PIP proposal politics: Florida House pushes auto insurance repeal as DeSantis digs in
The switch will help Florida motorists recover medical costs in an accident, supporters say. But the move also would likely cost drivers a lot more, according to industry analysts.
DeSantis has condemned the House for siding with trial lawyers, who support the change. And the personal injury protection (PIP) repeal is now joining a growing list of battlegrounds between the House, Senate and DeSantis as the 60-day session moves into its scheduled closing month; the last day is currently set to be May 2.
'If there's something that could help people have access to the courts, and good insurance they could lean on in times of an auto injury, I think we'd be supportive of that,' said House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell of Tampa.
But reflecting on the many clashes between Republican leaders, Driskell added, 'It doesn't seem like they're on the same page at all. I don't know if we'll end on time.'
Florida's $10,000 PIP coverage limit has been unchanged since the 1970s. And it's widely seen as failing to cover current medical costs even as it is costing motorists more than any of the few other states that require only the minimum car insurance coverage.
The House bill (HB 1181) would erase PIP and instead mandate bodily injury coverage of $25,000 per individual, $50,000 per incident, and $10,000 in property damage liability by July 2026. The bill has one more committee stop before it heads to the full House for a vote.
In the Senate, a similar bill (SB 1256) hasn't moved. And DeSantis is dead-set against the repeal.
The switch from the current no-fault PIP system to a fault-based system is seen by opponents as certain to turn more accidents into lawsuits. But advocates say it would remove outdated coverage that gives insurance companies too much control at the expense of drivers involved in accidents.
Insurance industry officials warn that higher, bodily-injury coverage levels could prompt more drivers to drop coverage completely. Lawmakers in 2023 limited attorneys' fees – mostly focused on property insurance claims – which industry allies say also are serving to lower auto insurance costs.
DeSantis has joined with the chorus of industry and business groups urging that the 2023 changes need more time to take effect. He's framed the House bill – and GOP House Speaker Daniel Perez's support of it – as a sellout to lawyers seeking a new avenue for lawsuits.
'Let's just be clear. I mean, you know, we know that's something that people from the legal and the trial bar have wanted to do. And so why would they want to do that? Obviously, they see that there's opportunities for them to make money off of it,' DeSantis said at last month's start of the legislative session.
'I think that goes without saying. So, I don't want to do anything that's going to raise the rates,' he added.
A 2021 consultant's report to the state's Office of Insurance Regulation showed insurance costs doubling or even tripling across much of Florida if PIP was repealed in favor of mandatory bodily injury coverage.
Perez, R-Miami, last week acknowledged that the PIP repeal hasn't moved in the Senate. DeSantis also looks poised to veto a PIP repeal if it was approved, just like he did in 2021, the last time the measure advanced that far.
'The budget is happening, there are bills that are moving, there are bills that are kind of reaching their last breath,' Perez said recently in sizing up the session. 'We're taking them on a case-by-case basis.'
But once it gets out of the House, as expected, the PIP repeal could end up being part of what looks like a wide-ranging landscape of potential trading chits, part of every end-of-session deal-making. And there's a lot to be settled by the scheduled adjournment.
The House and Senate are a stunning $4.4 billion apart in deciding on a state budget for the year beginning July 1. And Perez is championing cutting the state's 6% sales tax rate by 0.75%, a $5 billion savings for Floridians that would reduce state revenue even as state economists project a $6.9 billion state deficit in two years if spending continues unchecked.
The House's budget proposal does scale back spending, coming in at about $113 billion, while the Senate spending plan is $117.3 billion, down $1.3 billion from the current year's level.
DeSantis, though, has his own $5 billion tax cut plan. He wants to send $1,000 rebate checks to every homesteaded property owner in the state, a prelude to the governor's bigger plan of putting a major overhaul of property taxes on the ballot next year.
In the meantime, the darkening economic cloud stemming from President Trump's tariffs could shadow much of the Legislature's session-ending negotiations on the budget and more.
Perez also is pushing back, again, at DeSantis over the governor's portrayal of him as doing the bidding of the state's trial lawyers with the PIP repeal.
From USA TODAY: Trump says he's not considering a pause on tariffs but is open to negotiations
Perez said the Florida Justice Association, the trial lawyers' organization, favors the Senate version of the PIP repeal, which hasn't moved. And he pointed out the Florida Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the repeal because it thinks the trial bar wants it.
'Usually, when you're in this process and both sides disagree with the product that's being presented, it's because you have the right product before them,' Perez said. 'So, to say this is for the trial bar is wrong. I think it's desperate.'
Perez also attempted to cool tensions with the governor, who repeatedly has lashed out at the House in public appearances.
'I still consider the governor a friend. I consider him a partner,' Perez said.
John Kennedy is a reporter in the USA TODAY Network's Florida Capital Bureau. He can be reached at jkennedy2@gannett.com, or on X at @JKennedyReport.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Gov. DeSantis slams Florida PIP repeal backed by GOP House leadership
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Democrat says she was threatened with arrest after escort lost her on trail
A Texas state House Democrat said she was threatened with arrest after an officer assigned to follow her lost track of her on a walking trail. Texas state Rep. Sheryl Cole (D) said in a post on X on Tuesday that an escort from the Texas Department of Public Safety, whom she said 'was forced upon me to track my every movement,' lost track of her on the trail, became angry and 'made a scene' in front of her constituents. 'While a little shaken up from the incident, I remain undeterred by this intimidation tactic by House Republicans to have a 24/7 state police presence to intimidate me and my colleagues,' Cole said. Cole's account of the incident comes as a fellow Democratic state representative, Nicole Collier, has chosen to stay on the floor of the state House chamber for more than 24 hours rather than having a law enforcement officer shadow her. After the state House Democrats returned to the Lone Star State on Monday, ending their two-week out-of-state stint to prevent Republicans from passing a new map, state Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) declared that those who came back would have an officer with them to ensure they didn't leave the state again. Collier chose to stay in the state House overnight instead and told MSNBC's Ali Vitali in an interview that she would stay 'as long as it takes.' 'At the moment that the directive was issued, I felt like it was wrong. It's just wrong to require grown people to get a permission slip to roam about freely. So I resisted,' she said. Cole said she stands in solidarity with Collier, who has 'refused to go along with this charade.' 'We will not be intimidated by this, and history will remember this,' she said. The Texas state legislature is expected to approve a new map as soon as this week, with enough Democrats back in the state for the body to conduct business.


The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem
The redistricting war going on across the country began with the president asking — or, as some see it, directing — Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Given that the party that holds the White House typically loses House seats in the midterms, and with a thin GOP majority after the 2024 election, the president is looking for any advantage to hold the House. This action has elicited outrage among Democrats, pushing the most populous state, California, to redraw its map. Several other states, including Ohio, Florida and Indiana, are also investigating the possibility of redrawing their maps, in an all-out gerrymander fest to squeeze every last seat out of Congress. Yet the maps drawn after the 2020 census were already well gerrymandered. Of the 435 total seats, just 36 were deemed competitive in 2022, defined as winners determined by a margin of victory below 5 percent. In 2024, the number of competitive seats jumped to 43. Though the problem appears to be the gerrymandering of congressional maps, the real problem is how representation is determined. The popular vote in each congressional district determines its winner, but the way the population of each state is dissected into discrete districts partitions the popular vote across each state. Since each district seat is represented by a winner-take-all vote, the design of each state's congressional map effectively determines how its voters are represented in Congress. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Its nine congressional seats are all represented by Democrats. In the 2024 election, five of the seats were uncontested. Among the four contested races, the closest margin of victory was 13 percent. Yet in the presidential race, 36 percent of the votes cast were for Donald Trump, the same percentage that voted for the Republican candidates in the four contested seats. This begs the question: Should these 36 percent of voters have some GOP representation? A similar situation occurred in Oklahoma, with all five of its congressional seats held by Republications, even though 32 percent of the votes cast were for Kamala Harris. Given that computational redistricting can draw House maps that are either maximally gerrymandered, provide sensible voter representation, or anything in between, there is no need for maps to be drawn by redistricting commissions, whether they are independent or made up of partisan legislators. The necessary mapping criteria specified by state laws can now be incorporated into mapping algorithms. Examples of such criteria include compactness of districts or preserving communities of interest. The only role for redistricting commissions is to specify the desired bias of the map. Gerrymandered maps demonstrate that we no longer have representation of the people but of the parties, making Congress a de facto House of Mis-Representatives. At the core, the problem is how members of the House are elected, and indirectly, the Electoral College. As long as voter preferences are packed into discrete ongressional district seats, the current gerrymandering wars will continue to discount and ignore voters. In fact, Trump told a group in 2024 during his campaign that they would not need to vote again if he were elected. Despite not knowing precisely what he had in mind, he may indeed be correct, given that representation of voters is mostly predetermined. Is there a solution? Continue to hold elections with congressional districts. However, the number of seats won by each party should be allocated by each party's state popular vote. Then the top vote getters, either in absolute number or in percentage of votes won, across all the districts from each party are assigned seats, up to the number of seats won by the party. This means that all the representatives in each state would be at-large, representing all the people of the state. A formula for rounding would be needed to determine which party gets the partial seat fraction, much like how congressional apportionment is used after each census to determine the number of House seats in each state. With such a system, in Massachusetts, Republicans would have won two congressional seats and Democrats would have won seven. In Oklahoma, Republicans would have won four seats and Democrats would have won one. Such a process would neutralize the impact of gerrymandering, since each state's haul of seats would be determined by the state popular vote, giving every eligible voter the added incentive to cast their vote. The net effect of such a system would likely not yield a difference in the overall number of House seats held by each party. It would, however, redistribute party representation across all 50 states. Most importantly, it would neutralize the benefits of gerrymandering to the parties, since each state's popular vote would determine representation. —Such a new system would require a change in the Constitution something that is highly unlikely in this vitriolic political environment. Yet without such a change, gerrymandering will continue to erode the influence of voters and elevate the power of parties. Texas's actions to redraw their congressional map midterm has unleashed a war on democracy. More accurately, it has taken gerrymander politics to unprecedented levels. The final outcome will be less voter representation and more partisan party politics. What the Texas 'seat steal' effort demonstrates is that, in the eyes of parties, voters are no longer relevant. Every voter in the 2026 midterm elections who is disgusted with such disrespect should write in an unnamed candidate, 'Other' — if such a name won a seat, it will send a strong message that gerrymandering is no longer acceptable, that the current toxic mapping system is shattered beyond repair, and a new model for earning representation is needed. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He is the founder of the .


Axios
6 minutes ago
- Axios
California Republicans sue to pause Newsom's redistricting effort
California Republicans asked the state Supreme Court to pause Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) redistricting legislation to give the public time to review the proposal. Why it matters: The Monday lawsuit escalates the nationwide partisan redistricting battle, kicked off by President Trump pushing for redistricting in Texas. Newsom's office did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Driving the news: The lawsuit argues that the legislation's timeline undermines the state constitution's 30-day rule for public review. "Instead of a months-long transparent and participatory process overseen by an independent citizens redistricting commission for such a sensitive matter, the public would be presented with an up or down vote on maps unilaterally prepared in secret by the Legislature," the lawsuit said. The legislators are represented by Dhillon Law Group, a conservative law firm. State of play: Democratic lawmakers planned to pass a package of bills in the "Election Rigging Response Act" on Thursday, ahead of a Nov. 4 special election. The lawsuit argues that the legislature can't act on the bills until Sept. 18.