What Is Florida House Bill 837? Fault Bar, Fees, and Bad Faith

Florida House Bill 837, signed into law on March 24, 2023, rewrote large parts of the state’s civil lawsuit rules. It shortened the deadline to sue for negligence, created a fault threshold that can bar an injured person from recovering anything, limited the medical bill evidence juries are allowed to see, built new protections for insurers and apartment owners, and repealed the rule that forced insurance companies to pay a winning policyholder’s attorney fees. The changes apply to causes of action that accrued on or after the effective date, so cases based on injuries from before March 24, 2023 generally follow the old rules.¹

Two Years to File a Negligence Lawsuit

Florida used to give injured people four years to file a general negligence suit. HB 837 cut that in half. You now have two years from the date the cause of action accrues, which is usually the date of the injury.²

Two years sounds generous until you count what has to fit inside it: finishing medical treatment, collecting records, putting a demand together, negotiating with an insurer, and filing suit if the negotiation fails. Many claims under the old system settled or were filed in year three or four. Wait that long now and the right to sue is gone. Missing the deadline is one of the few mistakes in personal injury litigation that cannot be fixed, and the shorter window makes it easier to run out of time without realizing it.

The 50% Fault Bar

Florida used to follow “pure” comparative negligence. An injured person could recover damages no matter how much of the accident was their own fault. A jury that found you 90% responsible still awarded you 10% of your losses. That system is gone for most cases.

Under HB 837, a plaintiff found more than 50% at fault recovers nothing.³ At exactly 50%, you can still recover, but your award is cut in half. At 51%, the case is over. A plaintiff with $100,000 in proven damages who is assigned 51% of the blame walks away with zero.

This hits hardest in cases where fault is genuinely split. A pedestrian struck by a speeding driver while crossing against the signal, for example, now carries real risk that a jury will put most of the blame on them and wipe out the claim. Defense lawyers have a strong incentive to push the plaintiff’s share past 50, and insurance adjusters price that leverage into their settlement offers.

Medical malpractice cases are the exception. If the claim is about negligent medical treatment, Florida’s old pure comparative negligence rule still applies, and the injured person can recover a proportional share of damages no matter how the fault percentages fall.³

What a Jury Sees for Medical Bills

Damages in a personal injury case often turn on medical bills, and HB 837 changed what juries are allowed to see. Under the old rules, a plaintiff could put the full billed amount in front of the jury even when no one actually paid that figure. A hospital might bill $50,000 for care that insurance settled for $12,000, and the jury would still see $50,000. Florida Statute 768.0427 ended that.

The admissible figure now depends on whether the bill is paid and what kind of coverage the patient has:

If the bill is already paid, the jury sees only the amount actually paid, no matter who paid it.⁴
If the bill is unpaid and the patient has private insurance, the evidence is limited to what the insurer is obligated to pay the provider under the plan.
If the bill is unpaid and the patient is uninsured or on Medicare or Medicaid, the cap is 120% of the Medicare reimbursement rate for that service, or 170% of the Medicaid rate when no Medicare rate exists.⁴

Smaller numbers in front of a jury mean smaller verdicts, and smaller verdict potential means less settlement leverage on the way to trial.

Letters of Protection

A letter of protection is an agreement where a doctor treats an injured patient on credit, with payment to come out of a future settlement or judgment. HB 837 wrapped these arrangements in disclosure requirements. Before claiming medical expenses incurred under a letter of protection, the plaintiff must produce the letter itself, itemized and coded billings, and information about any other health coverage the patient had at the time. If the doctor sold the receivable to a factoring company, the buyer’s identity and the purchase price also come out.⁵

If the plaintiff’s own lawyer referred them to the treating doctor, that referral is discoverable, and the financial relationship between the firm and the provider is admissible as evidence of bias. Defense attorneys can ask how many patients the firm sends to that doctor and how much money moves between them.

Apartment and Multifamily Property Security

When someone is the victim of a crime at an apartment complex, they can sometimes sue the property owner for negligent security. HB 837 created a presumption against liability for owners who meet a specific checklist of security measures.

To get the presumption, the owner must substantially put all of the following in place:⁶

A camera system at entry and exit points that records and keeps retrievable footage for at least 30 days.
Parking lot lighting averaging at least 1.8 foot-candles per square foot from dusk until dawn.
Dusk-to-dawn lighting in walkways, laundry rooms, porches, and other common areas.
At least a one-inch deadbolt on each unit door.
A locking device on every window, exterior sliding door, and non-community-use door.
Locked gates with key or fob access on pool fences.
A peephole or door viewer on every unit door that lacks a window or adjacent window.

Hardware alone is not enough. The property must also have a current crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) assessment by a law enforcement agency or certified Florida CPTED Practitioner, updated at least every three years, plus safety training for all employees, with new hires trained within 60 days.⁶

A victim can still sue a complying owner, but they take on the burden of overcoming the presumption of non-negligence. The jury also has to weigh the actual criminal’s share of fault, which further shrinks what the owner might be ordered to pay.

Insurance Bad Faith: The 90-Day Safe Harbor

Florida has long let injured people pursue bad faith claims against insurers that unreasonably refuse to settle within policy limits. HB 837 gave liability insurers a defined way out.

If the insurer pays the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded within 90 days of receiving notice of the claim with sufficient supporting evidence, no bad faith action can be brought.⁷ The 90-day clock does not start on a vague demand letter; the insurer has to receive both actual notice and enough documentation to evaluate the claim.

If the insurer misses the window, two things follow. The safe harbor provision itself cannot be mentioned in any later bad faith trial, and the statute of limitations on the bad faith claim is extended by 90 days.⁷ A third-party bad faith action also typically has to wait until the insured’s liability and the extent of damages have been established, usually through a judgment or settlement in the underlying case.

Attorney Fees in Insurance Cases

The old Florida Statute 627.428 created a one-way fee shift: a policyholder or claimant who won against an insurance company got their attorney fees paid by the insurer, but the insurer could not recover its fees if it won. That asymmetry gave plaintiffs real leverage, because insurers had to weigh the risk of covering both sides’ legal costs.

HB 837 largely repealed that rule for most insurance disputes, including life, health, and disability coverage.¹ Plaintiffs now carry the cost of their own attorneys in most insurance cases, and those fees usually come out of the settlement or verdict, cutting into the net recovery.

The bill also created a rebuttable presumption that the “lodestar” figure, the attorney’s reasonable hourly rate multiplied by hours reasonably spent, is a sufficient and reasonable fee in most civil actions. Florida courts previously could apply a multiplier to that figure in certain cases, which substantially raised fee awards. The new presumption makes multipliers harder to justify.

Taken together, the repeal of one-way fees and the lodestar presumption change the economics of smaller insurance claims. Cases that were worth a plaintiff’s lawyer’s time under the old system, because fee recovery was close to guaranteed, may no longer pencil out.

1
Florida Senate. HB 837 (2023) – Civil Remedies
2
Florida Senate. Florida Code 95.11 – Limitations Other Than for the Recovery of Real Property
3
Florida Senate. Florida Code 768.81 – Comparative Fault
4
Florida Senate. Florida Code 768.0427 – Admissibility of Evidence to Prove Medical Expenses in Personal Injury or Wrongful Death Actions
5
Online Sunshine. Florida Code 768.0427 – Admissibility of Evidence to Prove Medical Expenses in Personal Injury or Wrongful Death Actions
6
Justia Law. Florida Code 768.0706 – Multifamily Residential Property Presumption Against Liability
7
Florida Senate. Florida Code 624.155 – Civil Remedy