Buh bye? House panel votes to eliminate no-fault auto insurance in Florida
Florida's no-fault automobile insurance laws would be junked and replaced with a fault-based system under a bill overwhelmingly approved by a House panel Thursday morning.
Insurance industry and medical lobbyists oppose the bill, HB 1181 arguing the change in law would increase automobile insurance costs for so-called 'street legal' drivers, or those who carry the minimum coverage required by law. The increases could cause some to drop coverage, meaning more uninsured drivers and more strain on Florida's health care delivery system.
But bill sponsor Rep. Daniel Alvarez says the existing system, which bans injured parties from bringing lawsuits against at-fault parties to recover noneconomic damages (although there are exceptions if a person suffers a permanent loss of an important bodily function; a permanent injury; a permanent scar or disfigurement; or death) is not fair to Florida residents who are injured in car accidents that are not their fault.
Florida drivers are required to carry $10,000 in PIP coverage plus $10,000 in property damage liability insurance. Those are minimum requirements and drivers can purchase additional coverage. According to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, just under 6% of drivers on Florida roads were uninsured as of February.
HB 1181 would drop the PIP mandate and increase the minimum bodily injury liability coverage limits from $10,000 per person and $20,000 per incident to $25,000 per person and $50,000 per incident.
'This is an insurance that affects every single person. And if something goes up, it will be temporary in my mind's eye,' Alvarez said.
'The doctors are not the enemy. The medical providers are not the enemy. Their concerns are real. There will be a learning curve and some growing pains. But you can't ask me to forgo your growing pains to continue to allow Floridians to be subject to the pain. I won't do it and I'm asking you not to.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Tampa Bay attorney Joshua Lipton argued that PIP discriminates against motorcycle drivers, who are precluded from purchasing PIP policies because no-fault statutes apply to motor vehicles with 'four wheels or more.'
'Not a single motorcyclist in here can purchase a PIP policy on his motorcycle,' he said, referring to the many motorcyclists who trekked to Tallahassee to attend the committee meeting.
The situation is exacerbated if a motorcyclist gets involved in a wreck with 'street legal drivers.'
'There's nothing there for their lost wages, there's nothing there for their pain and suffering, there 's nothing there for their medical expenses. They are thrown onto the public dole because they are hoping for emergency Medicaid. They are hoping for a charitable write-off of a hospital. None of those things are working for bikers,' Lipton said.
A Forbes analysis of automobile insurance rates shows that Florida is the most expensive state for car insurance in the nation. But insurance lobbyists testified that rates are going down.
State Farm lobbyist Mark Delegal said PIP has been a recurring debate in the Florida Legislature.
'For years, around this building there was a fix PIP or flush it. And there were efforts to flush it. But guess what, members? Under your leadership you have finally fixed PIP,' he said, referring to sweeping changes made by the Legislature in 2022 to how lawsuits are filed and litigated and the elimination of one-way attorney fees.
Delegal said that State Farm has in the last six months lowered its automobile insurance rates by 8%. 'That's a fact. That's a fact,' he said.
The Legislature agreed in 2021 to repeal the no-fault system and the minimum mandated coverages and return to a fault-based system, but Gov. DeSantis vetoed the bill (SB 54). In his veto letter, DeSantis that although the 'PIP system has flaws,' repeal could have unintended consequences for the market and the consumer.
The 2021 bill would have required insurers to offer medical payments coverage, known as 'MedPay,' at limits of $5,000 and $10,000, but the 2025 legislation does not, so it's not clear how by how much auto rates could increase.
Nevertheless, DeSantis earlier this month indicated he doesn't support repeal, in part because it is supported by the Florida Justice Association, which represents trial attorneys.
'If they have a reform where we can show that it's going to lower rates, it's fine. But let's just be clear. I mean, you know, we know that's something that people from the legal and the trial bar have wanted to do,' DeSantis told reporters on the opening day of the 2025 session.
'And so, why would they want to do that? Obviously, they see that there's opportunities for them to make money off of it.' He added, 'I don't want to do anything that's going to raise the rates.'
Sen. Erin Grall, sponsor of SB 1256, (the Senate companion bill) isn't dissuaded by the governor's comments.
'I think there are different things that have happened since the last time he vetoed it.' Grall told the Florida Phoenix. 'A responsibility-based system to me is just consistent with many of the principles that he stands for. And so, I'm hopeful that we can figure out how to have an open conversation about it this session.'
HB 1181 heads to the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee next and then onto the House Judiciary Committee. Its Senate counterpart, SB 1256, has been referred to three Senate committees but heard by none.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
"I hate it": Redistricting arms race gives lawmakers heartburn
House members are watching with growing discomfort as Democrats in California and other blue states consider joining Texas Republicans in pursuing mid-decade redistricting to gain an advantage in the 2026 midterms. Why it matters: It threatens, as one Democratic lawmaker put it, a "race to the bottom" that will encourage both sides to test the limits of gerrymandering and further fan the partisan flames engulfing the country. But with President Trump bearing down on Texas Republicans to change their maps and California Democrats wanting to respond in political self-defense, members of both parties feel they have little choice. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told Axios of his state's possible redistricting: "How I feel is terribly conflicted. I hate it. I really worry about a race to the bottom on something that I consider pretty despicable." "But I understand why the governor and others are considering it. The only reason it would even be possible is what Texas and others are doing just stinks so badly that it's pissing people in California off." State of play: Texas Republicans began a special session Monday, which Gov. Greg Abbott said would include an attempt to redraw the state's U.S. House districts. Redistricting is normally only done after the decennial census — most recently in 2020 — or in response to a court order. However, Trump has put pressure on Republicans to undertake the unusual effort in the hopes of creating as many as five new GOP-leaning seats. Republicans in Ohio are also looking to redraw districts to try to unseat several Democrats. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has threatened to try to revisit his state's districts to create more Democratic-leaning seats. What we're hearing: Democrats may not stop at California, and are eyeing other blue states, including New York, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington, senior House Democrats told Axios. Democrats are "definitely looking into what's going on and trying to level the playing field," said one House Democrat. "It's crazy what's happening in Texas." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Thursday: "It's all options on the table at this moment." Even though California has a constitutionally mandated independent redistricting commission, several House Democrats from the state told Axios they are confident Newsom could find a legal pathway. What they're saying: While lawmakers have largely stuck by their parties' plans as a necessary evil in an increasingly existential political environment, others expressed trepidation at the escalating brinksmanship. "We're only supposed to be redistricting every 10 years," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). "At some point, the partisanship gets too much. ... I just think it goes too far." A House Democrat from California, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Axios: "It's a difficult conversation, because we're literally doing it to gerrymander — everything that we stood against, and the reason we created the independent redistricting commission." "If we do it," the lawmaker added, "let's be very upfront and transparent about it. Don't leave it to an independent commission. Everybody knows what we're doing." Yes, but: Other relative moderates in both parties said they are more than comfortable with mid-decade redistricting, pointing to the other side's actions as justification. "It's not only Texas," Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), whose own seat could be threatened by the redistricting plan, said, noting Newsom's comments. Gonzales added that Trump is a "political genius" and that "if we can pull off squeezing five more seats out of Texas, that's a game changer." Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said if Republicans are "going to stoop to midterm redistricting to politically advantage the party, I think it's certainly something that should be on the table." The bottom line: Even Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), an arch-centrist who represents the reddest district of any House Democrat, declined to condemn potential redistricting in California — but he did warn Republicans against what is known as a dummymander.
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Senate Democrats face crossroads in anti-Trump strategy
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will consult with his caucus Tuesday before deciding whether Democrats will go scorched earth against their Republican colleagues during this year's appropriations process. Why it matters: Top Democrats have hinted the party may not play ball with the GOP on the funding proceedings, risking a government shutdown at the end of September. It would be a defiant act of revenge for a minority party that's seething with anger over everything from reconciliation to rescissions. But Democrats have been reluctant to play the shutdown card in the past — and many are on record saying it's irresponsible. Zoom out: This week will present an early test case for this fall's appropriations showdown. GOP leaders plan to bring the MilCon-VA funding bill to the floor for a vote. They'll need Democratic support to move forward and at least seven Democratic votes to break a filibuster. The bill passed committee 26-3, and Schumer said Monday it has "significant reversals to DOGE's horrible cuts." The Senate version of the bill is a higher spending level than the House version, a plus for Democrats. It's possible Democrats support a procedural vote for the measure, under the pretense they aren't guaranteed to support its passage or further appropriations bills. Zoom in: Schumer didn't tip his hand during a speech on the Senate floor Monday. Instead, he unloaded on Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Republicans as being "obedient" to President Trump. "If Leader Thune wants to talk about bipartisanship, he should focus on keeping his side of the street clean first," Schumer said. Schumer last week warned Thune against pursuing additional rescission packages, saying the GOP would be risking a government shutdown. What we're hearing: Clear hints from the White House — and outright promises from House leadership — that they are planning more rescissions are further inflaming Senate Democrats. Trump's Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought raised the temperature last week when he suggested the government funding process should be "less bipartisan." Democrats were outraged by those comments and the attitude behind them — and they put their GOP colleagues on notice. "My Republican colleagues should understand that Russ Vought does not respect their constitutional power over federal spending," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said last week. The bottom line: Democrats are angry with how Trump and Thune have rolled them all year.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Epstein furor upends House for second week in row
The Jeffrey Epstein saga is causing chaos in the House for the second week in a row, as threats of Democrats forcing politically tough votes is prompting House GOP leadership to toss out many of their plans for the week. The trouble started as soon as lawmakers returned to Washington on Monday when the House Rules Committee, which sets up action for bills on the floor, met to tee up votes to rescind Biden-era rules and on an immigration bill. But Democrats, who had forced Republicans on the panel into a number of politically difficult votes on the Epstein matter last week, threatened to do so again. They planned to stage a vote on bringing legislation to the floor that would compel the release of the Epstein files. Rather than face those votes, Republicans are opting to simply not tee up any votes at all, according to multiple members of the panel — leaving the House with no floor business in the days ahead of August recess beyond non-controversial suspension bills, fast-track measures that need two-thirds support to pass. 'Democrats keep putting all these amendments up. They want to make Epstein — and, you know, we're all for transparency, and we're going to do that, but what they want to do is grandstand. They said they'll be there all night, we'll be there all night,' Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the Rules Committee, told reporters. He added that the committee was not expected to return, and the House would only deal with suspension votes. Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.), the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, confirmed that the panel would not re-convene for the rest of the week. 'We're done,' McGovern told The Hill. 'Not reporting out a rule, we're done for the night, we're done for the week… There's some issues going on within the Republican conference, I think around the Epstein stuff, that they can't seem to get under control. So we'll do, probably suspensions for the remainder of the week.' It is the second time in as many weeks the so-called Epstein files saga has thwarted GOP leadership's plans for the House floor. Republicans on the Rules Committee last week had tried to address the Epstein matter after being lambasted by the public over rejecting a Democratic amendment, an effort that delayed action on a bill to codify Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid for hours. The GOP members on the panel came up with a non-binding resolution calling for release for more files, and teed it up for floor action. But GOP leadership has no plans to bring the matter for a vote. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said earlier Monday that the House would not vote on the legislation before August recess — which is scheduled to begin after votes on Thursday. Instead, Johnson said he wanted to give the administration time to act on the matter on its own. 'Here's what I would say about the Epstein files: There is no daylight between the House Republicans, the House, and the president on maximum transparency,' Johnson said in the Capitol on Monday. 'He has said that he wants all the credible files related to Epstein to be released. He's asked the attorney general to request the grand jury files of the court. All of that is in process right now.' 'My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing and if further Congressional action is necessary or appropriate, then we'll look at that,' he added. 'But I don't think we're at that point right now because we agree with the president.' One source said that holding a floor vote on the non-binding resolution was suggested to leadership as a way to avoid the headaches over votes forced by Democrats, and that was not the favored option by leadership. The dilemma for Republicans came up in a meeting with leadership and other top House leaders on Monday, two sources told The Hill. Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.), who sits on the Rules Committee, raised concerns with having to vote on the Democratic-led amendment — which has key differences from the GOP-crafted one — in the panel meeting and instead advocated for voting on the Republican resolution or a different measure for transparency, one of the sources said. A competing Epstein measure from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) — one that would, if passed by both chambers and signed by the president, have more teeth — is further complicating the Epstein dynamic. Massie and Khanna have pledged to force a vote on their Epstein-release bill through the discharge petition process, if they can get 218 House members to sign on. If all Democrats in the House and all the Republicans who have already co-sponsored the resolution do so, they can back GOP leadership into a corner. Due to procedural rules, any vote wouldn't take place until at least after the House returns from August recess in September — by which time many Republicans hope the Epstein furor will have died down. But Massie — carrying a binder that read 'The Epstein Files: Phase 2' in reference to the fateful 'Phase 1' binders that Attorney General Pam Bondi distributed to MAGA influencers earlier this year — expects there will still be an appetite for that forced vote. 'This is not going away,' Massie said Monday. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) downplayed the significance of the logjam, saying the House this week can still vote on suspensions and focus on committee meetings and hearings. 'We still have a lot of other work to do,' he told reporters.
