Sovereign immunity caps lowered in bill's last stop before House debate

Yahoo

08-04-2025

Rep. Fiona McFarland debating her sovereign immunity bill on April 8, 2025, in the House Judiciary Committee. (Photo via the Florida Channel)
A highly contentious battle over how much money people injured by the government can collect in lawsuits continues to play out in the Florida Legislature.
A bill (HB 301) dealing with the state's sovereign immunity limits advanced out of its final committee stop in the House with three 'no' votes but not before the House Judiciary Committee tagged on an amendment that significantly limits the amounts of recoverable damages planned and phases them in over five years.
Under the amended bill, the sovereign immunity limits would be increased to $500,000 per person and $1 million per incident for claims accruing on or after Oct. 1, 2025. The caps increase to $600,000 per person and $1.1 million per occurrence for claims that accrue on or after Oct. 1, 2030.
The existing sovereign immunity caps are set at $200,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence and were last altered in 2010. The original bill would have increased the caps to $1 million per person and $3 million per occurrence.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Bill sponsor Rep. Fiona McFarland offered the amendment as the Legislature enters the second half of its 60-day regular legislative session. The Senate has yet to consider the companion bill. McFarland said the Senate has not agreed to her amendment.
I don't have a perfect solution. I just have an improvement on our current state.
– Rep. Fiona McFarland
McFarland's call to lower the caps swayed at least one member of the committee Tuesday to vote for the bill: Rep. Rachel Plakon, who thanked McFarland 'for working with both sides of this issue.'
But others lamented the caps being lowered. 'Why don't we just leave it at this: I'm sad to see that you felt pressure that you had to reduce the amount, especially in modern times, to make this pass. I'm sorry,' Rep. Danny Alvarez said during committee debate on the bill.
McFarland's amendment didn't alter other provisions meant to change how the sovereign immunity process works. The bill still has language allowing political subdivisions to settle cases beyond the sovereign immunity limits without having to obtain legislative approval. It also prohibits insurance companies from conditioning payment of settlements on enactment of claims bills.
Sovereign immunity affects a large swath of special interests, from schools, cities, counties, public hospitals, police, and firefighters and people injured by those entities. Not surprisingly, the bill attracted 203 lobbyist registrations and is the most tracked bill among LobbyTools subscribers.
Sovereign immunity stems from the Latin phrase 'rex non potest peccare,' which translates to 'the king cannot commit a legal wrong.' In legal terms, it refers to the state's authority to exempt itself as a legal sovereign from civil lawsuits, although the state does allow negligence claims against itself and its subdivisions — agencies, cities, counties, and public hospitals — within limits.
Injured parties can sue for damages and collect within the liability thresholds established by law, but if they win awards in excess of the limits they must go to the Legislature in the form of what's called a claims bill to collect. But the claims bill process is lengthy. It also allows the defendant to challenge the jury verdict at the legislative level.
Once a claims bill is filed, each chamber's presiding officer refers it to a special master, who essentially reconsiders the jury's recommendation. Claims bills also go before House and Senate committees that consider special masters' recommendations. Ultimately, the bills must pass in both chambers. It's not unusual for claims bills to take years to pass, if ever.
'We do have concerns with the provision of the bill that would not allow an insurance company to require a claims bill to be passed, and for a claims bill not to be required in certain circumstances,' Florida League of Cities Deputy General Counsel David Cruz said, opposing the bill during public debate. 'We feel there's value in the claims bill process, and so we would encourage the Legislature to continue the claims bill process.'
Cruz said McFarland's amendment to lower the limits 'put the bill in a better direction' but added, 'We are concerned that the caps have to be placed at the right limit.'
City of Belleair Bluffs Commissioner Karen Rafferty argued the limits should be increased to $300,000 per individual and $500,000 per incident. From there, the caps could be lifted every two to three years by the consumer price index (CPI).
McFarland in her closing testimony said she doesn't know the 'right number' for the sovereign immunity limits or even that the limits agreed to in 2010 were right.
'I don't know what the right number ultimately is. Perhaps we'll continue to negotiate it in the chamber and with our partners across the rotunda and get to some amount that we can all feel okay about,' she said.
McFarland then doubled down on the changes to the sovereign immunity process.
'We can do numbers all day. We are the appropriators. We understand how to do state budgets. But we don't as a body understand how to dispose of judicial matters, and that's what the claims bill process asks us to. I don't have a perfect solution. I just have an improvement on our current state.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE