On March 24, 2023, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 837 into law, enacting the most sweeping overhaul of Florida’s personal injury system in decades. The insurance industry backed the legislation, calling it a necessary correction to a system plagued by excessive litigation and inflated damage awards. For accident victims, the changes created tighter deadlines, stricter fault rules, and new limitations on recoverable damages.
More than three years later, the effects of HB 837 are playing out in courtrooms and insurance offices across Florida. If you have been injured in an accident after March 24, 2023, these reforms directly affect your ability to recover compensation. Understanding what changed, and what it means for your case, is critical.
The Statute of Limitations Was Cut in Half
Before HB 837, Florida gave personal injury victims four years from the date of an accident to file a lawsuit. The new law cut that deadline to just two years for all negligence-based claims accruing on or after March 24, 2023.
This change affects virtually every type of personal injury case: car accidents, slip and falls, product liability claims, and other negligence actions. If you were injured before the law took effect, the old four-year deadline may still apply to your case. But for any accident occurring after that date, two years is the hard limit.
Two years sounds like plenty of time until you consider what happens after a serious accident. You spend weeks or months recovering and attending medical appointments. You deal with insurance adjusters who are in no rush to resolve your claim. You wait for your doctor to reach maximum medical improvement so the full scope of your injuries can be assessed. Insurance companies know the clock is ticking, and some use delay tactics to push claimants closer to the deadline. Consulting with an attorney early protects you from running out of time. For more on this deadline, see our guide to Florida’s personal injury statute of limitations.
Florida Shifted to Modified Comparative Negligence
This is arguably the most consequential change HB 837 made. Before the reform, Florida followed a pure comparative negligence system. Under that framework, an injured person could recover damages even if they were mostly at fault. If you were 80% responsible for an accident, you could still recover 20% of your damages from the other party.
HB 837 replaced that system with modified comparative negligence. Now, if you are found to be more than 50% at fault for your accident, you are completely barred from recovering any compensation. Zero. Even if the other party was 49% responsible and you suffered catastrophic injuries, the new rule would prevent you from collecting a single dollar if a jury puts your share of fault at 51% or higher.
This change gives insurance companies a powerful weapon. In the years since HB 837 took effect, adjusters have become more aggressive in arguing that claimants share the majority of fault. A statement at the accident scene like “I didn’t see you coming” or “I should have been paying more attention” can be used to build a comparative negligence defense that wipes out your entire claim.
The practical takeaway: do not admit fault at the scene of an accident, do not speculate about what happened when speaking with insurance adjusters, and hire an attorney who understands how to counter these arguments with evidence. Knowing what steps to take after a Florida car accident is more important now than it was before the reform.
Medical Damages Evidence Rules Changed
HB 837 altered how medical expenses are presented as evidence in personal injury trials. Under the old rules, plaintiffs could introduce the full billed amount of their medical treatment as evidence of damages. Hospital bills in the United States are often significantly higher than the amounts insurance companies actually pay, so the billed amount frequently painted a more complete picture of the seriousness of the treatment.
Under the new law, evidence of past medical treatment is limited to the amount actually paid, regardless of the payment source. For future medical expenses, evidence is limited to the amount that would be covered by the plaintiff’s existing health insurance, plus out-of-pocket costs. If you have health insurance that negotiated a lower rate with your medical providers, the jury will see that lower number rather than the full retail price of your care.
The result is that the dollar value of medical damages presented at trial is often lower under HB 837 than it would have been before the reform. This can reduce overall settlement and verdict amounts, particularly in cases where medical bills are a major component of the claim. Working with an attorney who understands how to document and present medical damages under the new rules is essential to protecting the value of your case.
Letters of Protection Face New Scrutiny
A Letter of Protection (LOP) is an agreement between an injury victim and a medical provider. The provider agrees to treat the patient and defer payment until the personal injury case is resolved, at which point the provider is paid from the settlement or verdict. LOPs are common in Florida because many accident victims cannot afford ongoing medical treatment while their cases are pending, and PIP coverage runs out quickly at the $10,000 cap.
HB 837 imposed new disclosure requirements on LOPs. Plaintiffs must now disclose the existence of any LOP arrangements, and defense attorneys can use this information to suggest that the medical treatment was motivated by the litigation rather than genuine medical need. The law also requires disclosure of any referral relationships between attorneys and medical providers.
While LOPs remain a legitimate and often necessary tool for ensuring injured people receive medical care, the new rules mean they can be used against you at trial. An experienced attorney will know how to structure LOP arrangements and present medical evidence in a way that minimizes this risk.
Bad Faith Insurance Claims Became Harder to Prove
Before HB 837, Florida had some of the most plaintiff-friendly bad faith insurance laws in the country. If an insurance company handled your claim in bad faith (for example, by unreasonably delaying or denying a valid claim), you could pursue a separate bad faith action for damages beyond your policy limits.
The new law raised the bar for proving bad faith. Under HB 837, mere negligence in handling a claim is no longer enough to establish bad faith. The law also created a 90-day safe harbor period, during which an insurer can tender policy limits after receiving notice of a claim without facing bad faith liability. These changes make it harder for accident victims to hold insurance companies accountable for unreasonable claim-handling practices.
One-Way Attorney Fees Were Largely Eliminated
Before HB 837, Florida law allowed policyholders who successfully sued their insurance companies to recover their attorney fees from the insurer. This “one-way” fee structure gave individual claimants leverage against well-resourced insurance companies, because the insurer faced the risk of paying not only the claim but also the claimant’s legal costs.
HB 837 repealed most of these one-way attorney fee provisions. Now, in most disputes between policyholders and insurance companies, each side pays its own attorney fees regardless of the outcome. This change primarily affects first-party insurance claims (disputes with your own insurer) rather than third-party personal injury lawsuits against another driver. But it can still affect the overall economics of pursuing certain types of claims.
Premises Liability Protections for Property Owners
HB 837 created a new presumption against liability for owners and operators of multifamily residential properties (such as apartment complexes) when criminal acts by third parties cause injuries on the property. If the property owner can show they implemented certain security measures, including adequate lighting, deadbolt locks, window locks, and pool fencing, they receive a presumption that they are not liable for criminal acts that occur on the premises.
This change makes it harder for victims of crimes at apartment complexes, condominiums, and similar properties to hold property owners responsible for inadequate security. It does not eliminate premises liability claims entirely, but it shifts the burden to the plaintiff to overcome the presumption by showing that the security measures were either insufficient or improperly maintained.
What These Changes Mean for Your Case
The cumulative effect of HB 837 is significant. Accident victims have less time to file, face a higher risk of losing their entire claim if fault is disputed, may see lower medical damage values at trial, and have fewer tools to hold insurance companies accountable for bad faith behavior.
None of this means you cannot recover fair compensation for your injuries. It does mean that the margin for error is smaller, and the consequences of common mistakes are more severe. Prompt action, thorough documentation, and experienced legal representation matter more under the new rules than they did before.
If you have questions about how Florida’s tort reform affects your injury case, the attorneys at Ilabaca Law, PLLC can evaluate your claim and explain your options. Call (407) 917-2087 or schedule a free consultation online. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information about Florida tort reform legislation and does not constitute legal advice. The application of HB 837 depends on the specific facts and timing of each case. Consult with a qualified attorney to discuss your situation.