Florida comparative negligence after HB 837

Florida was a pure comparative fault state for decades. HB 837, chapter 2023-15, ended that on 24 March 2023, and the arithmetic that used to be the right answer is now the most tempting wrong one. If a question gives you a plaintiff at 55 percent fault and a damages figure, the exam is testing whether you multiply or whether you stop.

Questions and answers, explained

All 12 questions above, with the correct answer and why it is correct. Everything here is on florida comparative negligence after hb 837.

1. A jury in a Florida negligence action finds the plaintiff's total damages to be $400,000 and apportions fault at 55 percent to the plaintiff and 45 percent to the defendant. Under s. 768.81, F.S., what may the plaintiff recover?

   • A$180,000 — the total award reduced by the plaintiff's own 55 percent share of the fault
   • B$220,000 — the total award reduced by the defendant's 45 percent share of the fault
   • CNothing — a party found more than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recoverCorrect
   • DThe full $400,000 — Florida's comparative fault statute reduces only noneconomic damages

   Why: Florida now applies modified comparative negligence. Section 768.81(6), F.S., provides that any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages. At 55 percent the plaintiff is barred outright, so the arithmetic in options A and B never happens. Two things to hold onto: the bar does not apply to medical negligence actions under chapter 766, and under Florida's earlier pure comparative system the answer genuinely would have been $180,000 — which is why that stale figure is still the most tempting wrong answer on this topic.

   Reference s. 768.81(6), F.S.

2. A liability insurer receives actual notice of a third-party claim accompanied by evidence sufficient to support the amount demanded. Eighty days later it tenders the full policy limits, which are lower than the amount demanded. The claimant nonetheless sues the insurer for bad faith. Under s. 624.155, F.S., as amended in 2023, what happens?

   • AThe action proceeds, because the safe harbor covers only first-party property claims
   • BThe action fails only if the insurer had also tendered the full amount demanded
   • CThe action fails, because the tender fell inside the statutory 90-day safe harbor windowCorrect
   • DThe action proceeds if the insurer's handling of the claim was merely negligent

   Why: Section 624.155(4), F.S., added by HB 837 in 2023, provides that an action for bad faith involving a liability insurance claim, including a common-law action, does not lie if the insurer tenders the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded within 90 days after receiving actual notice of a claim accompanied by sufficient evidence to support the amount claimed. The insurer tendered limits on day 80, and limits were the lesser figure, so the safe harbor closes the case. Option B is the near-miss worth understanding: the statute says the LESSER of limits or the demand, so tendering limits is enough even when the demand is higher. Option D fails for a separate reason — s. 624.155(5) states that mere negligence alone is insufficient to constitute bad faith.

   Reference s. 624.155(4) and (5), F.S.

3. A pedestrian is struck in a Miami crosswalk. Her total damages are $250,000. The jury finds she was 30 percent at fault for crossing while looking at her phone and the driver 70 percent at fault. Applying s. 768.81, F.S., what is her recovery?

   • A$175,000Correct
   • B$75,000
   • C$250,000
   • DNothing, because any negligence by the pedestrian bars her recovery in Florida

   Why: Her 30 percent share does not exceed the 50 percent bar in s. 768.81(6), F.S., so she may recover, and her award is reduced in proportion to her own fault under s. 768.81(2): $250,000 x 0.70 = $175,000. Option B is the reduction rather than the recovery, the single most common reversal error on this calculation. Option D describes pure contributory negligence, a doctrine Florida abandoned decades ago; even after the 2023 reform, fault at or below 50 percent reduces recovery, it does not eliminate it.

   Reference s. 768.81(2) and (6), F.S.

4. A jury in a 2026 Florida premises liability case fixes the plaintiff's total damages at $200,000 and finds the plaintiff 55 percent at fault for her own harm. Under s. 768.81, F.S., how much may she recover?

   • A$90,000, the award reduced by her own percentage of comparative fault
   • B$200,000, because comparative fault reduces an award only above 60 percent
   • C$100,000, because fault is treated as evenly split once it passes a bare majority
   • DNothing, because a party more than 50 percent at fault recovers no damagesCorrect

   Why: HB 837 in 2023 moved Florida from pure comparative negligence to modified comparative negligence. Section 768.81(6), F.S., now provides that any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages. At 55 percent, this plaintiff is barred entirely. Option A is what the same facts would have produced under the pure comparative rule Florida applied before March 24, 2023, and it is the answer most older study guides still teach. The one carve-out to remember is that the 50 percent bar does not apply to a personal injury or wrongful death action arising out of medical negligence under chapter 766.

   Reference s. 768.81(6), F.S.

5. A Florida jury returns a $1,000,000 verdict in a negligence action against two defendants, apportioning 80 percent of fault to Contractor A and 20 percent to Contractor B. Contractor A turns out to be insolvent and uninsured. What is Contractor B's exposure on the judgment?

   • A$1,000,000 — negligent tortfeasors remain jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment
   • B$500,000 — an insolvent co-defendant's share is divided equally among the solvent parties
   • C$600,000 — the insolvent defendant's share is reallocated to the solvent defendant in proportion to fault
   • D$200,000 — judgment is entered against each defendant on the basis of that defendant's own percentage of faultCorrect

   Why: Section 768.81(3), F.S., abolished joint and several liability in negligence actions. The court enters judgment against each party on the basis of that party's percentage of fault, and there is no mechanism reallocating an insolvent co-defendant's share to the solvent one. Contractor B owes $200,000 and the plaintiff bears the risk of A's insolvency. For candidates, the practical takeaway is why a claimant's own first-party protection — uninsured motorist coverage, medical payments, health insurance — matters so much in a state without joint and several liability.

   Reference s. 768.81(3), F.S.

6. A jury in a Florida negligence action finds the plaintiff 55 percent responsible for her own injuries and the defendant store 45 percent responsible. Her total damages are $200,000. What does she recover?

   • A$90,000, which is 45 percent of her damages, under pure comparative negligence
   • BHer full damages, because the store's negligence was also a proximate cause of harm
   • CNothing, because Florida applies a contributory negligence bar to any degree of fault
   • DNothing, because a plaintiff more than 50 percent at fault recovers no damagesCorrect

   Why: Section 768.81(6), F.S., created by HB 837 in 2023, converted Florida from a pure comparative fault state to a modified comparative fault state: any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages in a negligence action. At 55 percent she is over the line and recovers nothing. Option A is the single most tempting answer because it was the correct answer in Florida for decades — under pure comparative fault a 55-percent-at-fault plaintiff still collected 45 percent of her damages — and it is still what many older textbooks teach. Two limits are worth remembering: the bar does not apply to an action for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence under chapter 766, and the statute reaches negligence actions broadly, including products liability and breach of warranty theories.

   Reference s. 768.81(6), F.S.

7. A customer is injured by a falling display in a Tampa store on April 3, 2026. The store's liability carrier denies the claim six months later. Under s. 95.11, F.S., by when must the customer file her negligence suit?

   • AOne year from the date the injury was discovered
   • BTwo years from the date the cause of action accruedCorrect
   • CFour years from the date the cause of action accrued
   • DFive years from the date the negligent act occurred

   Why: Section 95.11(5)(a), F.S., places an action founded on negligence in the two-year column. HB 837 (2023) cut the period from four years to two for causes of action accruing after the law took effect on March 24, 2023, so a 2026 accident gets two years. Option C is the single most common wrong answer because study material written before the reform still teaches four years. Note also that the carrier's denial neither restarts nor extends the clock: the period runs from accrual of the cause of action, not from any claim-handling event.

   Reference s. 95.11(5)(a), F.S.

8. In an ordinary negligence action filed in Florida in 2025, the jury sets the plaintiff's damages at $200,000 and assigns her 55 percent of the fault for her own harm. Under s. 768.81, F.S., what may she recover?

   • A$90,000, her damages reduced by her own 55 percent share of the fault
   • B$100,000, split evenly because the fault percentages are nearly equal
   • C$200,000 in full, since Florida still applies joint and several liability
   • DNothing, because she is more than 50 percent at fault for her own harmCorrect

   Why: Section 768.81(6), F.S., as amended by HB 837 in 2023, replaced Florida's pure comparative negligence rule with modified comparative negligence: in a negligence action to which the section applies, any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages. At 55 percent she is barred outright. Option A is the trap and would have been correct in an action filed before the reform took effect on March 24, 2023, because under pure comparative negligence a plaintiff recovered her damages reduced by her own percentage no matter how high that percentage climbed — which is exactly why so many older practice banks still key this item to $90,000. Get the applicability trigger right, because it is tested and it is counterintuitive: the applicability clause of ch. 2023-15, Laws of Florida, applies the act to causes of action FILED after the effective date. It does not turn on when the cause of action accrued, and it does not turn on when the case is tried. Two limits also matter for the exam: the greater-than-50-percent bar expressly does not apply to an action for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence under chapter 766, and Florida abolished joint and several liability in negligence actions well before 2023, so C is wrong on its own terms.

   Reference s. 768.81(6), F.S.

9. The owner of a Miami apartment complex has substantially implemented the security measures listed in s. 768.0706, F.S., including the required crime prevention through environmental design assessment. A tenant is assaulted in the parking lot by a stranger and sues the owner for negligent security. What does the statute give the owner?

   • AComplete immunity from suit over third-party criminal acts
   • BA cap on damages equal to the tenant's medical expenses
   • CA defense only if the tenant carried no renters insurance
   • DA rebuttable presumption against liability for the criminal actCorrect

   Why: Section 768.0706(2), F.S., gives the owner or principal operator of a multifamily residential property that substantially implements the listed measures a presumption against liability in connection with criminal acts that occur on the premises and are committed by third parties who are not employees or agents of the owner. The listed measures include a security camera system at points of entry and exit with recordings retrievable for at least 30 days, lighted parking lots, walkways, laundry rooms and common areas from dusk until dawn, at least a 1-inch deadbolt in each dwelling unit door, locking devices on windows and exterior doors, a peephole or door viewer, a crime prevention through environmental design assessment no more than three years old, and crime deterrence and safety training for employees within 60 days of hire. Option A overstates the protection: the statute creates a presumption the claimant may rebut, not immunity, so the owner can still be sued and can still lose.

   Reference s. 768.0706, F.S.

10. A Florida home is damaged on March 1, 2025, and a visitor is injured in a fall on the same property that day. How long does each have to file suit — the insured against the insurer for breach of the property insurance contract, and the visitor against the homeowner in negligence?

    • A5 years for the insured and 4 years for the injured visitor
    • B5 years for the insured and 2 years for the visitorCorrect
    • C4 years for the insured and 4 years for the visitor
    • D1 year for the insured and 2 years for the visitor

    Why: Section 95.11(2)(e), F.S., gives 5 years for an action for breach of a property insurance contract, and it expressly runs that period from the date of loss rather than from the date of the insurer's breach. Section 95.11(5)(a), F.S., as amended by HB 837 in 2023, gives 2 years for an action founded on negligence, cut down from the 4 years that applied to causes of action accruing before March 24, 2023. Option A is the stale-manual answer and pairs the right insurance period with the repealed negligence period. Do not confuse either limitations period with the claim notice deadline in option D: under s. 627.70132, F.S., notice of the claim must reach the insurer within 1 year after the date of loss, and blowing that deadline bars the claim long before the 5-year suit period expires.

    Reference ss. 95.11(2)(e) and 95.11(5)(a), F.S.

11. A liability claim file shows $40,000 in hospital charges, $12,000 in lost wages, and a demand for pain and suffering. How are these three items classified?

    • ABills and wages are special damages; pain and suffering is generalCorrect
    • BAll three are general damages, since one incident produced them
    • CBills and wages are general damages; pain and suffering is special
    • DBills are special damages; wages and pain and suffering are general

    Why: Special damages, which the Florida statutes call economic damages, are the objectively verifiable out-of-pocket losses: medical and hospital expenses, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, replacement services and repair or replacement costs. General damages, called noneconomic damages, compensate intangible harm such as pain, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, disability, disfigurement and loss of the capacity to enjoy life. Section 768.81(1)(b), F.S., defines economic damages in those terms, and s. 768.81(2) uses exactly this split when fault is apportioned, diminishing the award of economic and noneconomic damages in proportion to the claimant's contributory fault; noneconomic damages is not itself a defined term in s. 768.81. Option C is the most frequent error because it simply reverses the two labels. Option D mistakenly treats lost wages as intangible when a payroll record makes them every bit as verifiable as a hospital bill. Punitive damages are a third category and punish rather than compensate.

    Reference s. 768.81(1)(b) and (2), F.S. — economic damages defined; economic and noneconomic damages apportioned by comparative fault

12. A Florida jury awards an injured plaintiff $80,000 for medical bills and lost wages and a further $60,000 for pain and suffering. In casualty insurance terminology, how are those two components classified?

    • ASpecial damages of $80,000 and general damages of $60,000Correct
    • BGeneral damages of $80,000 and special damages of $60,000
    • CSpecial damages of $140,000, since one injury produced both
    • DCompensatory damages of $80,000 and punitive damages of $60,000

    Why: Both awards are compensatory, but they split into two families. Special damages — what Florida's statutes call economic damages — are the measurable out-of-pocket losses: medical and funeral expenses, past and future lost income, replacement value of lost personal property, repair costs. Section 768.81(1)(b), F.S., lists them that way. General damages, or noneconomic damages, compensate intangible harm that carries no receipt: pain and suffering, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of consortium. That second term is not defined in s. 768.81(1) at all — the subsection defines only accident, economic damages, negligence action and products liability action — so treat the general/noneconomic pairing as a property and casualty convention rather than a Florida statutory definition. Option B is the real near miss: it carries the right two families with the labels reversed, which is exactly what a candidate who half-remembers the terms will pick. Anchor on the paperwork to avoid it — the $80,000 of bills and wage records can be added up from documents, so that half is special, while the $60,000 the jury assigns to suffering cannot be, so it is general. Option C fails the same test, since pain and suffering does not become special merely because one accident produced both figures, and option D confuses categories: punitive damages punish rather than compensate and are separately capped by s. 768.73, F.S.

    Reference s. 768.81(1)(b), F.S.; general P&C concept — special (economic) and general (noneconomic) damages

Drill the whole domain

• Florida Statutes, Rules and Regulations Pertinent to Property and Casualty (15%)
• Casualty Insurance Terms and Related Concepts (9.5%)

Other topics

• Florida's hurricane deductible
• Florida's separate roof deductible
• Catastrophic ground cover collapse vs sinkhole coverage
• Florida's Valued Policy Law
• Florida property claim deadlines
• Occurrence vs claims-made liability forms
• HO forms compared: HO-2 through HO-8
• Florida PIP: the 14-day rule and 80/60 split
• Citizens eligibility and the 20 percent rule
• Law and ordinance and replacement cost
• Bad faith and the civil remedy notice

See all topics · Study Guides · Full practice exam