Florida Tort Reform

Florida’s 2023 Comparative Negligence Law: Before vs After (With Real Case Examples)

On March 24, 2023, Florida’s personal injury landscape changed overnight. Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 837 into law — the most sweeping tort reform legislation Florida had seen in decades. At the heart of the law: a fundamental change to how comparative negligence works in personal injury cases. For accident victims, the consequences are enormous and often misunderstood.

Under the old law, if you were injured in Fort Lauderdale and found 80% at fault for the accident, you could still recover 20% of your damages. Under the new law, if you’re found 51% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Insurance companies now have a massive incentive to argue shared fault — because pushing you just one percentage point over the 51% threshold eliminates your entire claim.

This guide explains exactly what changed in 2023, shows side-by-side case examples comparing the old and new rules, and explains what this means for your Broward County personal injury claim. At Dean Levy Injury Law, we’ve adapted our approach to the new law — and we’re still winning substantial settlements for our clients. Here’s what you need to know.

---

What Is Comparative Negligence?

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that reduces an injured person’s recovery by their percentage of fault in causing the accident. The idea is fairness — if both drivers contributed to a crash, neither should bear 100% of the financial consequences.

For example, imagine a pedestrian crossing mid-block without a crosswalk gets hit by a driver who was speeding and texting. The pedestrian has some fault (jaywalking), but the driver has more (speeding + texting). Comparative negligence assigns percentages — say 70% driver fault, 30% pedestrian fault. The pedestrian’s recovery is reduced by their 30% fault percentage.

The question that changed in 2023 is: what happens when the injured person’s fault percentage is high?

---

The Old Law: Pure Comparative Negligence

Before March 24, 2023, Florida followed pure comparative negligence. Under this system:

• Injured parties could recover even if they were 90% or 99% at fault
• Recovery was simply reduced by the plaintiff’s fault percentage
• Even a mostly-at-fault plaintiff could recover for the small percentage of the other party’s fault
• There was no “cliff” at which recovery disappeared entirely

Pure comparative negligence was plaintiff-friendly. It ensured that even seriously at-fault people with catastrophic injuries could recover something for the other party’s contribution to the accident. Only 13 states used pure comparative negligence as of 2022 — Florida was a major holdout among plaintiff-friendly states.

---

The New Law: Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Bar)

HB 837 replaced pure comparative negligence with modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar. Under the new rules:

• If you’re found 50% or less at fault, you recover, reduced by your fault percentage
• If you’re found 51% or more at fault, you recover NOTHING
• The cliff at 51% is absolute — there’s no partial recovery, no sympathy exception

Florida now follows the majority approach used in most states. However, the transition has created massive pressure on accident victims — because insurance companies now have every incentive to argue shared fault up to and beyond the 51% threshold.

---

Side-by-Side Case Examples

These examples illustrate how the change from pure to modified comparative negligence affects real-world cases.

Example 1: Rear-End Collision with Disputed Brake Lights

Facts: Driver A rear-ends Driver B on Federal Highway. Driver A argues Driver B had broken brake lights. Jury finds Driver A 70% at fault (for following too closely and not paying attention) and Driver B 30% at fault (for driving with known brake light issue).

Damages: $100,000 total

	Pre-2023 Pure System	Post-2023 Modified System
Driver B fault %	30%	30%
Recovery reduction	30% reduction	30% reduction
Driver B’s recovery	$70,000	$70,000

Result: Same outcome. When the plaintiff’s fault percentage is below 51%, the new law works the same way as the old law.

Example 2: Pedestrian Jaywalking Case

Facts: Pedestrian crosses Las Olas Boulevard mid-block at night wearing dark clothes. Driver is going slightly above speed limit and looks at cell phone briefly. Driver hits pedestrian. Jury finds pedestrian 55% at fault and driver 45% at fault.

Damages: $200,000 total

	Pre-2023 Pure System	Post-2023 Modified System
Pedestrian fault %	55%	55%
Recovery reduction	55% reduction	55% reduction = barred by 51% rule
Pedestrian’s recovery	$90,000	$0

Result: The new law completely eliminates recovery in this case. Under the old law, the pedestrian received $90,000. Under the new law, they receive nothing. This is the dramatic change HB 837 created.

Example 3: Intersection Collision with Disputed Right-of-Way

Facts: Two drivers approach an intersection where a stop sign is partially obscured by vegetation. Driver A has the right-of-way but was distracted. Driver B blew through the stop sign. Accident reconstruction and witness testimony leave fault allocation uncertain. Jury finds Driver A 40% at fault, Driver B 60% at fault.

Driver A’s damages: $150,000

	Pre-2023 Pure System	Post-2023 Modified System
Driver A fault %	40%	40%
Recovery reduction	40% reduction	40% reduction
Driver A’s recovery	$90,000	$90,000

Result: Same outcome. Plaintiff found below 51% at fault sees no change in recovery.

Example 4: Distracted Pedestrian Case

Facts: Pedestrian walking in crosswalk on his phone, not looking at traffic. Driver turning right on red fails to stop fully and hits pedestrian. Jury finds pedestrian 52% at fault (not paying attention) and driver 48% at fault (failure to yield).

Damages: $300,000 total

	Pre-2023 Pure System	Post-2023 Modified System
Pedestrian fault %	52%	52%
Recovery reduction	52% reduction	Barred by 51% rule
Pedestrian’s recovery	$144,000	$0

Result: Under the old law, the pedestrian received $144,000 despite being majority at fault. Under the new law, the 2% difference between 52% and 50% means the difference between $144,000 and zero. This illustrates exactly why the exact fault percentage matters so much under the new law.

---

Why Insurance Companies Love the New Law

HB 837 shifted the balance of power significantly toward insurance companies and defendants. Here’s how insurers have adapted their tactics:

Aggressive Fault-Shifting in Clear Cases

In cases where liability used to be straightforward (rear-end collisions, T-bones where one party ran a light), insurance companies now argue shared fault aggressively. Common arguments include:

• “Your brake lights weren’t working” (rear-end cases)
• “You stopped suddenly” (rear-end cases)
• “You were going too fast given the conditions” (almost any case)
• “You weren’t paying attention to what the other driver was doing”
• “You should have anticipated the other driver’s error”
• “Your injuries are worse than they should be because you didn’t seek immediate treatment”

These arguments existed before 2023, but insurers have sharpened them significantly post-reform because every percentage point matters more.

Lowball Settlement Offers Citing Fault

Where pre-2023 an insurance company might have offered $80,000 on a $100,000 case, citing minor comparative fault to justify the discount, post-2023 they might offer $40,000 citing major comparative fault. The implicit threat: “Accept this or risk being found 51% at fault and getting nothing.”

More Trial Preparation and Willingness

Insurance companies now prepare more cases for trial because the 51% bar creates a “winner-take-all” possibility. If they can convince a jury to find the plaintiff 51% at fault, they pay nothing. This incentive has slowed settlement negotiations across the board.

---

Other Critical Changes in HB 837

The comparative negligence change wasn’t the only impact. HB 837 made several other important changes that affect Florida personal injury cases:

Statute of Limitations Cut in Half

Before 2023, Florida gave injured parties 4 years to file a personal injury lawsuit. After 2023, that window was reduced to 2 years. The cut applies to negligence-based personal injury cases — the vast majority of accident claims.

This dramatically increases the risk that cases miss the filing deadline. It also limits the time available for full medical treatment before litigation must be commenced. An accident victim who’s still in treatment a year after the crash now has only one year to file suit if negotiations fail.

Medical Damages Calculation Changes

HB 837 changed how medical expenses are calculated and presented at trial. Among the changes:

• Providers’ actual reimbursement rates (often a fraction of billed charges) are now more often introduced
• Letters of protection must be disclosed and scrutinized
• Past medical expenses generally limited to amounts actually paid or payable

These changes generally reduce the medical damages portion of cases, which in turn reduces the base for pain and suffering multiplier calculations.

One-Way Attorney Fees Eliminated

Before 2023, Florida had a “one-way attorney fee” rule in many insurance disputes — if a plaintiff won, the insurer paid their attorney fees; if the insurer won, the plaintiff didn’t pay the insurer’s fees. HB 837 eliminated this advantage in most insurance claims, making it more expensive and risky to litigate against insurers.

Changes to Bad Faith Claims

HB 837 added new requirements for bringing bad faith claims against insurance companies, including a 90-day cure period that insurers can use to avoid bad faith exposure. This slightly tilted the playing field further toward insurers.

---

What This Means for Your Case

Fault Allocation Is the Battleground

Under the new law, the central question in many cases isn’t “how much are my damages?” — it’s “what percentage of fault will I be assigned?” A case with clear $500,000 in damages is worthless if the plaintiff is found 51% at fault. A case with $100,000 in damages and 0% plaintiff fault is fully recoverable.

Legal strategy has shifted accordingly:

• Accident reconstruction experts are more important than ever
• Witness testimony about fault allocation is critical
• Surveillance footage from surrounding businesses becomes essential evidence
• Social media activity of the defendant is investigated for distracted driving evidence
• Cell phone records are subpoenaed routinely

Faster Action Required

The shortened statute of limitations means evidence must be preserved quickly, medical treatment must be documented efficiently, and cases must be filed sooner. Accident victims who wait to see how their injuries resolve before seeking legal advice may run out of time.

Settlement Pressure Works Both Ways

Insurance companies now push harder for low settlements because they have more leverage. But they also settle cases earlier in some situations to avoid the risk of a clear liability finding that would result in larger judgment. Experienced attorneys navigate this new dynamic to produce favorable outcomes for clients.

Legal Representation Matters More

Unrepresented claimants have always done worse than represented claimants. Post-HB 837, the gap is wider. Insurance companies exploit the new rules aggressively against people without legal counsel. Free consultations with personal injury attorneys are more valuable than ever.

---

How to Protect Your Claim Under the New Law

1. Document liability evidence immediately. Photos of the scene, witness information, and dashcam/surveillance footage become more important than ever under the new fault-focused regime.
2. Seek immediate medical treatment. Within 14 days for PIP compliance, ideally within 24-72 hours for the strongest baseline. Don’t give insurers “gap in treatment” ammunition.
3. Don’t admit fault or speculate. Insurance adjusters will ask leading questions designed to elicit partial admissions. Every word is being evaluated for comparative fault arguments.
4. Avoid social media. Posts, photos, and check-ins become exhibits in fault allocation disputes. Go dark immediately.
5. Don’t give recorded statements. Your words will be used to push your fault percentage higher.
6. Consult an attorney early. The 2-year statute of limitations means earlier action is required. Free consultations help ensure nothing is missed.
7. Preserve digital evidence. Cell phone data, GPS records, car infotainment logs, and ride-share app data can all establish fault. Your attorney sends preservation letters quickly.
8. Hire an attorney who prepares for trial. Post-HB 837, insurers are more willing to go to trial. Attorneys who lack trial experience may settle too cheaply to avoid the risk.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

---

Related Resources

Dean Levy Injury Law — 955 South Federal Hwy, Suite 416, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 — (888) 613-3326