House Bill 837, signed into law on March 24, 2023, reshaped tort litigation in Florida.
Pure comparative negligence no longer governs personal injury cases.
A modified comparative negligence rule now applies, creating a 50% fault cutoff that blocks recovery once a plaintiff exceeds that threshold.
Accident victims, insurers, and attorneys now operate under a framework that places heavy emphasis on fault allocation and early evidence development.
The Legal Shift
A major procedural change occurred when Florida adopted a modified comparative negligence structure through HB 837.
Fault allocation has always shaped personal injury litigation, yet the degree of responsibility required to block compensation shifted dramatically.
Plaintiffs, attorneys, insurers, and courts now operate under a rule that places a sharp dividing line at 50% responsibility, altering litigation strategy at every stage.
Pure Comparative Negligence
Past Florida law permitted claimants to pursue payment even when carrying the bulk of responsibility.
Lawsuits with high plaintiff fault percentages still held monetary value, though awards were reduced to reflect each party’s role in the incident.
A claimant with substantial negligence could still bring an action because any percentage of fault below full responsibility allowed some recovery.
Such a structure created situations in which:
- A plaintiff with overwhelming fault still received compensation, though substantially reduced.
- Litigants viewed even marginal portions of liability as financially meaningful.
- Defendants often focused on minimizing percentages rather than pushing claimants over a specific threshold.
Modified Comparative Negligence
HB 837 replaced that approach with a firm cutoff. Recovery is barred once a plaintiff’s responsibility passes 50%.
Lawsuits rooted in general negligence now hinge on that dividing line.
Medical malpractice actions remain governed by separate statutory provisions, yet nearly all other negligence disputes fall under the updated standard.
Florida now mirrors many states that have adopted similar modified systems.
The shift places greater significance on early fault assessments and ensures that plaintiffs with responsibility above the threshold cannot secure compensation.
The 50 Percent Line Explained
Fault allocation now serves as the deciding factor in recovery.
A plaintiff’s right to damages depends on remaining at or below 50% responsibility.
Any finding above that level results in a complete bar to damages, regardless of injury severity, economic losses, or conduct by additional parties.
Several practical consequences flow from this:
- A slight adjustment in fault percentages can transform a viable claim into one with zero compensatory potential.
- Liability arguments often hold more weight than damage evaluations.
- Attorneys must anticipate how juries may apportion fault long before the trial begins.
Practical Impact of the 50 Percent Bar Rule
Legal practitioners quickly adjusted their case analysis methods once the statute took effect.
Evaluating potential claims now requires sharper scrutiny of facts that influence fault percentages, as even small facts may determine whether a lawsuit proceeds.
Individuals sometimes consult a local injury law firm for a better understanding of how fault percentages may influence potential recovery under HB 837.
Case Evaluation and Acceptance
Attorneys examine incidents more cautiously, particularly where fault appears close to the cutoff.
Marginal responsibility issues may determine if a firm accepts or rejects a claim. Higher-risk matters often settle earlier than before because both sides recognize the amplified uncertainty created by fault apportionment.
Some claims may never reach litigation due to steep barriers introduced by the statute.
Settlement Negotiations and Strategy
Negotiations shifted significantly under HB 837. Defense attorneys and insurers often attempt to increase a claimant’s share of fault to move it beyond the bar.
Plaintiffs must counter early efforts to inflate responsibility percentages.
Litigation teams often rely on prompt investigation, witness interviews, preserved video evidence, and detailed scene documentation.
Negotiation strategy often involves:
- Careful reconstruction of events before mediation or trial.
- Early involvement of experts to evaluate factors that influence liability.
- Tactical decision-making that mitigates the risk of creeping fault assessments.
Real-World Scenarios Affected
Many everyday injury events now carry heightened risk for claimants.
Fault disputes can arise in simple or complex incidents alike, and a slight shift in perceived responsibility may erase all recovery options.
- Multi-vehicle collisions in which competing versions of events create narrow liability margins.
- Pedestrian or bicycle incidents are influenced by minor conduct issues, such as crossing outside designated areas or failing to use reflectors.
- Premises incidents where a claimant might have overlooked posted warnings or failed to avoid an obvious hazard.
Insurance Tactics Under the New Law
Insurers adapted quickly to the incentives created by HB 837.
Any shift in fault toward a claimant can eliminate payment obligations, so insurers often take a more aggressive approach in evaluating claims.
Shifting the Burden of Fault
Claims departments may scrutinize a claimant’s conduct far more closely than before.
Recorded statements, prior injuries, inconsistent reporting, and any suggestion of inattentiveness can be used to increase fault percentages.
Investigators often search for facts that, even marginally, elevate claimant responsibility.
Evidence Collection is Crucial
Claimants who move quickly to preserve evidence place themselves in a stronger position.
Accurate documentation limits opportunities for insurers to distort or overstate fault.
Comprehensive evidence often includes:
- Photographs or video recordings of the scene and the surrounding area.
- Witness information obtained soon after the event.
- Medical evaluations are conducted immediately, preventing disputes about injury timing.
- Expert reconstruction when multiple parties or unclear crash dynamics complicate liability.
Timely evidence often shapes the final allocation of fault, making early action essential.
Impact on Medical Damages Presentation
HB 837 introduced extensive changes to the manner in which medical expenses may be presented in court.
These rules significantly reduce the values juries can see and create standardized formulas for calculating unpaid or future bills.
Previous Law vs. Post-HB 837 Changes
Earlier practice allowed plaintiffs to present full billed charges for medical services even when insurers, Medicare, or Medicaid paid far less.
Courts permitted gross charges as evidence, which often inflated the perceived value of treatment.
HB 837 limits admissible evidence to amounts actually paid or amounts payable under insurance or government reimbursement schedules.
Litigation now centers on realistic financial figures instead of inflated provider charges.
Rules for Paid and Unpaid Bills
A structured evidentiary system governs all medical billing evidence. Paid bills must reflect actual amounts paid, regardless of payer source.
Unpaid bills follow detailed rules that depend on the plaintiff’s insurance status.
The system includes:
- Insured plaintiffs who did not submit bills to the insurance must present the expected insurer payment amount.
- Uninsured plaintiffs must rely on set multipliers: 120% of Medicare reimbursement or 170% of Medicaid reimbursement.
- Letters of Protection require additional documentation, increasing transparency and reducing reliance on inflated treatment costs.
Letters of Protection and Future Damages
Treatment conducted under an LOP undergoes closer examination.
Courts and opposing counsel often challenge inflated rates or billing irregularities.
Future medical costs for uninsured claimants follow the same multipliers used for unpaid bills.
Claimants with private insurance must present what their insurers would pay if future services were billed.
Billing Complexity and Disputes
Increased scrutiny of medical billing created additional layers of litigation.
Coding disputes, bundled service disagreements, and valuation differences may require expert testimony.
Pretrial hearings often address what billing evidence may be admitted, prompting greater use of third-party billing analysts who interpret CPT codes and reimbursement formulas.
Final Thoughts
HB 837 reshaped personal injury litigation by establishing a strict fault cutoff and revising the rules for medical damage presentation.
Plaintiffs must act quickly to secure evidence, work closely with legal counsel, and prepare cases with more precision.
Fault percentages now carry greater consequences, and medical billing evidence faces renewed scrutiny under structured statutory formulas.
