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. HB 837 changed how often that exposure arises and how large it tends to be.

How Does Modified Comparative Negligence Protect Defendants?

Modified comparative negligence gives a defendant a complete defense once the plaintiff is mostly to blame for his or her own injuries. Under § 768.81(6), added by HB 837, a party found more than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm recovers nothing. Florida previously ran a pure comparative negligence system, where a plaintiff who was 90 percent responsible for a crash could still collect 10 percent of their damages from the defendant.

For defendants, the greater-than-50-percent bar is the single most important change in HB 837. The bar applies to the plaintiff’s share of fault for the injuries, not for the crash itself. Evidence that pushes the plaintiff’s own share past half ends the claim. 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. An action arising out of medical negligence under chapter 766 still follows pure comparative negligence, so the plaintiff’s own fault reduces the award without barring it.

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 shortens a defendant’s exposure 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 reduces medical damage awards by limiting the medical-bill evidence a jury is allowed to see. Where treatment has already been paid for, the only admissible figure is the amount actually paid. Bills still outstanding and future care are measured by what the claimant’s health coverage would pay. Where the claimant has Medicare, Medicaid, or no coverage at all, the benchmark is instead 120 percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate. Plaintiffs could present the full billed amount before this change.

Lower medical figures at trial produce smaller verdicts. Awards that stay inside the policy limits never reach the defendant’s personal assets. Letters of protection, where a plaintiff and a medical provider agree to defer payment until the case resolves, must also be disclosed under § 768.0427. These disclosures help defendants and insurers evaluate actual treatment costs and negotiate settlements based on realistic numbers.

A 2025 bill, HB 947, would have loosened these limits by replacing the Medicare benchmark with evidence of the reasonable and customary rates for the treatment. Neither it nor its Senate companion, SB 1520, ever reached a floor vote in either chamber. Both died in the 2025 session.

What Changed in Bad Faith Insurance Rules?

HB 837 made bad faith claims against insurers harder to win. Under § 624.155, an insurer’s mere negligence is not enough to establish bad faith. The insured and the claimant now carry their own duty of good faith in furnishing information, making demands, and setting deadlines; a jury that finds they fell short can reduce the damages awarded against the insurer.

A new 90-day tender window works directly in a defendant’s favor. A liability insurer escapes bad faith entirely if it tenders the policy limits, or the demand if that is less, within 90 days after it receives actual notice of a claim carrying enough evidence to support the amount claimed. If the insurer misses that window, jurors in a later bad faith trial never hear that the safe harbor existed. That failure also extends any applicable statute of limitations by another 90 days.

HB 837 also protects an insurer facing more claimants than the policy can cover. When competing third-party claims from a single occurrence exceed the available policy limits, the insurer is not liable beyond those limits if it acts within 90 days of receiving notice of them. It can file an interpleader action or put the full limits before an arbitrator the claimants have agreed to. Each claimant then takes a prorated share.

Both of these protections belong to the insurer; they govern what it must do and when. The 90-day tender rewards an insurer that pays a supportable demand early, which is what a defendant with thin coverage needs it to do. When an insurer declines a reasonable demand anyway and the verdict lands above the policy, the defendant’s own bad faith claim against that insurer has to clear the standard HB 837 raised.

How Do Attorney Fee Changes Affect Defendants?

The attorney fee changes reach defendants indirectly, by giving a plaintiff’s lawyer less reason to pursue an insurance claim with little money in it. HB 837 repealed §§ 626.9373 and 627.428, the one-way fee statutes under which 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 strong presumption that a lodestar fee, reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, is sufficient and reasonable. A court can add a fee multiplier only in a rare and exceptional case, and only on evidence that the party seeking fees could not otherwise have retained competent counsel.

A small likely recovery no longer comes with a fee award the insurer must pay, so the contingency math has to work on the recovery alone.

Does HB 837 Protect Property Owners?

HB 837 protects property owners in two ways. When a third party’s criminal act injures someone lawfully on the property, the trier of fact must now weigh the fault of everyone who contributed, the criminal included. That rule reaches commercial property and other real property alike. The second protection is a presumption against liability for the owner of a residential property holding at least five dwelling units.

The presumption applies only where the owner substantially implements the security measures the statute lists. The measures are camera systems, deadbolts, window and door locks, lighting in common areas and parking lots, a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design assessment, and crime deterrence training for employees. Proving substantial implementation is the owner’s burden. 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 bills aimed at the medical damages evidence rules, HB 947 and SB 1520, both died without a floor vote.

No Florida court has struck down any provision of HB 837.

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

HB 837 narrowed the circumstances where a car accident defendant’s personal assets come into play. A plaintiff more than half at fault for his or her own harm collects nothing, which ends the exposure outright. Below that line, smaller medical figures and the proportional fault reduction pull verdicts back toward the policy limits. An insurer that tenders those limits within 90 days of a supported demand can cut off the bad faith fight. The two-year deadline closes the window sooner, and the fee repeals removed the subsidy for marginal claims.

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.