Florida’s 2023 Tort Reform: What It Means for Your Personal Injury Case

On March 24, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 837 into law, enacting the most significant overhaul of Florida’s civil litigation system in decades. The legislation changed how personal injury cases are filed, how fault is assigned, how damages are calculated, and how insurance companies respond to claims.

If you were injured in Florida after March 24, 2023, these changes apply to your case. If you were injured before that date, the prior law generally governs. Understanding the difference is not optional. Several of the changes directly affect your rights as an injured person, the leverage you have in settlement negotiations, and the deadline by which you must act. This article explains each major change in plain terms, what it means for real cases involving car accidents, slip and falls, workers’ compensation, medical malpractice, and other injury claims, and what steps injured Floridians should take in response.

At a Glance: What HB 837 Changed

Area of Law	Before March 24, 2023	After March 24, 2023
Statute of Limitations	4 years for negligence claims	2 years for negligence claims
Comparative Fault Standard	Pure comparative negligence (any fault = some recovery)	Modified comparative negligence (over 50% fault = no recovery)
Medical Damages Evidence	Full amount billed admissible	Limited to amount actually paid or adjusted rate
Letters of Protection	Generally protected from disclosure	Must be disclosed; financial relationships admissible
Bad Faith Insurance Claims	Negligence sufficient to establish bad faith	Higher standard required; 90-day safe harbor for insurers
One-Way Attorney Fees	Available to successful claimants against insurers under Fla. Stat. 627.428	Largely repealed for most insurance disputes
Negligent Security / Multifamily Housing	Standard premises liability analysis	Presumption against liability for compliant property owners
Medical Malpractice Fault	Modified comparative negligence already applied	Unchanged; pure comparative negligence still applies

Change 1: The Statute of Limitations Is Now Two Years

Before HB 837, Florida gave injured people four years from the date of injury to file a negligence lawsuit under Florida Statute 95.11. House Bill 837 cut that window in half. For causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023, the statute of limitations for general negligence is now two years.

This change affects car accidents, slip and fall claims, dog bites, trucking accidents, and virtually every other personal injury claim that is not governed by a specific statute. Medical malpractice has its own limitations period and was not changed by HB 837.

Why Two Years Is a Shorter Window Than It Sounds

Two years feels like adequate time until you factor in what actually has to happen before a lawsuit is filed. After a serious injury, months are often consumed by medical treatment, recovery, and the simple reality of putting a life back together. Add to that the time needed to gather evidence, obtain medical records, retain experts, evaluate the full extent of the damages, and negotiate with the insurance company, and the two-year window can close faster than most people expect.

For medical malpractice specifically, the mandatory pre-suit investigation process under Florida Statute 766.106, which requires a corroborating medical expert opinion and a formal Notice of Intent before a lawsuit can even be filed, takes months on its own. That time counts against the limitations period.

The most important practical consequence of the shortened statute of limitations is that injured Floridians who wait to consult an attorney may find their options severely limited or eliminated entirely. The time to act is immediately after the injury, not when the insurance company stops returning calls or makes an offer that feels low.

What About Injuries Before March 24, 2023?

The four-year statute of limitations continues to apply to causes of action that accrued before the effective date of HB 837. If you were injured before March 24, 2023, the prior law governs your deadline. However, that four-year window from early 2023 has already closed for most pre-reform injuries. If you have not yet consulted an attorney about a pre-reform injury, do so immediately to determine whether your claim is still viable.

Change 2: Modified Comparative Fault Replaces Pure Comparative Negligence

This is the change with the most direct impact on the largest number of Florida personal injury cases, and it is the one insurance companies are exploiting most aggressively.

Before HB 837, Florida followed pure comparative negligence. Under that system, an injured person could recover damages even if they were primarily at fault for the accident. A plaintiff who was found 80 percent at fault could still recover 20 percent of their damages from the defendant. The recovery was reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault, but it was never eliminated.

House Bill 837 replaced pure comparative negligence with modified comparative negligence for most negligence claims under Florida Statute 768.81. Under the new standard, a plaintiff who is found to be more than 50 percent at fault for their own injuries cannot recover anything from any defendant, regardless of how serious the injuries are or how significant the defendant’s contribution to the accident was.

How This Plays Out in Real Cases

Car accidents: A driver who is found 55 percent at fault for a crash recovers nothing under the new system, even if the other driver was 45 percent responsible. Under the prior law, that same driver would have recovered 45 percent of their damages.

Slip and falls: A property visitor who is found to be more than half responsible for their own fall, perhaps because they ignored a visible hazard, recovers nothing. Under the old law, their recovery would have been reduced but not eliminated.

Motorcycle accidents: A motorcyclist found to be 51 percent at fault for a collision is completely barred from recovery, even if the other driver ran a red light.

Insurance companies know that under modified comparative negligence, pushing a plaintiff’s fault above 50 percent is worth far more than it was before. A finding of 51 percent fault used to mean a roughly 50 percent reduction in damages. Now it means a 100 percent reduction. This has made fault allocation the central battlefield in Florida personal injury litigation.

The Medical Malpractice Exception

HB 837 did not change the comparative fault standard for medical malpractice cases. Medical negligence actions continue to apply pure comparative negligence under Florida Statute 766.09, meaning a malpractice plaintiff can recover even if found partially at fault for their own harm. This is one of the few areas where the pre-reform law was preserved in full.

What This Means for How You Handle Your Claim

The shift to modified comparative negligence makes the actions you take after an accident more consequential than ever. Statements made to insurance adjusters, failure to follow medical advice, gaps in treatment, and social media posts can all be used to build a case that the injured person bears the majority of responsibility for what happened. Working with an attorney from the beginning of the claim, before any recorded statements are given and before any documents are signed, is no longer optional if you want to protect your right to recover.

Change 3: Medical Damages Are Now Calculated Differently

Florida Statute 768.0427, created by HB 837, established new rules for how medical damages are presented to a jury in personal injury and wrongful death cases. This change affects what injured people can recover for their medical expenses and how those expenses are evaluated by insurers during settlement negotiations.

The Old System: Billed Amounts

Before HB 837, the full amount billed by a medical provider was generally admissible evidence of the plaintiff’s medical damages. When a hospital billed $80,000 for a procedure that the patient’s health insurer paid $22,000 to satisfy, the jury could hear the $80,000 figure. This billed-versus-paid gap, often called the collateral source rule, was a significant component of how personal injury damages were calculated.

The New System: Paid Amounts

Under Florida Statute 768.0427, evidence of past medical expenses is now generally limited to the amount actually paid to satisfy the medical bill, regardless of the source of payment. The original billed amount is no longer admissible if the bill has been paid or adjusted.

The specific cap depends on the patient’s insurance status:

• For patients covered by private health insurance, the admissible amount is the amount the insurer actually paid or is obligated to pay
• For patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid, the admissible amount is the amount actually paid under those programs
• For uninsured patients or those without applicable coverage, the admissible amount is capped at 120 percent of the Medicare allowable reimbursement rate for the same service

The practical effect is a significant reduction in the apparent value of medical expense claims at trial. A case that previously supported $200,000 in medical damages based on billed amounts may now support $60,000 based on paid amounts. This reduction flows through to settlement negotiations, since both sides use anticipated trial value to evaluate what a case is worth.

Future Medical Expenses

The new statute also affects evidence of future medical expenses, though with somewhat more flexibility since future bills by definition have not yet been billed or paid. Expert testimony on future medical costs must still comply with the framework of Section 768.0427, and the same insurance-status-based caps apply to the extent they are determinable. Projecting future medical damages now requires more detailed expert analysis and documentation of the anticipated course of treatment.

Change 4: Letters of Protection Must Now Be Disclosed

A letter of protection is an agreement between an injured person’s attorney and a medical provider under which the provider treats the patient and agrees to defer collection of payment until the personal injury case resolves, at which point the provider is paid from the settlement or judgment proceeds.

Letters of protection are commonly used when an injured person has no health insurance or when the treating provider is not in-network. They allow injured people to access medical treatment they could not otherwise afford while their case is pending.

Before HB 837, the existence of a letter of protection and the identity of who referred the patient to the treating provider were generally protected by attorney-client privilege. Under the new Section 768.0427, both must now be disclosed. Specifically:

• Whether the injured person received treatment under a letter of protection must be disclosed
• If the referral for treatment was made by the plaintiff’s attorney, the identity of the referring attorney is admissible at trial
• The financial relationship between the law firm and the treating provider is now discoverable and admissible to show potential bias

The purpose of this change from the defense perspective is to allow insurers and defense attorneys to argue to the jury that the treating physician has a financial incentive to produce findings favorable to the plaintiff because of the referral relationship and the deferred payment arrangement. Injured people using letters of protection need to be aware that this aspect of their case will be visible to the other side and to the jury, and that their attorney will need to address it directly in trial preparation.

Change 5: Bad Faith Insurance Claims Are Now Harder to Bring

Florida’s bad faith insurance statute, Florida Statute 624.155, previously allowed injured people and policyholders to bring a separate lawsuit against an insurer who acted in bad faith in handling a claim, for example by unreasonably denying a valid claim, failing to settle a case within policy limits when it was clear the verdict would exceed limits, or engaging in dilatory tactics to avoid payment.

HB 837 made two significant changes to this framework.

Higher Standard to Establish Bad Faith

Under the new law, mere negligence by an insurer is no longer sufficient to establish bad faith. A higher standard of conduct is now required. This makes it more difficult to bring a successful bad faith claim and reduces the leverage that the threat of bad faith litigation previously gave injured people during settlement negotiations.

The 90-Day Safe Harbor

HB 837 created a safe harbor provision under which an insurer can avoid bad faith liability entirely if it tenders the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded by the claimant within 90 days of receiving actual notice of a claim accompanied by sufficient evidence to support its amount. This provision encourages earlier settlement but also gives insurers a clear pathway to insulate themselves from excess exposure, regardless of how the claim is ultimately resolved.

The practical effect is that the bad faith framework, which previously served as a significant equalizer between injured people and deep-pocketed insurers, now provides meaningfully less protection. Insurers who move quickly and offer policy limits early are largely immunized from consequences, even in cases where the full value of the claim substantially exceeds those limits.

Change 6: One-Way Attorney Fees Are Largely Eliminated

Before HB 837, Florida Statute 627.428 provided that when a claimant successfully sued an insurance company, the insurer was required to pay the claimant’s attorney fees. This one-way fee-shifting provision served two purposes: it incentivized attorneys to take on meritorious claims against insurers, and it deterred insurers from wrongfully denying or delaying payment because a loss at trial would cost them not only the claim amount but also the claimant’s legal fees.

HB 837 repealed Florida Statute 627.428 and Florida Statute 629.9373 for most types of insurance litigation. The one-way fee provision is now largely gone for personal injury protection disputes, liability claims, and most other insurance coverage matters.

The consequence is that the financial calculus for attorneys taking on insurance disputes has changed. Cases that were economically viable under the old fee-shifting framework may not be under the new one. This does not mean injured people cannot find attorneys to represent them, but it does change the economics of smaller insurance disputes and raises the importance of selecting an attorney who understands how to litigate efficiently under the new framework.

Change 7: Negligent Security Claims Against Multifamily Properties

HB 837 made specific changes to premises liability law as it applies to negligent security claims, meaning claims that a property owner failed to provide adequate security and that failure allowed a criminal to harm someone on the property.

For owners of multifamily residential properties, the new law creates a presumption against liability if the property owner has implemented certain specified security measures. These include working locks on doors and windows, adequate lighting in common areas, and other measures defined in the statute. A property owner who meets these requirements is presumed not to be liable for harm caused by criminal acts on the property.

Importantly, the new law also allows apportionment of fault to the criminal actor. Under prior law, the difficulty of apportioning fault to an unidentified or uncollectable third-party criminal limited the defense available to property owners. The new framework allows the jury to assign a percentage of fault to the criminal, which reduces the percentage attributable to the property owner and can significantly reduce or eliminate the owner’s liability.

Negligent security cases arising from apartment complex assaults, parking garage attacks, and similar incidents are among the most substantially affected case types under HB 837. Victims of criminal acts on commercial or residential property should consult an attorney immediately to evaluate how the new presumptions and apportionment rules affect their specific claim.

Which Practice Areas Are Most Affected?

Car Accidents

The modified comparative fault change is the single most significant development for car accident cases. Insurance adjusters are trained to find and document evidence of plaintiff fault and push that percentage above 50 percent. The two-year statute of limitations adds urgency. The medical damages cap reduces apparent case value and puts downward pressure on settlements. Every aspect of a car accident claim is affected.

Slip and Fall and Premises Liability

Premises liability cases were already challenging under the pre-reform notice requirement of Florida Statute 768.0755. Modified comparative negligence adds another layer by making it easier for property owners to shift enough fault to the injured person to eliminate recovery entirely. A shopper who tripped over merchandise in an aisle who is found 51 percent responsible for not watching where they were walking recovers nothing.

Medical Malpractice

The comparative fault standard was not changed for malpractice. However, the two-year statute of limitations (which already applied to malpractice through the separate provisions of Florida Statute 95.11(4)(b)), the medical damages caps under Section 768.0427, and the letter of protection disclosure requirements all apply to malpractice cases and affect how they are litigated and valued.

Workers’ Compensation

Florida’s workers’ compensation system operates under Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which is a separate statutory scheme from the tort law changed by HB 837. The modified comparative fault standard, the two-year statute of limitations for negligence, and most of the other changes in HB 837 do not directly apply to workers’ compensation claims, which are governed by their own rules. However, for workers who have third-party negligence claims alongside their workers’ compensation claims, for example a construction worker injured by a subcontractor’s negligence, the tort reform changes apply to the third-party civil claim. Injured workers with both types of claims need attorneys who understand both systems.

Trucking Accidents

Truck accident cases are among the most document-intensive and liability-rich personal injury cases in Florida. The modified comparative fault change creates strong incentives for trucking defense teams to build fault arguments against the plaintiff. Combined with the existing challenge of evidence that disappears within hours of a crash, the stakes of delayed legal representation in trucking cases are higher under the new law than they were before.

What Injured Floridians Should Do Differently Because of HB 837

The practical response to these changes is not complicated, but it requires acting faster and more deliberately than the pre-reform environment demanded.

Contact an Attorney Immediately After an Injury

The two-year statute of limitations, combined with the time required to investigate, document, and prepare a claim, means there is no such thing as too soon to consult a personal injury attorney after an injury in Florida. Many of the evidence preservation steps that protect a claim, including preservation demands, early witness interviews, and scene documentation, must happen in the days and weeks after the injury, not months later.

Do Not Give Recorded Statements to Insurance Adjusters

The modified comparative fault standard has made recorded statements even more dangerous than they were before. A casual statement minimizing your injuries, acknowledging any inattention, or conceding any element of fault is now potentially worth far more to the insurer than it was under the pure comparative negligence system, because those statements can be used to push your fault percentage above 50 percent and eliminate your recovery entirely.

Follow All Medical Advice and Do Not Gap in Treatment

Gaps in medical treatment give insurers grounds to argue that the injury was not serious, that the plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages, or that the plaintiff’s own choices contributed to a poor outcome. Under the modified fault system, any of these arguments can be used to push a plaintiff’s share of responsibility upward. Consistent, documented medical treatment is not just good for your health. It is essential to your claim.

Document Everything

Photographs of the scene and your injuries, witness contact information gathered at the scene, contemporaneous notes about what happened and how you feel, and records of every expense and lost work day are all more important under the post-reform framework. The medical damages cap means the economic story of your case must be told completely and accurately, without relying on inflated billing figures to carry the number.

Understand That Settlement Negotiations Have Changed

The removal of the one-way attorney fee provision and the 90-day bad faith safe harbor have shifted the leverage in settlement negotiations. Insurers who tender policy limits quickly are largely protected from bad faith exposure. Plaintiffs who do not respond appropriately to settlement offers face the possibility of cost-shifting under Florida’s offer of judgment statute. The negotiation environment is more adversarial in some ways and more formulaic in others. Having experienced counsel who understands the new dynamics is essential.

Graves Law Can Help

HB 837 changed the rules of personal injury litigation in Florida in ways that favor insurance companies and create real obstacles for injured people who do not understand the new landscape. At Graves Law, we handle personal injury, workers’ compensation, medical malpractice, trucking accidents, and premises liability cases throughout Central Florida and across the state under the post-reform framework.

We understand how the modified comparative fault system changes case strategy, how the medical damages caps affect settlement negotiations, and how the shortened statute of limitations requires faster, more deliberate action. We fight for the full compensation our clients deserve under the law as it actually exists today.

If you were injured in Florida after March 24, 2023, contact us for a free consultation. The changes to Florida law make experienced legal counsel more important than ever.

Call or text: (407) 308-0327

Free consultations. No fee unless we win.