The Debate Around Florida House Bill 1551 and Attorney’s Fees in Insurance Disputes.
Florida’s property insurance market is no stranger to volatility. With natural disasters, rising premiums, and insurers exiting the state, lawmakers have scrambled to stabilize the system. In 2022, one major reform—Senate Bill 2A (SB 2A)—eliminated the ability for policyholders to recover attorney fees in most insurance-related lawsuits. Now, House Bill 1551 (HB 1551) proposes to bring that right back, reigniting debate over consumer protection, litigation abuse, and the long-term health of Florida’s insurance industry.
The Core Issue: Who Bears the Legal Burden?
At the center of the conversation is a simple question: Should policyholders be able to recover attorney fees when they prevail in lawsuits against their insurers?
Prior to SB 2A, Florida law (under Fla. Stat. § 627.428) allowed for the recovery of attorney fees in property insurance lawsuits. This policy aimed to give consumers a fighting chance when insurers underpaid or denied valid claims, especially after hurricanes or floods, when policyholders might be financially vulnerable.
However, SB 2A repealed this provision as part of a sweeping special session aimed at curbing what lawmakers described as “abusive litigation.” Litigation costs were a major contributor to rising premiums, with Florida accounting for nearly 80% of the nation’s homeowner’s insurance lawsuits despite having only 9% of the claims.
Notably, while the intent of SB 2A was to stabilize the market and reduce insurance premiums, premiums have instead continued to rise in the aftermath. The insurance industry has argued that although rates are still increasing, those increases would have been even greater without the legislation. Still, for many policyholders, the relief promised by SB 2A has yet to be felt.
HB 1551: Reintroducing the Fee-Shifting Model
Filed in 2024 by Rep. Hillary Cassel, who notably switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party this year, HB 1551 would reinstate the right of policyholders to recover attorney fees if they prevail in court. Cassel, a former insurance attorney, has framed the bill as a necessary adjustment to restore fairness for consumers navigating insurance disputes.
Supporters argue that without fee recovery, many residents can’t afford to hold insurers accountable. They warn that the removal of the fee-shifting statute discourages legitimate claims and increases the power imbalance between insurers and consumers.
At the same time, some have pointed out that lawsuits declined after SB 2A, but not necessarily because of a drop in fraudulent or frivolous claims. Rather, consumers may have become less able or willing to pursue litigation without the chance to recoup attorney fees—leaving unresolved disputes on the table.
The Other Side: Industry and Legislative Concerns
On the other hand, insurance industry representatives and business groups argue that reinstating fee-shifting could unravel recent progress. They contend that HB 1551 would revive the litigation culture that drove up costs for everyone.
They maintain that although premiums haven’t fallen as expected since SB 2A, the increases would have been steeper without it. It’s a point of contention, with many lawmakers and consumer advocates remaining skeptical and frustrated by the continued financial strain on policyholders.
A Question of Balance
The broader question is how to balance access to justice with the need to control system-wide costs. HB 1551 may help protect vulnerable consumers, but critics fear it will lead to unintended consequences—especially if there are no accompanying guardrails.
Possible compromises have been floated: limiting attorney fee recovery to cases involving clear evidence of insurer bad faith, introducing mediation requirements, or placing caps on attorney fees. These could provide some protection for consumers without reopening the door to excessive litigation.
Looking Ahead
HB 1551 is still early in the legislative process, and its future remains uncertain. With the end of the legislative session approaching, the bill faces a time crunch. If it isn’t passed before the session adjourns, there are only two paths forward: a special session could be called to revisit it—something that’s rare and typically reserved for urgent or broadly supported issues—or the bill would effectively die and need to be refiled in next year’s session.
Regardless of its immediate fate, the debate it sparks is an important one. Should access to the courts depend on a person’s financial capacity—or should the law ensure a fair fight when consumers take on large insurance companies?
Florida lawmakers must decide whether restoring attorney fee awards is a step backward or a course correction. Either way, the outcome of this legislation will help define the future of insurance justice in a state increasingly vulnerable to both natural and financial storms.
