THE FLORIDA JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
2022 FJA Issues Book
www.myfja.org
P R O V I D I N G
J U S T I C E
F O R
A L L
Table of Contents FLORIDA JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
1
Our Mission The Florida Justice Association (FJA), formerly the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers (AFTL), is dedicated to strengthening and upholding Florida’s civil justice system and protecting the rights of Florida’s citizens and consumers. We passionately believe that all Floridians benefit when deserving individuals have a fair chance to seek justice in our state’s courts and that Florida’s consumers are made safer when large corporations and industries are held to a high ethical standard and accept fair responsibility for their actions.
2 3 4 5 6
FJA works in the legislative, political and public arenas to ensure that Floridians know and understand the importance of their rights and to make certain that these rights, which are at the very core of what it means to be American, are safeguarded and protected.
“
Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existing rights of nature. James Madison
”
7 8 9
Responsibility-Based Auto Insurance Reform
03
• Trucking
Defending Seniors (Nursing Home Immunity)
07
Defending Consumers and Businesses - Insurer Responsibility
09
Through Bad Faith Protections
Limitations on Medical Damages: A Lack of “Truth” in Damages
11
Defending Florida’s Property Owners (Property Insurance)
13
Government Accountability
17
• Increase Caps
• Construction Law revisions - Surfside
Defending Access to Justice (Attorney Fee Multiplier)
19
Defending Workers, Supporting Employers
21
Justice for All
23
SECTION 1
RESPONSIBILITY-BASED ROADWAYS (Mandatory Bodily Injury Liability Auto Insurance) With nearly 1 in 4 drivers uninsured, Florida constantly ranks among the states with the highest rates of uninsured drivers in the country. Additionally, Floridians pay 81% more than the national average for auto insurance. Florida is one of only two states in the nation that do not require drivers to carry liability insurance for injuries they cause to others. Because of this, Florida is far behind the rest of the country when it comes to protecting its citizens from staggering economic losses and higher insurance costs for all drivers - meaning we all pay higher auto insurance rates! We need a return to responsible roadways in Florida. Lawmakers can pass legislation allowing the state to join the 48 other states that require all motorists to have a reasonable amount of bodily injury liability insurance, marking a return to
FLORIDA ROADWAYS Florida is one of only two states in the nation that do not require drivers to carry liability insurance for injuries they cause to others.
responsible roadways in Florida. In Florida, current law only requires car owners to carry $10,000 in “Personal Injury Protection” coverage (PIP) and $10,000 in property damage liability insurance. These are among the worst and lowest financial responsibility requirements in the country. Currently, there is no requirement that drivers carry the kind of responsibility-based liability insurance that can protect drivers against the high-dollar value losses that can occur in moderate – let alone serious – car crashes. As a result of insufficient financial responsibility laws, Florida taxpayers lose millions of dollars to higher taxes every year, picking up the tab for the treatment and care of victims of negligent drivers who are either uninsured or, more commonly, underinsured.
The current policy of shifting costs from the responsible to the innocent is inconsistent policy. Florida should join the 48 other states that require all motorists to have a reasonable amount of bodily injury liability insurance. In fact, two out of three Floridians already carry responsibilitybased bodily injury liability auto coverage. As a result of our omission of bodily injury liability requirements, Floridians who want “full coverage” need to buy “uninsured motorist” insurance coverage.
A Responsible Approach
Only 2 States Do NOT require personal responsibility insurance for all drivers
Eliminating Florida’s inefficient, no-fault/PIP system and replacing it with a responsibility-based system that holds bad drivers financially accountable for the crashes they cause would put Florida in line with 48 other states. This includes blocking any legislative provisions that would weaken the law and create avenues for insurance companies to act in bad faith. Good legislation reforming the state’s auto insurance requirements would mark a return to responsible roadways in Florida and lower the cost of car insurance.
Current law only requires $10,000 in PIP Coverage
Florida Auto Rates are the
3rd Highest
FJA supports legislation that repeals PIP and replaces it with mandatory bodily injury insurance coverage with policy limits of at least $25,000 per person/$50,000 per incident and considering options such as recurring coverage for emergency medical care.
in the U.S with a premium almost 50% higher than the national average.
Florida Justice Association
4
SECTION 1A
TRUCKING LIABILITY The Truth About Trucking Insurance America’s highways have become deadlier. The number of people injured in large truck crashes has more than doubled over the last 10 years, while fatalities increased 43%. While trucking has become more dangerous for others on the road, the federal minimum insurance requirement for trucking companies has not been raised since 1980, and does not match inflation or rising medical costs. A fatal truck crash costs about $4.9 million in direct costs, but Florida law only requires carriers to carry $300,000 per occurrence. Currently, insurance is so cheap—because minimum levels are so low—that there is no economic incentive to improve safety. Raising insurance minimums is necessary to ensure justice for those injured or killed in trucking crashes and is an economic incentive for trucking companies to operate safely. In 2019 trucking insurance premiums industry-wide dropped 19% from a spike in 2018. Per mile premiums costs have not been this low since 2013. As a whole, the trucking industry’s costs dropped 9.3% in 2019. Likely due to the large year-over-year drop in premium costs, the total percentage the premiums contributed to the total average marginal costs of trucking dropped from 5% to 4 %. Premiums have not made up more than 5% of the total costs for trucking in any year that the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) has performed the Operational Cost Survey, since 2008. A much-publicized report by ATRI has been used by the industry to support claims that so-called “nuclear verdicts” are driving up insurance costs. However, there is no data to prove any correlation between verdicts and insurance costs. In fact, the report repeatedly cites low numbers of cases in the early years followed by a dramatic increase. However, they only arrive at this by citing skewed data that excludes commercial vehicles like dump trucks, box truck, tow trucks and demonstrates the ATRI report relies on serious undercounting of verdicts in early years to inflate the number of verdicts in the latter years.
Fatalities
44% INCREASE1
REPORT:
“How the Cash Rich Insurance Companies Fake Crisis and Create Social Inflation” Before analyzing the insurance data in this area, it is worth examining the troubling safety record of the trucking industry. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG) told Congress there were so many large truck- and bus-related injuries and fatalities on U.S. roads that motor carrier’s safety had become “the number one public safety issue in the Department of Transportation.” 2018 marked the highest number of large-truck occupant fatalities since 1988. As of June 2019, fatalities in crashes involving large trucks or buses had grown from 4,455 in 2013 to 4,949 in 2018, an 11 percent increase. In 2017, there were 102,000 injury crashes involving large trucks, a 5 percent increase from the previous year and a 59 percent increase from a decade earlier. Of the nearly 5,000 people killed in these crashes each year, 82 percent of victims are not large-truck occupants.
Raising insurance minimums will not only better compensate crash victims but also allow insurance to function properly and provide an economic incentive for companies to operate safely.1
Injury Crashes 95.7% INCREASE1
3,619
5,244
93,000
182,000
2009
2019
2009
2019
The minimum levels of insurance were set in 1987, have not changed in 34 years, and are now completely inadequate.1
Property Damage Only Crashes 1
2x the number of truck crashes and fatalities over the last 10 years.1
2009 2019
287,000
65% INCREASE
474,000
It would be expected that insurance costs would increase with inflation, costs of medical care, replacement value of vehicles, and changes in the numbers of deaths and injuries attributed to trucks. None of this is borne out by the evidence, however, with total insurance costs from 2012-2019 increasing more than 7.3 % compared to doubledigit increases in several other factors that would be expected to drive insurance costs. The age, type, and value of a carrier’s equipment can affect the insurance premiums it would pay in any year. More expensive, technologically
Trucking insurance is decreasing in cost and makes up only around 4% of operating costs.1
advanced equipment would likely increase insurance costs as would an increase in the total number of trucks a carrier has. For that reason, it is noteworthy that average insurance costs rose 5.8% but the average marginal cost per mile for truck/trailer lease/purchase payments has increased 37% (from $.163 per mile to $.259). The number of deaths and injuries in crashes involving large trucks would be expected to drive up the costs of insurance. However, the rate of increase of deaths and injuries does not appear correlated to insurance costs.
FJA supports insurance minimums for all motor carriers increasing to reflect the much higher costs of devastating truck crashes compared to four decades ago. FJA opposes any legislation that would lessen the insurance requirements for trucking companies. 1 Source: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts-2019#A5
Florida Justice Association 6
SECTION 2
PROTECTING SENIORS
Though better than many states, Florida staffing requirements are still below the minimum staffing requirement determined necessary to provide the quality of care that Florida’s elderly deserve.
(Nursing Home Immunity)
According to the latest census data as of 2019, more than 20% of Florida’s population were over the age of 65. With a growing aging population and Florida being a popular retirement destination, it’s critical that the state protects these respected and vulnerable citizens.
The many problems residents can experience as a result of inadequate staffing include higher mortality rates; decreased physical functioning; increased antibiotic use; more pressure ulcers; catheterization; urinary tract infections; higher hospitalization rates; and more weight loss and dehydration.4
To defend Florida’s growing aging population, we have a responsibility to ensure that the state’s nursing homes and assisted living facilities are well-equipped, employ trained staff, maintain proper staffing levels and provide residents with the highest quality and safe care.
By supporting these proposed changes, lawmakers can help ensure that we uphold our responsibility to care for our state’s seniors with dignity.
Chronic understaffing has been a serious problem in nursing homes for decades and has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a recent study on the state of nursing home staffing standards, conducted by the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, while there are numerous factors contributing to this problem, one major cause is the lack of adequate minimum staffing standards at both the state and federal levels. Minimum standards ensure that staffing will not fall to a level that would be harmful to residents.1
In 2001, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a landmark report on staffing based on a study mandated by Congress. The report identified specific minimum staffing thresholds below which quality of care would be compromised.
Minimum Staffing Levels Protects Seniors
Licensed Nurses Recommended Daily Minimum Standards of Care:
The important relationship between nurse and nursing assistant staffing levels and outcomes of care has been well-documented. In fact, the Consumer Voice study cites a systematic review of 87 research articles and reports from 19752003 found that high total staffing levels, especially of licensed staff, were associated with higher quality of care in terms of resident outcomes, particularly functional ability, pressure ulcers, and weight loss.2 The federal government itself has acknowledged the relationship between care quality and staffing levels. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), “There is considerable evidence of a relationship between nursing home staffing levels and resident outcomes.” The CMS Staffing Study, among other research, found a clear association between nurse staffing ratios and nursing home quality of care.3
CNA’s
4.1 Hours
RN’s
20%
Florida is one of four states that exceed the recommended staffing level of .55 hours per resident day (hprd) for LPNs/LVNs, and the current requirement of 2.5 CAN/NA hprd exceeds the requirements of other states, but this level is still below the 2.8 hprd recommended for CNAs/NAs.
of Florida’s population is over the age of 65.
Disclose Litigation
Formal Pay Scale
The licensee seeking to transfer ownership of the nursing home will also be required to disclose pending litigation prior to the transfer.
Establish a formal pay scale that clearly outlines responsible parties in the event of litigation. If there is a transfer of ownership/ operator by the licensee, both parties must demonstrate the financial ability to pay any pending litigation on the claims.
Financial Responsibility
Documents for Trial
Punitive Damages
Nursing homes must also be able to demonstrate financial responsibility to pay potential claims for nursing home violations and litigation.
A pre-suit notice of documentation of damages and arbitrations is proposed to help submit necessary and important documents for trial.
Change the allocation of punitive damages. Currently, only 50% is awarded to the victims and their families, while the rest is transferred to a government trust fund.
Recommended Daily Minimum Standards of Care: • 4.1 hours of total direct care nursing time per resident: • 2.8 hours from certified nursing assistants; 0.75 hours from RNs; • 0.55 hours from licensed practical/vocational nurses.
FJA supports legislation that sets minimum amounts for statutorily required liability insurance of $2 million per claim and $4 million aggregate, and by prohibiting the policies from being drained for nursing homes’ litigation costs.
Research conducted for the report found that staffing levels falling below this minimum put nursing home residents at risk.
1. The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care. State Nursing Home Staffing Standards Summary Report. December 2021. 2. Bostick, J.E., Rantz, M.J., Flesner, M.K. and Riggs, C.J. (2006). Systematic review of studies of staffing and quality in nursing homes. J. Am Med Dir Assoc. 7:366-376. 3. Design for Nursing Home Compare Five-Star Quality Rating System: Technical Users’ Guide. October 2019. 4. Charlene Harrington et al: ”Experts Recommend Minimum Nurse Staffing Standards for Nursing Facilities in the U.S.” The Gerontologist (2000) 40 (1): 5-16.
Florida Justice Association 8
Bad Faith Protections Preserves Insurer Responsibility
N SECTION 3
DEFENDING CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSES Insurer Responsibility Through Bad Faith Protections Current Florida law requires that insurance companies treat their policyholders in good faith. This is because policyholders not only expect to rely upon insurance companies’ expertise, but they have to give complete decision making and control to the companies when facing claims.
N N N N
Bad faith laws protect consumers and businesses by ensuring when there is a claim, insurance companies investigate, evaluate, and communicate settlement offers to the customer.
Insurers must attempt to provide the services and expertise necessary to settle the case on behalf of the policyholder.
Bad faith laws ensure policyholders have all the information they need to responsibly settle claims.
Bad faith laws prevent insurers from simply choosing not to pay the policy limits and walking away in a large case with a multi-million-dollar judgment against the insured, resulting in the insured consumer having no remedy against their insurance company who acted in bad faith.
Bad faith laws ensure the duty of good faith is owed to the insured—the defendant in the case who is liable. The defendant picks his insurance company, but obviously can’t pick who the plaintiff’s lawyer will be. The duty owed by the insurance company to its insured should be the same, regardless of whether the plaintiff’s lawyer is considered cooperative or not.
“Bad faith” law creates accountability for insurers to uphold their fiduciary duty to policyholders so that consumers can have the confidence that insurance companies will act diligently and efficiently to settle claims. Bad faith accountability provides good consumer protections, as well as protections for businesses, who are often consumers of the biggest liability insurance policies.
FJA supports bad faith laws that protect consumers by holding insurance companies responsible and discouraging them from failing to properly pay valid claims.
Florida Justice Association 10
Calls for liability reform and medical damages limits are often touted by business special interests as “truth in damages.”
SECTION 4
LIMITATIONS ON MEDICAL DAMAGES
The reality is they are anything but; rather, they are deception in damages.
A Lack of “Truth” in Damages Insurance companies and retail special interests are seeking to place limits on medical costs associated with injuries their insureds or employees have caused. Their argument for limiting consumer litigation: Medical expenses drive up overall business costs and insurance premiums. However, limiting the amount of damages to individuals who have been injured as a result of negligence, deprives injured Floridians of their 7th amendment right to a trial by jury, and instead limits their recovery to arbitrary limits set by the Legislature, which has never heard their case or the extent of the damages an individual or their family has suffered. Such arbitrary limits disregard the jury’s role in determining damages after hearing all the evidence, and imposes a onesize-fits-all approach without regard to the facts of the case. We trust juries to decide when the government can take someone’s life, liberty, or land, we can certainly trust them to determine the appropriate measure of damages. What’s more, these proposals seek to block and delay the ability for injured victims and their families to move forward after an accident and would block families from seeking the medical attention they deserve to get healthy. When consumers are harmed by others, it is their right to hold the wrongdoers responsible. Caps on medical damages disregard the right to a jury of one’s peers to fully see the cost of medical care of someone who has been injured by another’s negligence. Such a prohibition would have the effect of creating potentially crippling medical debt to victims, through no fault of their own.
Big business special interests use various tactics to block victims’ ability to seek compensation, including: Creating a trial within the trial to determine medical rates and costs not relevant to that victim’s individual case; Presenting an access to care issue for injured victims and removing their ability to receive the best care possible; Hurting the quality of medical care and forcing experts to defend the reasonableness of their charges.
Limiting damages in this way is forcing the government to impose a “one size fits all” approach to all victims, regardless of incident or severity of damages, which can vastly differ by each accident. Limiting or “capping” damages is nothing more than an attempt by large corporations and insurance companies to unnecessarily insert government regulations into jury deliberations and prohibit a jury from hearing all of the evidence.
Florida Standard Jury Instructions (s.501.1): Juries are instructed to base awards on what “the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate” the victim. Caps on damages strip jurors of their right to decide the damages and give that right to the business and insurance companies that may have caused the harm. A jury’s deliberative process should, and does, rely only on sound and accurate data meant to inform the case in front of them. Any attempt to deter or distract them by slowing down the court process and increasing the cost of litigation for all parties is irresponsible and detrimental to Florida’s taxpayer-funded court system.
FJA opposes legislation that:
Juries should have the right to go after companies when they hurt people.
• Doesn’t allow a jury to see the full extent of medical damages. • Allows victims to go into medical debt while those responsible aren’t held accountable. • Protects access to top medical care after an accident.
Florida Justice Association 12
SECTION 5
DEFENDING PROPERTY OWNERS Did you know?
Hurricane Michael Damage
6,526
Open Claims (home & business)
21,763
Claims closed without receiving a single penny
Source: OIR Hurricane Michael claims data as of November 2, 2020.
It’s been four years since the Cat-5 Hurricane Michael devastated 15 Panhandle and North Florida counties in 2018, yet thousands of property insurance claims remain open and unpaid. 6,526 property owners (home and business) still have open claims and the approximately 21,763 have had their claims closed without receiving a single penny. (Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, Nov. 2, 2020) Failing to properly pay claims is a bad insurance industry practice that promotes delays and low payments. Policyholders should be better protected and insurance companies should uphold their promise to policyholders by resolving claims quickly and fully. For Floridians, the importance of protecting property is not an unfamiliar concept. The expectation is that by having property insurance coverage, our properties are protected and property owners will be taken care of if they experience a catastrophic event. Unfortunately, for far too many property owners who have weathered recent storms, their insurance carriers denied or only offered minimum benefits for the total loss of their homes and businesses. If insurance companies won’t uphold their promise to consumers, it’s up to lawmakers to uphold their commitment to constituents and hold insurance companies accountable.
FJA supports the following improvements to current law to defend Florida homeowners and better protect their property: • Prompt Pay Law – s. 627.70131, F.S. – Current law exists to force insurance companies to promptly adjust and pay uncontested claims within 90 days, but there is no meaningful enforcement. The bill deletes the current law immunity which prevents a private cause of action. • Make the 90-day prompt pay law applicable to commercial and surplus lines insurers. • Valued Policy Law (VPL) - s. 627.702, F.S. - Force insurance companies to pay policy limits when there is an undisputed total loss. Insurance companies are ignoring it and blaming flood insurers for wind claims. Apply VPL to surplus lines carriers which are NOT regulated by OIR as to their policy forms and rates, and clarify what constitutes a total loss claim. • Prevent surplus lines and admitted carriers from forcing insurance consumers into out-of-state arbitrations, mediations and litigation. • Require the use of Florida law and Florida courts to resolve claims, rather than out-of-state laws and courts. FJA and Florida Homeowners oppose: • Any legislation that harms a homeowners’ ability to seek counsel when their claim is wrongfully denied. • Legislation that seeks to reduce benefits like partial-payment for roof repairs. Florida Justice Association 14
Protecting Property Owners from Negligent Builders The Surfside building collapse in South Florida was a unthinkable tragedy. Was it one that could have been prevented? Changes to Florida’s construction defect laws, if any, should go in the direction of protecting property owners and not in favor of builders and developers. Proposals to provide broader protections to builders is bad policy and could result in more tragedies like Surfside.
Construction Defects Legislation
=
Latent defects Surfside is a prime example of what happens when a building contains latent defects. Many defects, especially design-related, won’t be discoverable for many years, and 4 years is far too short a timeframe. Even 10 years is arguably too short. If anything, the Legislature should consider expanding the time for identifying defects, not shortening it.
=
Proposals Proposals for a new supplemental offer process just adds more time and expense. Now the property owner has to give the contractor 3 tries to get it right? 1) the original work, 2) an offer to fix the original work, and 3) another offer to fix the original work. This will encourage contractors to make a really low-ball offer the first time to test the waters, knowing they get another chance to make a serious offer if the first one is rejected.
=
Notice to mortgagees There’s no reason to require this other than to discourage homeowners from filing claims and to create one more obstacle to clear.
FJA supports legislation that revises construction law, including: establishing liability for building inspectors who fail to properly review plans and inspect work; waive sovereign immunity in those cases where building inspectors have negligently carried out their duties; and codify duty for engineers to report imminently dangerous conditions.
Florida Justice Association 16
SECTION 6
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
Holding Government Accountable for Damages they Cause to Floridians Florida lawmakers have an opportunity to ensure that citizens have access to the courts, due process and appropriate compensation in the wake of devastating injuries or loss of life and hold public entities accountable when they fail to keep students and employees safe. Current Florida law protects local governments, their employees and other entities providing services on behalf of the government when they may be liable for compensating victims. Current law caps the state and its subdivisions liability for claims to $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. The cap applies to all claims, even wrongful death actions. If damages rise above these limits, an injured party must go to trial and prove their damages to a jury. Once a favorable verdict is obtained, the victim then must work to get a claims bill filed in the Legislature, passed, and signed into law—a challenging prospect that can be subject to shifting political winds. This also gives the party responsible for the injury a second bite at the apple to avoid their financial responsibility for injuries caused.
Ensuring justice for all injured parties requires reforming Florida’s sovereign immunity limits and the claims bill process including: Repealing the “per person” and “per incident” limits and replacing them with a $1 million liability limit. Adding a cost-of-living provision to adjust the liability limit each year based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. Speeding up the delivery of justice by allowing settlement agreements that exceed the $1 million cap to bypass the claims bill process. Allowing egregious claims to bypass the claims bill process. Prohibiting insurance companies from conditioning the payment of any benefit on the enactment of a claims bill. Allowing settlement agreements to exceed the limits of insurance carried by the state, its agencies, or subdivisions.
A fundamental responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. When government negligently harms one of its citizens, it should be held accountable for the harm caused.
Putting a cap on damages in lawsuits, regardless of the person, situation, or how negligent someone was, puts a government mandated price on a human life. It is immoral to assign a specific dollar value to a human life in the law.
FJA supports legislation that raises sovereign immunity limits to $1M without per incident limits.
Florida Justice Association 18
SECTION 7
DEFENDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE (Attorney Fee Multiplier)
Approval of these reasonable attorney fees under current law only occurs after an exhaustive two-step process where well-defined factors are met: Step 1: Consideration of 8 factors (including risk of a contingency contact) approved by the Florida Supreme Court and codified in the Florida Bar Rules; and Step 2: Then 3 additional factors are considered (Rowe and Quanstrom cases) and only then are fees awarded. This process is clearly defined and multipliers are very rarely awarded. Attempts to limit or remove fee multipliers are nothing more than an attempt by big corporations with deep pockets to protect their bottom line and limit consumers’ access to the courts.
The Facts
Florida courts have awarded attorneys’ fees to policyholders who sue their insurers to enforce policies since 1893, under the theory that homeowners have fewer resources to pay for attorneys than large companies. The law allows fee multipliers for the same reason. In a more modern decision upholding contingency fee multipliers, Florida Supreme Court justices wrote: Multipliers “level the playing field between parties with unequal abilities to secure legal representation.” Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co. Inc., 734 So. 2d 403, 411
(Fla. 1999). Attorney fee awards are not automatic. These “enhanced fees” are only awarded in the most complex cases where it is hard to access expert counsel in the area where the case occurred. Enhanced fees are only awarded after a settlement or trial verdict, and the fee multiplier request is granted by the judge. These multipliers are there to serve as an incentive for insurance companies to pay meritorious claims without needing to bring in costly legal counsel.
=
Insurance companies continue to report record profits and have not provided any tangible evidence of loss as a result of contingency fee multipliers.
=
Zero data has been presented nor is there any substantial evidence that eliminating contingency fee multipliers will lower insurance rates, result in fewer lawsuits, or provide greater consumer protections.In fact, insurance companies have always resisted legislation that ties rate savings to litigation reforms.
=
Multipliers are very rarely used and the use of attorney fee multipliers in Florida is very case specific -- how hard the case was to win, the victims, the defendants, the injury -- insureds already must prove entitlement to a multiplier by competent and substantial evidence on the record.
The reality is, there is no compelling reason or data to support this major attorney fee reform.
FJA opposes legislation that would impose any major attorney fee reform as there is no compelling evidence or data to support this major reform that is little more than an attempt by special interests to limit consumers’ access to justice.
Florida Justice Association 20
Insurance (NCCI) proposed an overall average statewide rate decrease of 4.9% to be effective January 1, 2022. On November 12, 2021, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation approved the 4.9% decrease.
SECTION 8
IN DEFENSE OF WORKERS
This decrease is the sixth rate decrease for Florida since 2016, when two separate Florida Supreme Court decisions led to a significant rate increase and much anticipation that rates would continue rising in the near future.
Supporting Employers
“
This 4.9% reduction in workers’ compensation rates lowers insurance costs for employers in 2022. Safer workplaces, innovative techniques, and improved risk management practices have resulted in the continued decline in workers compensation claims, ultimately benefitting Florida businesses. Florida Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier, November 12, 2021
Healthy employees are better for business. Often the only thing that allows for access to workers’ compensation benefits is when a lawyer is able to help someone who’s been wrongfully denied care. In fact, according to the Insurance Information Institute: “Workers compensation system plays a major role in improving workplace safety.” However, each year Big Insurance comes to the Capitol and attempts to influence lawmakers to make unnecessary reforms to a workers’ compensation that largely is working and working well in Florida -attempting to create an issue where one doesn’t exist. Rather than protecting workers, insurers favor a push for a heavyhanded, big government approach that requires injured workers to wade through red tape before they can receive the medical care they need to get back to work. Injured employees – and their employers – rely on a stable, predictable, and constitutional workers’ compensation system to quickly return injured workers to health and to safely return them to work. That’s the bargain employers and employees made over 100 years ago.
”
Those decisions – Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg and Castellanos v. Next Door Company “resulted in changes to the Florida workers compensation landscape” by undoing a primary cost-reduction component of reforms passed by Florida lawmakers in 2003. The initial response from NCCI and regulators was a steep rate increase of 14.5 percent for 2017. The increase was an overreaction in the marketplace to the Court’s rulings, and since then Florida’s workers’ compensation market has entered a period of falling insurance costs.
Defending Workers At its core, workers’ compensation is about connecting injured workers with the medical care they need to quickly return to work. More red tape and roadblocks to care created by insurance industrybacked legislation adds insult to already injured workers. Real workers’ compensation reform should allow workers some choice in their doctors, a mid-level tier for benefits, competition between insurers on rates and access to attorneys and legal remedies when needed.
What’s the biggest threat to keeping rates stable? It’s not a court ruling from four years ago. It’s a hesitancy to take a hard look at ratemaking reform to establish badly needed stability, predictability, and constitutionality in Florida’s market. We can do that by:
Reclaiming the system from the special interests and taking it out of the control of an insuranceindustry-run cabal called the National Council on Compensation Insurance.
Promoting increased competition within the insurance market.
Supporting Employers The downward trend for Florida workers’ compensation rates is set to continue next year thanks to favorable loss experiences from policy years 2017 and 2018.
FJA opposes legislation creating unnecessary reforms to a system that is protecting workers and supporting businesses by consistently providing for a reduction in workers’ compensation insurance rates.
In fact, on August 26, 2021 the National Council on Compensation Florida Justice Association 22
SECTION 9
FJA opposes any legislation designed to curtail local governments from filing opioid lawsuits prohibiting local and regional governmental entities from entering into contingency fee contracts above specified limits with private attorneys and law firms.
JUSTICE FOR ALL
FJA supports legislation that holds pharmaceutical companies responsible for the impact the ongoing opioid epidemic has had on our communities and the crisis it has created for families and communities.
Opioid Lawsuits Opioid overdoses have killed more than 10,000 Floridians and the on-going opioid epidemic has required local municipalities to respond by spending millions to acquire life-saving medications. Pharmaceutical companies must held accountable for the damage they have caused to Florida communities and Florida families. The epidemic has resulted in growing - and devastating - costs for communities throughout the state. In Florida, local governments are custodians of local public resources, authorized to pursue litigation to seek justice on behalf of their citizens and taxpayers. Lawyers working on behalf of the local governments are hired for their expertise and are in the best position to advocate for the best
result for their clients. The attorneys retained by local governments are knowledgeable about their local government clients’ cases and are accountable to the local government’s elected representatives and ultimately their citizens. It’s time that pharmaceutical companies are held responsible for the damage the opioid epidemic has caused in our communities and for families. This epidemic continues to impact communities throughout Florida and “Big Pharma” must be accountable. Communities and citizens throughout the state should be allowed to seek justice for victims of this epidemic and we must hold companies accountable when they are responsible for damage their products have caused to our communities and our families.
“
We’re talking about removing dead bodies from our libraries, from our streets, from our parks. This is absolutely a local response, and any type of political opportunism is lost on me. Melissa McKinlay, Palm Beach County Commissioner
McKinlay said the county has spent at least $43 million over the last 10 years on battling the epidemic, which at its peak she said killed 626 people in the county. And those dollars are a conservative estimate that do not include the cost to the sheriff’s office, she said. It also doesn’t include the costs to each city in the county for similar services.
”
McKinlay said local communities need to have the ability to recoup those costs, which they’re not guaranteed to receive from the case litigated by the attorney general’s office. When states, including Florida, sued big tobacco in the 1990s, cities and counties were largely left out of the billions that private attorneys won on behalf of attorneys general. Source: https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/01/23/florida-cities-sued-opioid-makers-now-lawmakers-might-go-after-the-cities/
Florida Justice Association 24
JUSTICE. LIBERTY. RESPONSIBILITY. ACCOUNTABILITY. The Florida Justice PAC looks for opportunities to build real relationships between local lawyers and candidates, relationships that ensure legislators understand what their decisions mean for civil justice and the everyday people they represent. Contact Us for More Information myfja.org
Staff Contacts PAUL D. JESS
LYDIA CLAIRE BROOKS
JEFF PORTER
LAURA YOUMANS
LYNN MCCARTNEY
WILLIAM T. COTTERALL, ESQ.
Executive Director pjess@myfja.org
Deputy Executive Director, Legislative and Political Director jporter@myfja.org
Deputy Legislative Affairs Director lmccartney@myfja.org
Deputy Political Director lcbrooks@myfja.org
Legislative Counsel lyoumans@myfja.org
General Counsel wcotterall@myfja.org
218 South Monroe Street
@florida_justice
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
facebook.com/floridajusticeassociation
850.224.9403
twitter.com/floridajustice