Florida

Personal injury claims must be filed within two years of accrual under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(e). This two-year period reflects a significant reduction from the prior four-year period: HB 837 (effective March 24, 2023) reduced the negligence-based PI SOL from four years to two years, bringing Florida into alignment with the two-year-PI majority among the firm's service area states (CO, GA, IL, TX, NV, AZ).

The HB 837 reduction applies to causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023. Claims accruing before that date remain subject to the prior four-year period. Practitioners must verify the accrual date carefully to determine which framework applies, particularly for claims arising near the effective date. Wrongful death claims follow a two-year period under § 95.11(4)(d), and property damage claims follow a four-year period under § 95.11(3)(h).

Medical malpractice operates under a distinctive framework at Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(b): two years from when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury, with a four-year outside maximum (statute of repose) from the incident giving rise to the action. The two-year-discovery-plus-four-year-repose structure parallels Illinois's framework (two/four) and is shorter than Georgia's (two/five) or California's (one/three).

Written contract claims must be filed within five years of breach under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b). Oral contract claims have a four-year period under § 95.11(3)(k). Florida's five-year written contract period is in the middle of the catalog range, longer than Colorado's three-year period but shorter than Illinois's ten-year period or New York's six-year period. UCC sale-of-goods claims follow a four-year period from breach under Fla. Stat. § 672.725.

Fraud claims must be filed within four years of accrual under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(j), with the discovery rule providing that accrual is delayed until the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence. Florida also imposes a twelve-year statute of repose for fraud claims, providing an absolute outer limit on fraud claims regardless of discovery.

Defamation (libel and slander) must be filed within two years under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(g). The two-year defamation period is longer than the one-year periods found in most service area states (NY, CA, DC, GA, IL, CO, TX) and provides more time for defamation matters to develop, though it remains shorter than the general tort period in many jurisdictions.

Florida Sovereign Immunity Act notice requirements under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)(a) (covered separately) impose additional procedural deadlines that operate alongside these SOL periods when claims against governmental entities are involved. The three-year written claim presentation requirement is longer than the typical state notice periods and operates as a condition precedent to suit. Missing the notice deadline can bar the claim independently of the SOL period.

Florida applies a modified comparative fault framework under Fla. Stat. § 768.81 as amended by HB 837 (effective March 24, 2023). A plaintiff whose fault is greater than 50 percent of the total fault is barred from recovery. A plaintiff whose fault is 50 percent or less recovers damages reduced by their proportionate share of fault. The 51-percent bar framework parallels New York's (CPLR Article 16 several liability), Texas's (Chapter 33), Illinois's (§ 2-1116), and most other modified comparative jurisdictions.

Before HB 837, Florida was a pure comparative fault state under Hoffman v. Jones (Fla. 1973) and the prior version of § 768.81. Pure comparative fault permitted recovery regardless of the plaintiff's percentage of fault, with damages reduced proportionally. HB 837's conversion to modified comparative was one of the most significant tort reform changes in recent US history: Florida was one of only twelve pure comparative jurisdictions in the country, and its movement to the modified comparative camp shifted the national balance toward defense-favorable fault frameworks.

Florida's several liability framework under Fla. Stat. § 768.81(3) imposes several-only liability on most tort defendants. Each defendant is liable only for the percentage of damages attributable to that defendant's fault. There is no joint and several liability for damages allocated to other tortfeasors in most tort categories.

Limited exceptions to several-only liability exist where joint and several liability is preserved, including intentional torts, certain pollution and environmental matters, and specific statutory frameworks. The general rule of several-only liability dominates Florida tort practice. Combined with the new 51-percent plaintiff bar, the framework makes Florida significantly more defense-favorable than under the pre-HB 837 pure comparative regime.

HB 837's comparative fault conversion applies to causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023. Claims accruing before that date remain subject to the prior pure comparative framework. Practitioners with cases pending around the effective date face transition issues, including which framework governs jury instructions, expert testimony preparation, settlement discussions, and trial strategy. The transition has generated significant litigation about applicability questions, particularly for continuing torts and claims with extended accrual periods.

For practitioners moving to Florida or with Florida exposure for the first time after March 2023, the new modified comparative framework requires recalibrating case selection, defense strategy, and damages analysis. The change is comparable in operational significance to a state moving from joint and several liability to several-only liability, but in the opposite direction: Florida shifted from a plaintiff-favorable pure comparative system to a defense-favorable modified comparative system.

Florida's Sovereign Immunity Act under Fla. Stat. § 768.28 governs tort claims against the State of Florida, state agencies, counties, municipalities, school districts, and other governmental entities. Section 768.28(6)(a) requires written notice of the claim within three years of the incident giving rise to the claim (or, for wrongful death, within three years of the date of death).

The three-year period is longer than the typical state notice periods in the catalog: California's six-month Government Claims Act notice, Colorado's 182-day CGIA notice, Georgia's six-month municipal Ante Litem notice, DC's six-month § 12-309 notice, Texas's six-month TCA notice, and New Mexico's 90-day TCA notice are all substantially shorter. Florida's longer presentation window reflects the state's distinct approach to sovereign immunity procedures.

The § 768.28(6)(a) notice must be in writing and presented to the Department of Financial Services for claims against the State, or to the appropriate governing body of the political subdivision for claims against counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local entities. The notice must include sufficient information to allow the entity to investigate the claim, identify the incident, and evaluate the damages.

Florida courts apply strict construction to the content requirements, though somewhat less rigidly than the strict-construction approaches in DC, Colorado, Georgia, or New Mexico. The longer three-year window provides more flexibility for plaintiffs to develop and present the claim before the deadline, but missing the deadline still operates as a complete bar to recovery.

Section 768.28(5) imposes statutory damages caps on claims against governmental entities: $200,000 for any one person and $300,000 for any one incident (regardless of the number of claimants). These caps apply to negligence-based tort claims and significantly limit recovery against governmental defendants even where the underlying damages are substantial. The caps can be exceeded only through specific legislative claims bills, which require individual legislative action by the Florida Legislature.

The combination of the three-year presentation requirement and the $200K/$300K damages caps shapes Florida governmental tort practice substantially. The longer notice window is plaintiff-favorable, but the damages caps are significantly defense-favorable. Practitioners evaluating Florida governmental tort claims must consider both the procedural notice timeline and the substantive recovery limitations.

Florida House Bill 837, signed into law on March 24, 2023, is one of the most comprehensive tort reform packages in recent US history. The legislation simultaneously modified multiple major civil procedure and substantive law frameworks, including the personal injury statute of limitations, the comparative fault doctrine, premises liability, bad faith insurance claims, attorney's fees provisions, and transparency requirements. The reforms generally moved Florida toward a more defense-favorable framework in tort and insurance practice.

HB 837 applies to causes of action accruing on or after March 24, 2023. Claims accruing before that date generally remain governed by the pre-HB 837 framework. The transition has generated substantial litigation about which framework applies to specific cases, particularly for continuing torts, repeated wrongful conduct, and claims with extended accrual periods. Practitioners with pending Florida exposure must verify accrual dates carefully.

HB 837 reduced the personal injury statute of limitations from four years to two years under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(e). This change brings Florida into alignment with the two-year PI SOL majority among service area states. The reduction substantially compresses the intake and case development window for Florida PI claims and is one of the most operationally significant HB 837 changes for plaintiff-side practitioners.

HB 837 converted Florida from pure comparative fault to modified comparative fault (51-percent bar) under Fla. Stat. § 768.81. The pre-HB 837 pure comparative framework had been in place since Hoffman v. Jones (Fla. 1973). The conversion moved Florida out of the small group of pure comparative jurisdictions (which now includes only California, New York, New Mexico, Arizona, Louisiana, and Washington among the firm's service area states) and into the modified comparative majority.

HB 837 modified Florida's statutory bad faith framework under Fla. Stat. § 624.155 by adding a 60-day cure period following the Civil Remedy Notice (CRN). The cure period gives the insurer an opportunity to resolve the claim before bad faith liability attaches, mirroring procedural mechanisms in Texas's Chapter 542A and other state frameworks. HB 837 also limited certain attorney's fees provisions in insurance claims and altered the assignability of insurance benefits.

HB 837 made additional significant changes including: limitations on premises liability for property owners against criminal acts of third parties (under specific conditions); transparency requirements for medical bills introduced as evidence; restrictions on Letters of Protection (LOPs) and contingent fee arrangements; punitive damages reforms requiring specific procedural steps before punitive damages can be sought; and changes to the calculation of medical expenses recoverable as damages. The collective effect of these changes is to make Florida one of the most actively reformed tort jurisdictions in the country as of 2023.

Florida's first-party insurance bad faith framework is codified at Fla. Stat. § 624.155. The statute creates a private right of action for insureds against insurers for violations of specified categories of unfair claim settlement practices, including failure to attempt good faith settlement of claims, misrepresentation of policy provisions, and failure to act reasonably promptly on claim communications. Florida's statutory framework operates alongside common-law bad faith principles but provides the primary cause of action for first-party bad faith claims.

Florida's statutory bad faith framework differs from California's framework (which is primarily common-law based under Egan v. Mutual of Omaha with Insurance Code § 790.03 categories informing the analysis). The Florida statutory approach provides more explicit categories of prohibited conduct and a more structured procedural framework, including the Civil Remedy Notice requirement and (post-HB 837) the 60-day cure period.

Section 624.155(3) requires the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) with both the insurer and the Florida Department of Financial Services before filing suit. The CRN must identify the statutory provision allegedly violated, describe the facts giving rise to the violation, identify the policy provisions at issue, and specify the amount in controversy. The CRN serves as formal notice and triggers the procedural framework that precedes any bad faith litigation.

The CRN content requirements are statutory and strictly enforced. Florida courts have invalidated CRNs that omit material information, fail to identify specific statutory violations, or provide insufficient factual detail. Practitioners must ensure the CRN is complete and accurate before filing, since deficient CRNs may bar subsequent bad faith claims regardless of the underlying merits.

HB 837 (March 24, 2023) added a 60-day cure period following the CRN. Under the post-HB 837 framework, the insurer has 60 days from receipt of the CRN to cure the alleged violation by paying the policy benefits or otherwise resolving the claim. If the insurer cures within the 60-day period, the bad faith claim is barred. If the insurer fails to cure, the bad faith claim may proceed.

The 60-day cure period mirrors procedural mechanisms in Texas's Insurance Code Chapter 542A pre-suit notice framework and similar pre-suit cure provisions in other states. The framework provides insurers an opportunity to resolve claims before bad faith liability attaches, reducing speculative or thin bad faith claims while preserving the remedy for genuine bad faith conduct. The cure period applies to causes of action accruing on or after March 24, 2023.

Successful first-party bad faith claims under § 624.155 may recover the unpaid policy benefits (contract damages), consequential damages flowing from the bad faith conduct, and attorney's fees and costs under Fla. Stat. § 627.428 (subject to HB 837 modifications). Punitive damages may be available where the insurer's conduct meets the heightened standard of intentional misconduct or gross negligence, requiring specific evidentiary showings beyond ordinary bad faith.