CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM

FJRI supports legislation to broadly reform Florida’s litigation-related statutes and restore fairness
and personal responsibility to Florida’s civil justice system.

Transparency in Damages

Juries generally only see the billed amounts for medical treatment in a personal injury lawsuit, not
what the medical provider would or did accept in payment. Inflated medical expense bills can
mislead juries as they determine total damages, and those bills often come in the form of a Letter
of Protection (LOP), an agreement between the claimant’s lawyer and treating medical provider.
LOPs typically bear a sticker price that greatly exceeds the true cost of the treatment provided.
Providers sell LOPs to factoring companies at a steep discount, but the jury doesn’t know any of
this. Juries should base damages awards on the true cost of medical treatment and not inflated
bills.

Third-Party Bad Faith

In a third-party bad faith claim, someone who is not the policyholder gains the right to bring a
lawsuit against the insurer for allegedly not properly defending or settling a claim. Unfortunately,
Florida Supreme Court rulings have led to ordinary negligence now begin deemed bad faith. This
low bar, combined with no duty on the part of a third party to cooperate, has encouraged abusive
tactics. The solution is applying to third-parties the same 60-day notice and right to cure that
already exists in current law for first parties, and allow judges to apportion payouts in the event of
multiple claimants.

Modified Comparative Negligence

Due to a complex web of court rulings and legal theories, plaintiffs in Florida who are substantially
at fault for their own injuries are still entitled to recover substantial damages from other parties to a
lawsuit, even if those other parties were minimally at fault. This incentivizes plaintiffs to file lawsuits
against every possible defendant, especially those with deep pockets, and lets plaintiffs off the
hook for their own negligent conduct. FJRI supports legislation to state that in a negligence action,
a party who is more than 50 percent at fault for their own injuries may not recover damages.

Multiplier Reform

Under certain “fee-shifting” statutes, attorneys for the prevailing party are entitled to fees calculated
under the federal Lodestar method of multiplying reasonable hours expended by a reasonable
hourly rate. The court may decide that isn’t enough and apply a “contingency risk multiplier” from
1.5 to 3.0. The U.S. Supreme Court strongly disfavors multipliers, applying them only in “rare and
exceptional” circumstances. In 2017, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the federal standard,
ruling that the multiplier could effectively be applied in almost any case. FJRI supports restoring the
award of contingency risk multipliers to only rare and exceptional circumstances for all litigation.

One Way Attorney Fees

The “one-way attorney fee” under sections 627.428 and 626.9373, F.S., creates a lop-sided
system that incentivizes plaintiffs and their attorneys to bring lawsuits, forcing insurers to decide
whether to pay a suspicious claim, or fight the claim and be subject to massive attorneys’ fees if
the judge or jury finds that the plaintiff is entitled to even $0.01 more than the insurance company
paid or offered. Many of these lawsuits involve service providers using assignments of benefits to
sue for de minimus amounts to generate attorney fees and without the risk of paying fees even if
they lose. FJRI supports repealing the one-way attorney fee statute for all litigation.