Published on
HB 145 would raise Florida’s long-standing limits on claims against state and local governments from $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident to $350,000 and $500,000, while also tightening notice and filing deadlines for many claims.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Legislature has approved a bill that would raise the state’s sovereign immunity caps for the first time in years, increasing the amount an injured person can recover from the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions from $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident to $350,000 per person and $500,000 per incident. HB 145 cleared the House in January, passed the Senate with changes on March 10, and won final House concurrence on March 12. The enrolled version of the bill was posted March 13.
Under Florida law, sovereign immunity is the doctrine that generally shields government from being sued unless the Legislature waives that protection. Florida has done that in limited form through section 768.28, allowing negligence claims against the state and local governments in some cases, but capping how much can actually be collected unless lawmakers later approve a separate claims bill for amounts above the cap.
That makes HB 145 significant for Floridians injured by government negligence, including in serious crash, premises liability, and wrongful death cases. For decades, the recovery limits have remained at $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. Supporters of the bill argued those numbers are badly outdated and often leave victims and families unable to recover damages that come close to matching catastrophic losses.
The final version, however, is more modest than what the House originally advanced. A December House staff analysis of the filed bill said the proposal would have raised the caps to $500,000 per person and $1 million per incident beginning in 2026, with another increase scheduled for 2031. But the Senate amended the measure before passage, and the enrolled bill now sets the caps at $350,000 per person and $500,000 per incident instead.
The bill does more than change the payout limits. It also shortens the time for many claimants to act. The enrolled text reduces the pre-suit notice period for many claims from three years to 18 months, changes the general negligence filing window to two years, and reduces the time the state or agency has to dispose of many claims before they are deemed denied from six months to four months. Wrongful death and medical malpractice claims keep a separate 90-day denial period.
That means the bill gives victims a higher potential recovery in some cases, while also requiring them and their attorneys to move faster. For lawyers who handle these cases, that tradeoff will matter. Rep. Fiona McFarland, the bill sponsor, argued the higher cap could make it easier for some injured Floridians to secure legal representation, even if the Legislature did not approve the larger increase she originally sought. The article you provided also noted concerns raised on the House floor about whether the Senate’s lower compromise would go far enough to meaningfully affect some large claims.
Opposition to the measure has largely come from local governments and their advocates, who have warned that higher caps can mean increased insurance premiums, larger settlements, and greater legal exposure for public entities. House staff similarly concluded the bill would likely have an indeterminate but significant negative fiscal impact on state and local governments.
Even with the increase, the final legislation does not eliminate the claims bill process for judgments above the cap. In other words, people who win awards beyond $350,000 or $500,000 in a single incident may still need the Legislature to authorize payment of the excess. That means HB 145 would increase access to compensation, but it would not fully open the door to collecting the full value of every judgment entered against a government body.
In practical terms, HB 145 represents a compromise. For victims and families, it is a long-awaited increase to limits that many lawyers and advocates say have been outdated for years. For cities, counties, school districts, and other public agencies, it marks a measurable expansion of potential liability, even if lawmakers stopped well short of the more aggressive House proposal floated earlier in the session.
