Florida's personal injury legal landscape has changed more dramatically in the past three years than in the preceding two decades. The passage of HB 837 in March 2023 — described by advocates as the most significant tort reform in Florida history — reshaped the rules governing negligence claims, comparative fault, damages evidence, attorney's fees, and the statute of limitations. For anyone pursuing or defending a personal injury claim in Florida in 2026, understanding these updated statutes is not optional. This in-depth guide examines the key provisions of HB 837, their interaction with Florida Statutes §§ 95.11 and 768.81, and the practical implications for injured Floridians in Miami-Dade, Broward, and across South Florida.

The Statute of Limitations Under § 95.11: Now Two Years

One of HB 837's most impactful changes was the reduction of Florida's negligence statute of limitations from four years to two years. Under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a) as amended, plaintiffs now have just two years from the date of the negligent act or the date they discovered (or should have discovered) the injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. This change applies to negligence-based claims filed on or after March 24, 2023. For victims of car accidents, slip and falls, medical malpractice (which has its own two-year limitation under § 95.11(4)(b)), premises liability incidents, and other negligence-based injuries, missing this deadline means permanently losing the right to sue — regardless of how strong your claim is. Consulting a Florida personal injury attorney immediately after an injury is essential to protect your rights.

Modified Comparative Negligence: The 50% Bar Under § 768.81

Perhaps the single most consequential change in HB 837 is the adoption of modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar, codified in Fla. Stat. § 768.81. Under the prior pure comparative fault system, a plaintiff who was 99% at fault could still recover 1% of their damages from a defendant. Under the new modified system, a plaintiff found to be more than 50% at fault for their own injury is completely barred from recovering any damages. If a plaintiff is 50% or less at fault, recovery is still reduced proportionally — a plaintiff 40% at fault recovers 60% of their damages. This reform dramatically changes litigation strategy: defendants will aggressively push for fault allocations above 50% for plaintiffs, and plaintiff attorneys must anticipate and counter those arguments with strong liability evidence.

How the 50% Bar Affects Common Florida Accident Types

The 50% modified comparative fault bar has particular practical implications for certain categories of Florida personal injury cases. In multi-vehicle accidents on I-95 or the Palmetto Expressway, disputes about who initiated the chain of events become outcome-determinative. In slip-and-fall cases under Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 — which requires proof that a business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition — fault allocation between the plaintiff and the property owner is now high-stakes. In pedestrian and bicycle accident cases, defense attorneys will scrutinize whether the injured party was jaywalking, riding against traffic, or otherwise contributing to the accident. Every percentage point of comparative fault matters in a way it did not before 2023.

Damages Evidence: The Limitation of Phantom Damages

HB 837 fundamentally changed how medical damages are presented at trial. Prior to the reform, plaintiffs could introduce the full list price of medical services — often inflated billing figures — as evidence of past medical expenses, even when the actual amount paid (by insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare) was far lower. This created a significant inflation of claimed damages. Under the reformed § 768.81 and accompanying provisions, courts now limit evidence of medical damages to amounts actually paid or owed, not list prices or billed amounts. For plaintiffs who received medical care covered by health insurance, the relevant figure is what the insurer actually paid plus any patient responsibility — not the sticker price. This reform significantly reduces potential damages awards in cases where there is a large gap between billed and paid amounts, which is common in Florida's healthcare market.

One-Way Attorney's Fees in Personal Injury: What Changed

Florida's one-way attorney's fees provision under § 627.428, which historically allowed policyholders and certain claimants to recover attorney's fees from insurers who wrongfully denied valid claims, was substantially curtailed by the 2022-2023 reforms for property insurance claims. In the personal injury context, the dynamics are somewhat different: the right to recover attorney's fees in first-party bad faith claims (§ 624.155) and under offer of judgment statutes (§ 768.79) remain important. Under § 768.79, if a defendant makes a qualifying offer of judgment and the plaintiff's ultimate recovery is less than 75% of the offer (or greater than 125% if the plaintiff makes the offer), the offering party may recover attorney's fees. This provision puts significant pressure on plaintiffs to carefully evaluate settlement offers and on defendants to make strategic offers early.

Medical Malpractice: Two-Year Limitations and the Presuit Notice Requirement

Medical malpractice claims in Florida carry their own statute of limitations — two years from the date of the incident or from when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury, under § 95.11(4)(b), with an absolute four-year statute of repose from the date of the incident (with narrow exceptions for fraud or concealment). In addition, Florida's medical malpractice presuit process under Fla. Stat. §§ 766.104–766.216 requires plaintiffs to conduct a presuit investigation, obtain a corroborating affidavit from a medical expert, and give defendants notice and an opportunity to respond before filing suit. This process, while burdensome, is mandatory — failure to comply results in dismissal. HB 837's two-year general negligence limitation also applies to medical negligence claims that are framed as ordinary negligence rather than malpractice, though courts will analyze the substance of the claim.

Premises Liability After HB 837: § 768.0755 and Notice Requirements

Florida's slip-and-fall law for commercial establishments underwent its most recent significant change in 2010, when the Legislature enacted § 768.0755, requiring plaintiffs to prove that the business had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. HB 837 did not directly amend § 768.0755, but its modification of comparative fault rules affects these cases significantly. Property owners will now push harder to establish that plaintiffs ignored obvious hazards, wore inappropriate footwear, or were otherwise contributorily negligent in ways that approach or exceed 50%. Plaintiffs must document the condition of the floor, the duration the hazard was present, and the property owner's inspection practices to establish constructive notice. Surveillance footage, incident reports, and maintenance logs are critical evidence in these cases.

Wrongful Death Claims Under Florida's Wrongful Death Act

Florida's Wrongful Death Act (Fla. Stat. §§ 768.16–768.26) allows survivors and the estate of a decedent killed by another's negligence to recover damages including medical and funeral expenses, lost support and services, and, for certain survivors, pain and suffering. HB 837 expanded the categories of survivors who can recover non-economic damages in medical malpractice wrongful death cases — a significant change from prior law that had barred adult children from recovering such damages. The statute of limitations for wrongful death claims is two years from the date of death. Wrongful death cases in South Florida involving car accidents, trucking crashes, or medical negligence can involve substantial damages, and the comparative fault rules under § 768.81 now apply in these cases as well.

Negligent Security and Crime on Premises

South Florida's dense urban environments in Miami-Dade and Broward create significant negligent security liability for property owners whose inadequate security measures allow criminal attacks on guests, tenants, or business visitors. Under Florida's premises liability framework, a property owner's duty to provide reasonable security is analyzed based on the foreseeability of crime — prior incidents on or near the property are highly relevant. HB 837's comparative fault provisions now allow defendants in negligent security cases to argue that the plaintiff's own conduct (e.g., going to a known high-crime area late at night, ignoring warning signs) contributed to the harm and should reduce or eliminate recovery. Plaintiff attorneys must build negligent security cases that preemptively address these comparative fault arguments.

Dog Bites and Strict Liability Under § 767.04

Florida's dog bite statute, Fla. Stat. § 767.04, imposes strict liability on dog owners for bites that occur in public places or while the victim is lawfully on private property, regardless of the owner's prior knowledge of the dog's viciousness. The statute allows the owner to raise comparative fault of the victim as a defense — for example, if the victim provoked the dog. Under HB 837's 50% comparative fault bar, a dog bite victim found more than 50% at fault (e.g., for extreme provocation) would be barred from recovery. This is a meaningful change in dog bite litigation dynamics, though the strict liability standard under § 767.04 means that in most cases, the primary liability question is not whether the owner was negligent but what the victim's comparative fault was.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: I was injured in a car accident in Miami in early 2024. How long do I have to file a lawsuit? A: Under the HB 837 amendment to § 95.11(3)(a), the statute of limitations for negligence claims filed on or after March 24, 2023 is two years from the date of the accident. If your accident occurred in early 2024, you generally have until early 2026 to file suit — but do not wait until the last moment. Consult a Florida personal injury attorney immediately to preserve your claim.

Q: What does the 50% modified comparative fault bar mean for my slip-and-fall case? A: If a jury finds you were more than 50% responsible for your own fall — for example, because you were distracted, wearing inappropriate footwear, or ignored an obvious warning sign — you will recover nothing. If you are 50% or less at fault, your recovery is reduced proportionally. This makes the documentation of the dangerous condition and the property owner's notice or negligence more important than ever.

Q: Can I still recover damages if my medical bills were paid by health insurance? A: Under the post-HB 837 rules, evidence of medical damages at trial is limited to amounts actually paid or owed, not the full billed amounts. You can still recover for your out-of-pocket costs and other damages (lost wages, pain and suffering, future medical expenses), but the reform has reduced the potential medical damages component of claims where insurance paid most of the bills. Your attorney should carefully calculate and document every compensable element of your damages.

Q: Does HB 837 apply to accidents that happened before March 24, 2023? A: Generally, no. The amended provisions of HB 837 apply to causes of action that accrued on or after March 24, 2023. Claims arising from accidents before that date are generally governed by the prior law — including the four-year statute of limitations and pure comparative fault. If you are uncertain which law applies to your specific claim, consult a Florida attorney.

Q: How does the offer of judgment statute under § 768.79 affect my personal injury case? A: Under § 768.79, if a defendant makes a qualifying written offer of judgment and you ultimately recover less than 75% of that amount at trial, the defendant may be entitled to recover their attorney's fees from you for the period after the offer was made. This creates real financial risk in going to trial on a case where the defendant has made a meaningful offer. Your attorney must carefully evaluate every settlement offer in light of this statute.

Key Takeaways

HB 837 reduced the negligence statute of limitations to two years under § 95.11(3)(a) — act immediately after an injury.
The 50% modified comparative fault bar under § 768.81 bars any recovery if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.
Damages evidence is now limited to amounts actually paid or owed, not inflated billing figures.
The offer of judgment statute under § 768.79 creates attorney's fee exposure for plaintiffs who reject reasonable offers.
Florida's dog bite statute (§ 767.04) remains strict liability but comparative fault defenses apply.
Wrongful death and medical malpractice claims have their own specific limitations and procedural requirements.
Every percentage point of comparative fault is now outcome-determinative — building strong liability evidence is essential.

The Farber Law Firm represents personal injury victims across South Florida, including Miami-Dade, Broward, and Coral Gables, in the post-HB 837 legal environment. We understand how the 2023 reforms affect every stage of your claim and are committed to building the strongest possible case for every client. Contact us today for a free consultation.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change; consult a licensed Florida attorney about your specific situation.

Understanding Florida's Updated Personal Injury Statutes