Measure to Repeal No-Fault Auto Insurance Hits Wall in Senate
A Senate panel rejected a measure that would eliminate Florida's no-fault auto insurance system, with opponents arguing the proposal could lead to a slight increase in costs for motorists.
March 01, 2018 at 12:39 PM
4 minute read
A Senate panel rejected a measure that would eliminate Florida's no-fault auto insurance system, with opponents arguing the proposal could lead to a slight increase in costs for motorists.
The Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee overwhelmingly voted against the measure (SB 150), which called for repealing the system that requires motorists to carry $10,000 in personal-injury protection, or PIP, coverage. The bill would have led to requiring bodily injury coverage as a replacement.
The House approved a different version of the proposal (HB 9) during the first week of the annual legislative session, which is scheduled to end March 9.
Technically, the repeal proposal by Sen. Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, is still alive.
Immediately after the vote, subcommittee Chairwoman Anitere Flores, a Miami Republican who voted against the bill, made a motion to reconsider and then “temporarily postponed” the bill, a procedural move that could allow it to come up again.
Even with the maneuver, Flores said after the meeting she didn't know the future of the bill, as her subcommittee isn't expected to meet again. The other option would be for the bill to be moved to a different Senate panel.
Lee wasn't optimistic about either route.
“I'm not really sure what the plan is right now,” he said. “It's going to be a heavy lift.”
Lee noted it didn't help that Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier voiced concerns with the bill, which was an indication there isn't support from Gov. Rick Scott or state Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis.
Scott had backed an effort in 2012 to reform the no-fault system, which has long faced reports of widespread fraud leading to higher insurance rates.
Lee also contended his proposal is being held up by people seeking changes in the state's “bad faith” insurance laws.
The subcommittee rejected an amendment by Sen. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, that would have made changes to the bad-faith laws.
Bad-faith lawsuits typically involve allegations of misconduct by insurers that handle claims and can be costly.
The Personal Insurance Federation of Florida, the Florida Justice Reform Institute and the Institute for Legal Reform, an offshoot of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are among those that have sought to address changes in bad-faith laws as part of a no-fault repeal.
The House effort has avoided the bad-faith issue. Rep. Erin Grall, a Vero Beach Republican sponsoring the House bill, has said the issue would make the proposal “more complicated than it needs to be.”
The Senate bill, which had idled since getting approved by the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee on Jan. 10, drew fire this week from the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, which launched separate videos arguing the proposed changes would increase costs for motorists.
“Caution alert: Florida state senators want to pass a new law making you pay more for your car insurance,” an ad from the Chamber said. “The bill will force you to pay more for higher mandatory coverage whether you need it or not. Worse, the bill will force you to buy even more coverage over the next five years.”
The House version would require a minimum bodily injury coverage of $25,000 for damages for injury or death of one person and $50,000 for injury or death of two or more people.
Lee's proposal, starting Jan. 1, would set a minimum of $20,000 for bodily injury protection that includes coverage for the injury or death of one person and $40,000 for injury or death of two or more people. Two years later, individual premiums would be expected to increase, as the minimum coverage would grow to $25,000 and $50,000.
Also, Lee's proposal would require motorists to carry $5,000 in what is known as medical payments coverage, or MedPay. Critics have argued that the MedPay coverage requirement would make Lee's proposal a light version of the current system.
Lee said it was an oversimplification to call his bill “PIP by another name.”
The House version is projected to save motorists on average about $81 a year, with the amount varying depending on a driver's history and location in the state. Lee's version carries a projected $8- to $12-a-year increase, again depending on where the motorist lives.
Critics contend the Senate increase could be much higher, up to 60 percent or 70 percent, depending on the changes required in coverage.
Jim Turner reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250