Read DeSantis' explanation of the reform here

"I think this is Big Insurance companies convincing legislators that we need to be a business-friendly state. The problem is that in the meantime, they're trampling on the rights of everyday Floridians and making our safe state unsafe," Cain said. "That bill, frankly, makes our state unsafe. It disincentivizes business owners and apartment complexes from taking appropriate security measures, and I think will result in more crime not less—all to get big insurance more money."

'All types of lawsuits'

Both bills plus the proposed amendments are the talk of Tallahassee and South Florida.

Davie legal ethics professor Robert Jarvis said 837 is a terrible bill.

Jarvis, who teaches at Nova Southeastern University, says at its base level, the bill continues the insurance industry's long effort to reduce payouts to plaintiffs.

"The industry has never had a more supportive governor or legislature, and that is why it is striking now and finding success," Jarvis said.

Jarvis said it would be a change to the comparative negligence system—used for decades— and designed to help defendants, who in most cases are companies.

"All plaintiffs, whether crime victims or not, take a chance when they file a lawsuit that they will be unsuccessful," he said. "And HB 837's changes are not specifically aimed at crime victims. Instead, they apply broadly to all types of lawsuits."

Changes would affect premises liability

But that's of little comfort to former victims of crime who gathered in Miami Lakes Thursday to voice their concerns.

The group was comprised of victims of violent crime, victims of negligence and those who lost loved ones to tragedy, most of which sought financial restitution via lawsuits in the past.

Spokesperson Renee Williams with the advocacy group National Center for Victims of Crime said the proposed changes make her worried for Floridians "… and a little bit angry."

"I think that there has been a misnomer that this is tort reform," Williams said. "And while I totally respect some of the policy purposes behind this bill, it's disheartening that the amendment that joined this week was done with absolutely no consideration to crime victims."

Williams is concerned with the wording of the "premises liability for criminal acts" by third parties in the bill, which she said alludes to owners or principal operators of multifamily properties and businesses having certain presumptions against liability.

"If business owners and if businesses in the state of Florida have a crime committed on their property, as long as they can point to the perpetrator or the criminal as being responsible, they're no longer responsible for anything, including common sense safety measures that keep individuals and communities safe," she said.

'Slip it through the legislature'

Jarvis, the ethics expert, said some lawyers are reluctant to discuss the proposed changes.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers, of course, clearly are against it, (but) why won't any defense lawyers speak? I think the answer is obvious: This is a bad bill for consumers, and its opponents are hoping to slip it through the legislature," he said. "Recognizing, however, that this is not going to slip through the legislature, they are calling it tort reform, when of course, it is no such thing."

"I can't think of any lawyer who might be willing to give you a quote supporting bill, " Jarvis added.

Special Reports /

Proposed Florida laws are good news for insurers—as plaintiff lawyers push back

Related Stories

Recommended For You