against an insurer could force the insurer to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees. That asymmetry made it financially rational for attorneys to file marginal cases—the insurer bore the fee risk on both sides.

The law also created a presumption that the lodestar method, reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, is the sufficient basis for determining attorney fees. Fee multipliers, which previously allowed courts to increase fees based on case difficulty, are now available only in rare circumstances.

The result for defendants: fewer personal injury lawsuits filed overall, and the lawsuits that are filed tend to involve stronger claims. Marginal cases that would have been filed under the old fee structure are now less economically viable for plaintiffs’ attorneys. Fewer lawsuits means fewer situations where a defendant’s personal assets are at risk.

Does HB 837 Protect Property Owners?

HB 837 created new protections for owners and operators of multifamily residential properties facing negligent security claims. The law requires juries 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—camera systems, deadbolts, window locks, lighting in common areas, a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design assessment, and employee crime deterrence training.

For property owners who comply with these standards, the presumption shifts the burden to the injured party to prove the owner’s negligence despite the security measures. Meeting these standards does not make negligent security claims impossible, but it creates a demonstrable defense that can prevent claims from reaching the personal asset stage.

Is HB 837 Still in Effect?

HB 837 remains fully in effect. No modifications were enacted in the 2024, 2025, or 2026 legislative sessions. The 2026 session ended on March 13, 2026, with HB 837 intact. The 2025 repeal attempt targeting medical damages evidence (HB 947/SB 1520) passed the House but died in the Senate.

Legal scholars have raised potential constitutional challenges under Florida’s access-to-courts provision, substantive due process, and the shortened limitations period. No Florida court has struck down any provision of HB 837 through early 2026, though the question has not been fully litigated at the appellate level.

What Does HB 837 Mean for Asset Protection After a Car Accident?

The combined effect of HB 837 is a meaningful reduction in the circumstances where a car accident defendant’s personal assets come into play. The 51 percent bar eliminates liability entirely when the plaintiff was primarily responsible. Smaller medical damage figures reduce verdict amounts. The two-year statute of limitations shortens the exposure window. The modified bad faith rules give insurers a structured process for handling demands. Fewer marginal lawsuits are filed because of the attorney fee changes.

These changes reduce the frequency of personal asset exposure, not the possibility. A defendant in a serious accident with low policy limits still faces the same risk when the judgment exceeds coverage. Florida’s exemptions from creditors—homestead, retirement accounts, tenancy by the entirety property—remain the primary defense when a judgment reaches personal assets. HB 837 made that scenario less common, but it did not eliminate it.