A Trojan Horse for Insurers? Florida’s 2025 Civil Procedure Rule Changes and their Impact on Injury Claims.

As of January 1, 2025, significant amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure take effect, raising serious concerns about access to justice for consumers, particularly in the context of injury claims against insurance companies. As someone who follows legal trends and advocates for consumer protection, I’ve been closely examining these changes, especially in light of Florida House Bill 837 from 2023, which significantly altered the landscape of insurance litigation by impacting bad faith claims and attorney fee multipliers.

These new procedural rules arrive cloaked in the guise of efficiency and streamlined litigation. However, like the infamous Trojan Horse, these reforms may ultimately end up benefitting insurers at the expense of injured parties.

Potential Impact on Consumer Litigants vs. Insurance Companies

While the amendments are, on the surface, intended to create a more efficient system, the changes might unintentionally favor large insurance companies that typically have significantly more resources than consumer litigants seeking compensation for injuries. From my perspective, several potential issues stand out:

• Proportionality as a Sword: HB 837 aimed to reduce litigation costs for insurers. The new proportionality standard in Rule 1.280(c)(1) could be used to further this goal by allowing insurers to argue that extensive discovery—such as requests for internal claims handling documents that could reveal bad faith practices—is disproportionate to the individual claim. This seemingly reasonable principle, however, could act as a Trojan Horse, allowing insurers to limit crucial discovery. For instance, in a car accident case where an injured individual is seeking compensation for medical expenses and lost wages, the insurance company might argue that producing extensive internal communications related to claims handling is disproportionate, even if those communications could reveal evidence of unreasonable delays or denials of benefits. This effectively limits the ability of injured parties to gather evidence necessary to prove their case, further exacerbating the challenges created by HB 837’s changes to bad faith claims.
• Initial Disclosure Burden: Coupled with the restrictions imposed by HB 837, the burden of initial disclosures under Rule 1.280(a) could create a significant obstacle for individuals pursuing injury claims. Imagine someone recovering from a serious car accident, now tasked with compiling extensive medical records and documentation within 60 days, while simultaneously navigating the complexities of HB 837’s changes to the legal landscape. This burden disproportionately falls on injured parties already struggling with the physical and emotional aftermath of their injuries. This requirement, on its face, seems equitable, but it could be another element of the Trojan Horse, placing a disproportionate burden on the injured party.
• Dilatory Tactics: Even with the changes implemented by HB 837, insurers may still employ dilatory tactics. Now, the new rules requiring specific objections under Rules 1.340 and 1.350, while seemingly beneficial, could be exploited. Defense counsel could file numerous, highly specific objections, requiring extensive responses and court intervention, further delaying the process and increasing costs for the injured party. These tactics, much like warriors hidden within the Trojan Horse, can cripple the injured party’s ability to pursue their claim effectively. For example, defense counsel for an insurance company in a bad faith claim might file numerous objections to requests for internal claims handling manuals, arguing they are proprietary or irrelevant, even though such manuals are crucial for the plaintiff to demonstrate the company’s bad faith practices. This can delay the case significantly.
• Enforcement Mechanisms: Given the changes to attorney fee multipliers enacted by HB 837, the threat of sanctions under Rule 1.380 may have a diminished impact on large insurance companies. The potential cost of sanctions may be far outweighed by the financial benefits of delaying or limiting valid claims, especially considering the constraints on attorney fees imposed by HB 837. This reduced deterrent effect is yet another way the “gift” of these rules can be seen as a Trojan Horse. A modest sanction for failing to produce documents might be a minor inconvenience for a large corporation, but it could be financially devastating for an individual suing for medical expenses after a car accident.
• Continuances: While Rule 1.460 (Motions to Continue Trial) states that continuances are disfavored, the new deadlines and complexity of the discovery process may result in more motions for continuances. The requirement that the court state the basis for its ruling on a motion to continue on the record or in a written order may lead to more hearings, and the requirement that the moving party or counsel “make reasonable efforts to confer with the non-moving party” may create additional opportunities to delay or create conflict that results in a delay.
• Court Resources: As one dissenting Justice noted, federal judges have more resources than state judges to assist them with the strict mandates of the proportionality rule. This might make it harder for judges in Florida to adequately manage discovery disputes, particularly when there are resource imbalances between the litigants.

A Glacial Erosion of Consumer Rights.

These rule changes, when viewed in the context of HB 837, paint a concerning picture. From my perspective, analyzing legal changes and their impact on consumers, it appears that Florida’s legal system is slowly but systematically becoming more difficult for injured individuals to navigate when seeking to hold insurance companies accountable. The combined effect of HB 837 and these new rules raises the specter of a Trojan Horse, a seemingly beneficial gift that conceals a hidden threat to justice.

Participate, don’t bystand.

As observers of the legal system and advocates for fairness, we must recognize that these rule changes are not isolated events. They are part of a broader trend, exemplified by HB 837, that shifts the balance of power in favor of insurance companies. We must be prepared to critically examine these changes and raise awareness of their potential impact on consumers. It is crucial for those seeking legal recourse to understand the evolving legal landscape and seek qualified legal counsel to navigate these complexities.

Only through concerted effort can we ensure that these seemingly well-intentioned reforms do not inadvertently create a system that favors those with the deepest pockets.