Florida HB 837, line by line.

On March 24, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 837, the most consequential tort reform legislation Florida has seen in a generation. Within weeks, plaintiff firms across the state had filed roughly 280,000 cases in a documented pre-effective-date rush, and the structural balance between claimants, defendants, and insurers in Florida personal injury practice had shifted in nearly every measurable dimension.

The political pressure for HB 837 had built for years. Florida insurers, particularly in property and auto lines, argued that the state had become an outlier — a combination of pure comparative fault, generous fee shifting, sticker-price medical billing, and aggressive bad-faith litigation produced structurally higher claim costs than peer states. Critics countered that Florida's loss ratios were driven primarily by hurricane exposure and underwriting discipline, not tort doctrine. The legislative debate was sharp; the bill passed largely along party lines.

HB 837 amended at least eight separate chapters of the Florida Statutes and rewrote core sections of §95.11 (limitations), §768.81 (comparative fault), §768.0427 (medical damages evidence), §624.155 (bad faith), §627.428 (insurance fee shifting, repealed), and several others. This guide walks through each change, with statutory anchors and current practical effect through 2026.

For perspective on how Florida now compares to its peer cap and reform jurisdictions, see our companion guides on California MICRA after AB 35 and the Texas §74.301 framework.

The pre-2023 landscape

Before HB 837, Florida was the most plaintiff-friendly large-state jurisdiction in the United States. The general negligence statute of limitations was four years — twice the duration of most peer states. The state followed pure comparative fault, meaning a claimant 90% at fault could still recover 10% of damages. Plaintiffs could introduce billed medical amounts to a jury, even when those amounts had been adjusted down by insurance contract. Insurance claimants who prevailed could recover attorney fees, while carriers could not, producing a documented incentive to file marginal first-party property claims.

The combined effect, in the insurance industry's telling, was a Florida loss-ratio environment that could not be priced sustainably. The plaintiff bar's response was that the same conditions reflected stronger consumer protection than other states — and that hurricane risk, not tort doctrine, drove the premium environment.

Statute of limitations: four to two

HB 837 amended Florida Statutes §95.11 to reduce the limitations period for general negligence claims from four years to two years. The change applies to causes of action accruing on or after March 24, 2023. The medical malpractice limitations period (already two years from discovery, with a four-year statute of repose) was unchanged. Wrongful death (two years) was also unchanged.

The retroactivity question generated immediate litigation. The prevailing rule is that causes of action accruing before the effective date retain the four-year window, but the application to cases where injury occurred before the effective date and discovery occurred after has been litigated case by case. The pre-effective-date filing surge was driven primarily by claimants and counsel hedging against unfavourable applications of the new SOL.

Comparative fault: pure to modified-51%

Florida's comparative fault rule under §768.81 had been pure since 1973: a claimant could recover damages reduced by their own percentage of fault, regardless of how high that percentage was. HB 837 switched Florida to modified comparative fault with a 51% bar. A claimant found 51% or more at fault now recovers nothing.

The amendment expressly carved out medical negligence claims, which continue to operate under pure comparative fault. For every other negligence claim — auto, premises, product, general liability — the 51% rule now binds. The practical effect has been most visible in cross-walk pedestrian, host-liquor, and shared-fault premises cases, where pre-2023 plaintiffs frequently recovered partial damages despite substantial comparative fault.

Medical-bill evidence under §768.0427

One of the more technical but financially significant changes is the new §768.0427, which restricts the medical damages evidence admissible at trial. Plaintiffs may introduce only the amounts actually paid or payable to satisfy a bill — which, in a world of insurance contractual write-downs, is typically a small fraction of the chargemaster figure. For unpaid bills, only reasonable amounts are admissible, and there are explicit rules for letter-of-protection arrangements common in Florida personal injury practice.

The previous practice — introducing full billed amounts to a jury and then offsetting paid amounts in post-verdict motions — could substantially inflate non-economic awards by anchoring jurors to a higher starting figure. §768.0427 collapses that practice.

Attorney fee shifting

Bad faith reform

Florida's bad-faith framework under §624.155 was historically considered the most claimant-favourable in the country. HB 837 imposed a mandatory 60-day pre-suit cure period following a Civil Remedy Notice, during which the carrier can avoid bad-faith exposure by tendering policy limits or the demanded amount. The amendment also clarified that mere negligence is insufficient to establish bad faith — the claimant must prove the carrier acted with knowledge of the wrongful conduct.

The reform also addressed the strategic timing of multi-claimant cases (where a single policy is insufficient to satisfy all claims) and codified procedures for the “policy-limits demand” scenario that had historically generated significant bad-faith exposure for carriers.

Settlement and litigation impact

Three years on, the measurable effects of HB 837 are substantial. New filings in negligence and insurance categories fell sharply in the second half of 2023 and remained well below pre-2023 norms through 2024 and 2025. Settlement values in shared-fault cases moved downward as the modified-51% bar became operative. Carrier loss ratios in property and auto lines improved through 2024 and 2025, though the share attributable to HB 837 versus reduced hurricane activity remains debated.

For practitioners, the change in medical-bill evidence has been the most consequential adjustment in day-to-day case workup. Cases that pre-2023 might have settled on a $100,000 billed figure now settle against the much smaller paid-or-payable number, with corresponding pressure on non-economic anchors.

How Florida compares now

Post-HB 837, Florida has converged toward the median of large US tort jurisdictions: a two-year SOL, modified comparative fault, paid-or-payable medical evidence, and balanced fee-shifting are now the mainstream rules across most states. Florida still differs from Texas in not having a hard non-economic damages cap on medical malpractice, and from California in not having a structured cap schedule. For an explainer on a different threshold-based system, see New York's no-fault serious injury threshold.

Frequently asked questions

Related

• Florida settlement-value reference
• California MICRA, post-AB 35
• Texas medical malpractice caps (§74.301)
• New York no-fault threshold (§5102)

Sources

• Florida HB 837 (2023) — full text and committee analyses, Florida Legislature
• Florida Statutes §95.11 (statute of limitations, as amended)
• Florida Statutes §768.81 (comparative fault, as amended)
• Florida Statutes §768.0427 (medical-bill evidence, as enacted)
• Florida Statutes §624.155 (bad faith, as amended)
• Florida Statutes §627.428 / §626.9373 (one-way fee shifting, repealed)
• Florida Office of Insurance Regulation — post-HB 837 market reports
• Florida Justice Association & Florida Defense Lawyers Association — practitioner analyses