Why Florida Changed Its Insurance Laws
Florida's property insurance market was in crisis. Between 2020 and 2022, multiple carriers became insolvent, premiums doubled or tripled in some areas, and the state-run insurer Citizens grew to an unsustainable size. The root cause was a toxic combination of catastrophic hurricane exposure, rampant litigation, and Assignment of Benefits abuse that made Florida the most expensive and volatile property insurance market in the country.
Florida accounted for roughly 8% of homeowners insurance claims nationally but generated over 70% of homeowners insurance lawsuits. This disproportionate litigation volume drove carrier expenses far beyond what premiums collected could sustain. Every lawsuit, regardless of outcome, costs carriers money to defend — and those costs were reflected in premium increases for all policyholders.
The Legislature responded with two major reform packages. Senate Bill 2A passed in December 2022 during a special session called specifically to address the insurance crisis. House Bill 837 followed in March 2023 during the regular session. Together, these bills represent the most significant changes to Florida property insurance law in decades.
Understanding these reforms matters because they directly affect how your roof claim is handled, how much time you have to act, and what legal options are available if you disagree with your carrier. The rules changed, and homeowners who operate under the old assumptions may make costly mistakes.
Senate Bill 2A: The Core Insurance Reform
One-Way Attorney Fee Elimination
The most impactful change in SB 2A was the elimination of one-way attorney fees in property insurance lawsuits. Under the previous system, if a policyholder sued their carrier and won any additional amount beyond what the carrier offered — even a dollar — the carrier was required to pay the policyholder's attorney fees. This created a one-sided incentive structure where filing lawsuits carried little financial risk for policyholders and their attorneys.
Under the new rules, each side bears its own attorney fees unless a statute or the policy specifically provides otherwise. This fundamentally changes the cost-benefit calculation for filing an insurance lawsuit. Policyholders now face the prospect of paying their own legal costs even if they win a partial victory, which has reduced the volume of speculative lawsuits.
For homeowners with legitimate underpaid claims, this change means litigation is more expensive to pursue. An attorney who previously took your case on contingency — knowing they could recover fees from the carrier — may now require upfront fees or a larger share of the settlement. This does not mean you cannot sue your carrier, but the economics of doing so have changed significantly.
Assignment of Benefits (AOB) Restrictions
SB 2A restricted the use of agreements in property insurance claims. Under AOB, a homeowner could sign over their insurance claim rights to a contractor, who would then deal directly with the carrier — and often file lawsuits on the homeowner's behalf. While AOB was intended to simplify the process for homeowners, it became a vehicle for inflated claims and excessive litigation.
The new restrictions limit the scope and enforceability of AOB agreements. Carriers now have more control over the claims process, and contractors have less ability to pursue litigation on a homeowner's behalf through an AOB. For homeowners, this means you retain more control over your claim but also bear more responsibility for managing the process.
Supplemental Claims Timeline Change
The window for filing supplemental claims was reduced from five years to three years from the date of loss. A supplemental claim is a request for additional payment on a previously filed claim — typically because additional damage was discovered after the initial settlement. This shorter window affects Panhandle homeowners who may discover latent roof damage months or years after a hurricane.
This change has practical implications. If you settled a roof claim and later discover that the repairs did not address all the damage, or that additional hidden damage exists, you now have three years instead of five to file a supplemental claim. Do not wait to investigate if you suspect your initial claim settlement was insufficient.
House Bill 837: Additional Litigation Reform
HB 837, passed in 2023, extended the litigation reform beyond insurance. It modified Florida's bad faith litigation framework, comparative fault standards, and other civil litigation rules. For property insurance claims, the most relevant change was the modification of the bad faith claims process that policyholders used when carriers acted unreasonably.
Under the new framework, carriers receive a 90-day "safe harbor" period after a claim is filed during which they can resolve the claim without exposure to bad faith liability. This gives carriers a defined window to investigate and settle, reducing the leverage that policyholders previously had to pressure carriers into rapid settlements through bad faith threat.
For homeowners, HB 837 means that the legal remedies available when a carrier acts unreasonably are more limited than they were before. This does not mean carriers can act with impunity — bad faith claims are still possible — but the process is more structured and the carrier has more defined protections. Documenting carrier communications and response times has become more important, not less.
Before and After: What Changed for Homeowners
| Issue | Before 2022 Reforms | After 2022 Reforms |
|---|---|---|
| Attorney fees in insurance lawsuits | Carrier paid policyholder's attorney fees if policyholder won any additional amount | Each side pays its own attorney fees unless statute specifically provides otherwise |
| Assignment of Benefits | Broadly enforceable — contractors could litigate on homeowner's behalf | Restricted — limited scope and enforceability of AOB agreements |
| Supplemental claim window | Five years from date of loss | Three years from date of loss |
| Bad faith claims | No safe harbor — carrier exposed to bad faith from moment of claim | 90-day safe harbor period for carrier to investigate and resolve |
| Roof claim solicitation | Contractors could solicit homeowners to file claims with few restrictions | Stricter rules on contractor solicitation for insurance-funded roof work |
| Policyholder litigation leverage | Strong — one-way fees made litigation low-risk for policyholders | Reduced — policyholders now share litigation cost risk |
What These Changes Mean for Panhandle Homeowners
Filing roof claims now requires more diligence on the homeowner's part. With reduced litigation leverage and shorter supplemental claim windows, the quality of your initial claim submission matters more than ever. Thorough documentation — photos, videos, contractor estimates, and dated records — strengthens your position and reduces the need for costly legal action.
Getting an independent estimate is more important, not less. If your carrier's adjuster undervalues your roof damage, you need a credible independent estimate from a licensed contractor to support your position. Without one-way attorney fees as leverage, the strength of your evidence is your primary tool for negotiating a fair settlement.
The appraisal process has become more valuable. When you disagree with your carrier's damage estimate, invoking the appraisal clause in your policy is now often more practical than filing a lawsuit. Appraisal is faster, cheaper, and resolves the dispute over damage amount without the cost of litigation. Review your policy's appraisal clause and understand the process before you need it.
Be cautious with contractors who offer to "handle everything" through your insurance. The AOB restrictions mean that signing over your claim rights to a contractor is more limited and may not provide the same benefits it once did. Stay involved in your claim process. Read everything before signing. And never sign a contract that requires you to use a specific attorney.
Has the Market Actually Improved?
The reforms were designed to stabilize the market and attract carriers back to Florida. As of early 2026, there are signs of improvement. Several new carriers have entered the Florida market, and some existing carriers have begun writing new policies in areas they previously avoided. The rate of carrier insolvencies has slowed, and Citizens' policy count has begun declining from its peak.
However, premiums have not dropped significantly for most Panhandle homeowners. Rate increases have slowed in many cases, and some carriers have filed smaller increases or flat renewals. But the cumulative premium increases from 2020 to 2023 remain baked into current rates. A return to pre-crisis premium levels is not expected.
Availability has improved more than affordability. Panhandle homeowners who could not find any private market coverage two years ago may now have options. That is real progress. But the premiums those carriers are charging reflect the ongoing risk of insuring coastal Florida properties, and those rates are substantially higher than what homeowners paid a decade ago.
The long-term success of these reforms depends on continued reduction in litigation volume, the absence of a catastrophic hurricane testing the market, and the willingness of carriers to pass savings through to policyholders. All three conditions must hold for premiums to meaningfully decline. One major hurricane could reset the equation entirely.
"The 2022 reforms were designed to help insurance companies at the expense of homeowners."
The reforms were designed to stabilize a market that was failing everyone — carriers, homeowners, and the state. Multiple carriers had become insolvent, leaving policyholders without coverage. Remaining carriers were raising rates dramatically or leaving the state. The reforms reduced litigation costs that all policyholders were ultimately paying through higher premiums. Homeowners lost some litigation leverage, but the alternative was a continued market collapse.
Viewing the reforms as purely anti-consumer misses the context. Homeowners benefit from a stable market with multiple competing carriers. Whether the reforms achieve that goal remains an ongoing question, but the status quo before 2022 was unsustainable for everyone.
What to Watch Going Forward
Additional legislative changes are possible in future sessions. The Florida Legislature has shown willingness to modify insurance laws based on market conditions. If the reforms do not produce the desired results — meaningful carrier re-entry and premium stabilization — additional changes may follow. Conversely, if the market stabilizes, pressure for further reform may ease.
Citizens' depopulation program will continue moving policyholders to private carriers as those carriers re-enter the market. If you are on Citizens, expect to receive offers from private carriers. Evaluate each offer carefully — compare coverage terms, deductible structures, and carrier financial strength, not just premium.
Roof condition will continue to be a central underwriting factor for Panhandle properties. Whether you are with Citizens or a private carrier, maintaining your roof and documenting its condition remains your most effective strategy for keeping coverage and managing premiums. FORTIFIED designation, wind mitigation inspections, and proactive maintenance all improve your position.