In 2021, Jose Correa was in a crosswalk at the intersection of Le Jeune and Bird roads when a Miami-Dade County bus making a left-hand turn slammed into him. After a lawsuit, the county settled for $4.3 million for Correa\u2019s injuries.<\/p>\n
Two years later, Heriberto A. Sanchez-Mayen<\/a>, arrested for sleeping in a St. Petersburg Park during the day,was so abused by police en route to the Pinellas County Jail that he had to have both legs amputated above the knees. The city settled for $2.5 million.<\/p>\n In practicality, those settlements were only a ticket to a new fight for compensation, this time with the Florida Legislature.<\/p>\n Under state law, no one can get more than $200,000 from a judgment or settlement against the government in cases of negligence without the Legislature passing a bill to pay out the rest. State agencies, cities, counties, sheriffs\u2019 offices, state universities, public hospitals and schools are immune from payment in negligence lawsuits above that amount without legislative intervention.<\/p>\n Lawmakers have taken up the call eight times this legislative session to pay out injured Floridians and tourists \u2014 who together are owed a collective $47.2 million \u2014 for injuries caused by local governments, distinct from other claim bills moving this session for injuries caused by state agencies. With session scheduled to wrap on March 13, the Legislature has passed just two of those bills, including one that would pay Sanchez-Mayen his remaining $2.3 million.<\/p>\n But some lawmakers think it should be easier for injured Floridians and tourists to get a bigger slice of the money they are owed from settlements and judgments against state and local governments. A bill in the Senate, SB 1366<\/a>, would increase the payment cap per injured person to $350,000. A bill in the House, HB 145<\/a>, would go further and increase the payment cap per person to $500,000.<\/p>\n The Senate bill would also increase the payment cap per incident when more than one person is owed damages, from $300,000 to $500,000. The House bill would increase it to $1 million.<\/p>\n State representatives passed the House bill in January 104-7. A third committee passed the Senate version 21-1 on Tuesday. It is ready for a full vote by the chamber.<\/p>\n Florida\u2019s payment caps haven\u2019t increased since 2011. But lawmakers have been trying to raise them for years. The negotiations fall apart amid pushback from representatives of local governments who say they can\u2019t afford the increases. The Senate sponsor, Jason Brodeur, a Sanford Republican, pushed back on those arguments this year, saying the proposed increases are essentially the same as they were when first set, after being adjusted for inflation.<\/p>\n \u201cThis money is going into places to compensate people who have been avoidably harmed by municipalities who admit they already did it,\u201d Brodeur said while debating the bill in committee. \u201cAnd so, at some point, this is going up. Maybe it\u2019s this year, maybe it\u2019s next year.\u201d<\/p>\n Brodeur added: \u201cWe are trying very hard to have a reasonable place to land, so that all counties equitably feel exactly what they felt in 2011.\u201d<\/p>\n Before voting for the bill on Tuesday, incoming Senate President Jim Boyd, a Bradenton Republican, urged Brodeur to \u201cstick tight\u201d to his proposal in negotiating with the House.<\/p>\n \u201cI think it\u2019s a good level to be at after years of a lower limit,\u201d Boyd said. \u201cBut a little bit higher \u2026 causes taxpayers potentially more money.\u201d<\/p>\n The payment process for damages owed to a person injured by their local government is rooted in an arcane legal theory called \u201csovereign immunity,\u201d derived from British common law, meaning state entities cannot be sued without consent, including local governments and the state itself.<\/p>\n The Florida law that allows an individual to be paid up to $200,000 is a waiver to that law. Lawmakers are contemplating making that waiver more robust.<\/p>\n Rep. Fiona McFarland made a case for why reform is needed on the House floor in January before the chamber passed her version of the bill seeking to increase the financial limit to $500,000 per person and $1 million per incident. Simply put: Finding financial relief is too hard.<\/p>\n When a legislator files a claim bill on behalf of the injured person, staff attorneys for the House and Senate act as a magistrate and hold a hearing based on evidence from the trial or settlement and beyond. At the end, they recommend a payout, which is often similar to the settlement or judgment figure. Lawmakers use it as a starting point.<\/p>\n \u201cWe know this process well,\u201d McFarland, a Sarasota Republican, said in her closing argument on HB 145. \u201cYou have to find a bill sponsor. You have to keep your attorney with you. You have to hope that a lobbyist will represent you, and then you also have to hope that both chambers of government will be inclined to hear a claims bill.\u201d<\/p>\n McFarland, who has run some form of her bill since 2024, added: \u201cIt\u2019s an incredibly arduous and difficult process.\u201d<\/p>\n Not only is McFarland seeking to more than double the amount a person can get without having to find a lobbyist to take up their claim and a lawmaker to sponsor the necessary legislation, she is looking to circumvent that process entirely.<\/p>\n Under current law, the only way a city, for instance, can settle above the $200,000 threshold is if it has purchased insurance coverage. McFarland\u2019s bill would do away with that requirement, allowing the city to settle the claim above the limit without intervention by the Legislature.<\/p>\n That\u2019s not the case with the Senate bill; Brodeur would face significant pushback from counties, cities, school districts, hospitals and sheriffs if he considered adding it to the provision.<\/p>\n State entities covered by sovereign immunity are frequently self-insured. Removing the insurance provision would, in effect, remove the leverage those governments have in negotiating with an injured victim. Currently, the injured party has no recourse but to settle for the $200,000 limit or go to the Legislature for a higher payment, which usually takes years.<\/p>\n The oldest incident among the claims bills this year is from 2001. The most recent is from 2023.<\/p>\n