Florida’s property insurance market has been under intense pressure in recent years, with skyrocketing premiums, insurer insolvencies, and a flood of lawsuits driving instability. The legislature has responded with sweeping reforms (especially in 2019–2023) aimed at stabilizing the market, but new bills in 2025 could roll back some of those measures. This in-depth analysis examines the 2022 SB 2-A reforms and their effects, the current 2025 proposals (notably HB 1551 and SB 554), litigation trends, and the likely impact on insurance costs and market stability. We also highlight key stakeholder perspectives – from insurers and regulators to policyholder attorneys and agencies like Comegys Insurance – to understand the broad debate.

Note: References to 2025 bills reflect language as of June 25, 2025 and may change before enactment.

In response to a property insurance crisis, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 2-A in December 2022. SB 2-A (along with companion “2-D” bills) was a comprehensive package designed to expand reinsurance capacity and clamp down on litigation abuses. Its key provisions included:

• Florida Optional Reinsurance Assistance (FORA): SB 2-A created an optional state-run hurricane reinsurance program for 2023 (funded by $1 billion in state funds), allowing insurers to buy reinsurance at fixed, affordable rates. In effect, FORA provides a backstop layer under the private market, intended to ease reinsurance shortages and moderate insurer pricing.
• Binding Arbitration Rules: The bill specified conditions for mandatory binding arbitration clauses. Insurers can offer binding arbitration if they also offer a non-arbitration policy and provide discounts for giving up litigation rights. This change aimed to expand dispute-resolution options while protecting policyholder choice.
• Prohibition on Assignment of Benefits (AOB): Perhaps most notably, SB 2-A banned assignment of any post-loss insurance benefits for any new (on or after Jan. 1, 2023) residential or commercial policy. AOB agreements (common in Florida home claims) had allowed third parties to sue insurers directly for inflated or fraudulent claims, driving litigation. The AOB ban was meant to stop this abuse at the source.
• Elimination of One-Way Attorney Fees: The law repealed Florida’s one-way fee statute in property insurance cases. Under the old rule, if a homeowner prevailed at trial, they automatically recovered their attorney’s fees; insurers could not. SB 2-A removed that automatic entitlement, reinstating mutual “offer of judgment” procedures. Now any party (insured or insurer) must make a pre-trial offer, and only the prevailing party can recover fees if the judgment exceeds (or undercuts) the offer. This overhaul was meant to discourage nuisance suits and force more settlements.
• Civil Offers of Judgment Restored: In tandem with ending one-way fees, SB 2-A re-activated Florida’s civil offer-of-judgment law (Fla. Stat. §768.79 and §57.105) for property cases. This gives defendants (insurers) an incentive to make fair settlement offers: if a policyholder beats a valid “offer of judgment” at trial, the insurer must pay the insured’s fees (and vice versa).
• Shorter Claims Deadlines: SB 2-A reduced the time policyholders have to report claims. For a new or reopened claim, the reporting deadline was cut from 2 years to 1 year; for a supplemental claim, from 3 years to 18 months. The legislature sought to accelerate claims processing and reduce stale or inflated claims.
• Heightened OIR Oversight: The bill empowered the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) to scrutinize insurers more aggressively. For example, insurers can be subjected to a post-hurricane market conduct exam under defined conditions. OIR can also suspend or revoke a company’s license for abusing the appraisal process and must report any insurer found violating trade practices norms.  New quarterly reporting requirements on claims were added for insurers to submit to OIR. All these steps aimed to deter malfeasance and improve consumer outcomes.
• Prompt-Pay Law Tougher: The timing to pay undisputed amounts was shortened. Insurers now have 60 days (instead of 90) to pay undisputed claims. This change pushes insurers to handle claims more quickly.
• Citizens Flooding and Eligibility: SB 2-A and related laws also overhauled the state-backed Citizens Property Insurance. It raised eligibility thresholds (policyholders who could be taken out of Citizens and into private plans) and required flood insurance as a condition for Citizens coverage. These measures shrink Citizens’ rolls and encourage private market growth. For example, new Citizens policies can cover only homes under $400K by 2027, and all Citizens homeowners must carry flood insurance by then if eligible. Also, Citizens was ordered to become a single account and to keep rates non-competitive with the private market

In short, SB 2-A was intended to stop abusive litigation and expand supply. By banning AOBs and one-way fees, Florida lawmakers aimed to “strengthen the property insurance market and reduce the burden on homeowners,” as one legal analysis notes. Industry supporters argued these reforms helped curb frivolous lawsuits and attract insurers back into Florida. (Indeed, a Florida press release later claimed that since 2022, hundreds of thousands of policies have returned to the private market and new companies have entered.)

Impact of SB 2A (2022): Early evidence suggests SB 2-A cooled some litigation. With fees no longer guaranteed, plaintiffs’ attorneys lost their “built-in leverage,” reducing incentive to sue. For homeowners, SB 2-A’s effect is mixed: they must now shoulder more litigation risk, but proponents argue genuine claims get faster resolution. As one insurance law firm summarized, ending one-way fees “raises several crucial considerations” – it increases financial risk for insureds and could impede access to justice for some, but it does discourage predatory claims and is expected to “level the playing field”. Critics, however, warn that insureds with meritorious claims may now be unwilling to sue, leaving damages unpaid.

Another intended impact was on insurance availability and cost. By creating FORA and requiring faster claim payments, SB 2-A sought to stabilize rates. State officials have reported that Florida saw lower average homeowners rate increases in 2024, and supporters credit the 2021–2023 reforms (including SB 2-A/2-D). Citizens has announced premium adjustments, including cuts for some policyholders for 2025. The governor’s office highlighted that average requested rate hikes dropped from 21% (2023) to 0.2% in 2025. Supporters credit SB 2-A’s litigation reforms (and related measures) with this relative calm: Governor DeSantis explicitly cited the elimination of one-way fees and AOB abuses as “landmark laws” reversing instability.

However, some effects remain contested. Insurers argue that removing one-way fees and AOB precluded legitimate claimants from challenging unfair denials. For example, in early 2023 some carriers sought a court ruling that SB 2-A’s one-way-fee ban applied retroactively to policies sold before the law; policyholder attorneys maintain that the ban only applies to claims on new policies. This dispute may take years to resolve and reflects the uncertainty SB 2-A has injected into claims practice.

In sum, SB 2-A (2022) instituted aggressive anti-litigation guardrails (banning AOB suits and one-way fees) and built insurer “off-ramps” (FORA reinsurance) to shore up capacity. These changes are reported to have helped stabilize Florida’s troubled market. The question now is whether the new 2025 legislature will reinforce this path or reverse course.

House Bill 1551 (filed by Rep. Hillary Cassel, R-Dania Beach) would restore fee-shifting for “prevailing parties” in property (and other first-party) insurance disputes. Under current law (post-SB 2-A), there is no statutory right to attorney fees for either side in a homeowners’ insurance breach of contract action – instead, each side pays its own, or obtains them via offers of judgment. HB 1551 essentially reverses that by mandating that courts must award fees to the prevailing party (applicable to admitted and surplus lines insurers, certain policy types, etc.).

Specifically, HB 1551 defines the “prevailing party” based on the judgment relative to the last written settlement offer. If the insured wins a judgment larger than the insurer’s last offer, the insured is prevailing (and gets fees); if not, the insurer prevails. Notably, the bill’s text defines “judgment” to include not only the damages awarded but also any attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest the insured claimed up to that point. Insurer critics say these definitions are ambiguous or unworkable: they force carriers to guess policyholders’ potential fee demands when making offers, and could generate endless disputes over what was “reasonable”. The bill would also remove the applicability of the pre-suit “proposal for settlement” rules in first-party cases, forcing courts and parties to grapple with the new fee scheme without that safeguard.

Supporters’ view: Cassel and other HB 1551 advocates frame it as a consumer protection measure. Cassel’s bill summary emphasizes a “balanced approach” – making fee recovery available to insureds who must sue, while preserving good-faith settlement offers. From this perspective, requiring insurers to pay fees when they unreasonably undervalue claims simply levels the playing field. As one plaintiff’s attorney puts it, HB 1551 “helps level the playing field for Florida policyholders” who might otherwise be forced to pay hundreds of thousands in legal bills out of their claim payment. Supporters argue the prior fee ban unfairly forced winning policyholders to eat a chunk of their own recovery in legal costs, undermining justice.

Opponents’ view: The insurance industry fiercely opposes HB 1551. Trade groups like the Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) warn it would re-create perverse incentives that SB 2-A sought to eliminate. In a March 2025 update, AIF observed that HB 1551 “unwinds a critical piece of the 2022 & 2023 tort reform efforts”. Insurers argue that with unlimited fee awards back in play, trial lawyers can sue with little risk – even if they do worse than an insurer’s last settlement offer, they simply dismiss to avoid paying defense fees, leaving insureds stuck. They predict a flood of minor lawsuits pursued just to generate fees, driving up rates. For example, Stacey Giulianti of Florida Peninsula Insurance (a Gulf of Mexico writer) warned that HB 1551 would “give billions to trial lawyers” and erase the premium relief of recent reforms, “throwing the consumer under the bus”.

In committee hearings (March 2025), HB 1551 advanced along party lines. It passed the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee 15–1, reflecting Republican support (though one GOP member dissented). Industry lobbyists spoke against it, emphasizing insurer financial strain, while consumer attorneys and some legislators championed the bill as overdue relief. Notably, the House and Senate have companion bills: HB 1551 in the House, and SB 426 (Sen. Jonathan Martin) in the Senate. Senate Bill 426 is similar but applies to “named or omnibus insureds” and seems poised to include assignments of benefits (i.e. claims by third-party contractors). If either bill passes, Florida would return to a model where attorneys’ fees flow to the winner of a first-party claim, effectively dismantling SB 2-A’s core litigation reforms.

Senate Bill 554 (sponsored by Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Pensacola) is a broad, aggressive measure introduced in early 2025 that would impose extensive new regulations on insurers and claims handling. Key components of SB 554 include:

• Sliding-Scale Attorney Fees: SB 554 would reinstate an 80/20 “sliding scale” fee formula similar to what Florida had prior to 2019. Insureds would get full fees if their judgment is at least 80% of a final demand, partial fees if it’s between 20–80%, and no fees if below 20% (with exceptions for “good faith” demands or cases of bad faith by the insurer). This contrasts with HB 1551’s “prevailing party” scheme, but in effect it again guarantees a fee to the insured in most victories.
• Mandatory Mediation and Presuit Steps: SB 554 would require mandatory mediation on any disputed denied claim before a suit can be filed, with costs split equally. Insurers must respond within 10 days to a claimant’s written settlement demand – they must accept, counter, or reject – or else litigation can proceed immediately. (Interestingly, if an insurer misses its 90-day claim investigation deadline, mediation is waived and the insured can sue sooner.) These provisions compress the claims timeline but also create tight deadlines that could trigger new bad-faith claims if not met.
• Stricter Claim Processing Rules: The bill mandates extremely tight requirements on carriers: an initial written estimate within 7 days of claim notice, followed by itemized electronic updates monthly, and retention of claim files for 7 years. These reporting rules – absent in current law – aim to increase transparency but raise compliance burdens. Insurers must also publicly disclose any executive compensation packages and report affiliate transactions annually. Notably, SB 554 would nullify trade secret protections for such data, making it fully public.
• Regulatory Rate Scrutiny: SB 554 grants the CFO/OIR expanded powers to evaluate insurer rate filings. Rates could be disapproved if deemed excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory based on a wide array of factors (including profitability, expenses, and even state hurricane model outputs). Insurers could not automatically use reinsurance costs as a justification – the OIR could strike down rates tied to purchased reinsurance, potentially discouraging prudent catastrophe coverage.
• Unwinding Other Reforms: In addition to fees and claims, SB 554’s language (and related bills like HB 451) would roll back some SB 2-A provisions. For example, insurers offering arbitration discounts would have to reveal the full, undiscounted premium value, and binding arbitration clauses would be more heavily regulated (as noted above). Importantly, SB 554’s attorney-fee section includes confusing exceptions – for instance, if a court finds a plaintiff’s pursuit demand was “reasonable,” the insured might recover fees even after losing at trial. And for the first time in a first-party case, a court could consider bad faith when deciding fees, a major departure from current law. In practice, these loopholes could mean insureds almost always get fees, defeating SB 2-A’s intent.

Industry observers warn SB 554 is a significant departure. The Insurance Journal reports that SB 554 would “threaten to unwind” the 2022 fee reforms and could “escalate loss adjustment expenses” – even prompting reinsurers to jack up prices. B.G. Murphy of the Florida Assoc. of Insurance Agents cautioned that SB 554 “goes backwards” and risks destabilizing the market. In essence, SB 554 goes far beyond merely restoring fees: it tightly regulates claims, inflates carriers’ regulatory costs, and reintroduces many of the old dispute incentives. It is set to take effect July 1, 2025 if enacted.

Beyond HB 1551 and SB 554, the 2025 session has produced numerous related bills:

• SB 426 (2025): Companion Senate version of HB 1551; requires fees for “prevailing” insureds (including third-party assignees). It passed out of committee as well.
• SB 1508 / HB 1087 (2025): These identical bills (from Sen. Tom Lee and Rep. Randy Maggard) would abolish current appraisal/mediation for residential claims and replace it with a state-run DOAH tribunal process. All property claims could be sent to an administrative law judge (bypassing regular courts), with mandatory policies to fund flood claims and immediate insurer payments. As drafted, this would significantly change claim resolution and could require insurers to advance certain FEMA-related flood payments.
• HB 451 (2025): Known as Andrade/Gaetz legislation, this is effectively the House’s version of SB 554’s tort rollback. It would restore one-way fees, double post-judgment interest to 8%, and adopt many SB 554 transparency and presuit requirements.
• SB 1534 (2025): A revived “Litigation Investment Safeguards and Transparency Act” targeting lawsuit-finance companies. It would mandate disclosures by third-party funders in property cases, require financing contracts be filed in court, and impose liability on funders. Insurers support this as a way to curb funding for meritorious claims (and it’s bipartisan).
• SB 790 (2025): Proposed by Sen. Jennifer Bradley, this would prohibit insurers from canceling wind policies solely because of flood damage (at least until renewal or repairs) – essentially ensuring policyholders get fair notice and time to fix.
• SB 794 / HB 1555 (2025): Require “qualified human professionals” to sign off on claim denials (no pure AI decisions) and document who made the call. Meant to protect consumers from arbitrary algorithmic denials.
• SB 1740 (2025): An appropriations bill by Sen. Blaise Ingoglia requiring carriers to hold high capital reserves (at least $35 million above required) and banning any insurance executive who oversaw an insolvency from leading another insurer for 5 years. This reflects regulators’ focus on financial solvency.

Many of these bills are still under committee review or “in the hopper.” Some (like SB 554 and HB 1551) have advanced to the floor, while others (HB 451/SB 426, SB 1740, etc.) await final votes. Together, they signal a legislative pivot toward what insurers see as “insurance-friendly” changes: more oversight of carriers, curbs on lawyers, and tougher timelines for claims. Consumer advocates largely see them as counterproductive rollbacks.

Florida’s insurance litigation environment continues evolving under the weight of these legal changes:

• Decline in AOB Litigation: With SB 2-A’s AOB ban now fully in effect, the wildfire of assignment-based lawsuits has subsided. Insurers report dramatically fewer suits by vendors or public adjusters since 2023. As one analysis notes, the elimination of statutory AOB claims (“vendor-assigned” lawsuits) was a major change in 2022 that continues to ease litigation pressure. Many homeowners had previously allowed contractors to assign claims; that avenue is now gone for new policies.
• Offer-of-Judgment and Fee Strategy: Lawyers on both sides have had to adapt. Under SB 2-A, insurers now make broad use of civil offers of judgment (PFS) to cap fee exposure. Plaintiffs often must settle or risk paying defense fees. In practice, some plaintiffs’ attorneys have shifted from full-on suits to more informal negotiations or smaller claims to stay below an insurer’s offers. Nonetheless, litigation for legitimate storm damage claims continues. Some early disputes (like American Integrity’s Lee County case suggest insurers are aggressively invoking SB 2-A’s new rules, even retroactively. Plaintiffs’ firms have challenged these tactics, creating a churn of appeals on issues like retroactivity of SB 2-A.
• Mandatory Mediation and Pre-Suit: Under SB 554 (if it passes) or pending HB 451, property claims will increasingly go through mandated pre-suit processes. Even before laws change, many insurers now give stiff settlement offers early to avoid mediations or trials. Industry sources note that the prospect of mandatory mediation would compress litigation: some policyholders expect a “fast track” to a negotiated outcome. At the same time, these requirements – especially binding presuit offers – may give plaintiff lawyers more leverage to argue bad faith if carriers respond poorly.
• Litigation Financing Watch: Bill SB 1534 shows legislative attention to lawsuit lenders. Florida became a hotspot for third-party litigation funding in property cases (especially for hurricane claims) because small contractors with minimal capital can sell claims to national funders. SB 1534 (if passed) would require lawsuit finance companies to register with the state and disclose any conflict of interest or payment terms. This could slow some big-volume public adjuster cases by making funding more transparent. In the short term, insurers have gained cooling-off time; long-term effects will depend on SB 1534’s fate.
• Impact of 2023 Hurricanes: The record three hurricanes in 2023-24 (Idalia, Ian, Nicole) led to massive claims. Adjusters note many claims now involve “concurrent causation” of wind and flood. Florida’s Insurance Commissioner warned insurers not to deny valid hurricane claims merely by blaming flood coverage. If regulators crack down on such denials, we may see more litigation as carriers adjust claim-paying guidelines. Yaworsky’s OIR memo also demands more data from insurers, indicating regulators will hold companies accountable. This heightened scrutiny is a new trend – insurers may face administrative penalties if they try to use broad exclusions improperly.

Overall, the litigation climate is tense. Trial lawyers on one side argue that policyholders still need avenues to fight lowball claims (especially amid vague contract terms and expensive water mitigation costs). Insurers on the other side insist the only remedy for bad faith is the Legislature’s formula, and suing should not pay. Through 2025, we’re likely to see courtroom testing of the new rules (e.g. on retroactivity and fee calculations) and possibly more appeals to Florida’s 1st District Court. Notably, a gap remains: Florida still lacks a first-party bad faith claim except through extra-contractual means. Bills that engage with “bad faith” (like SB 554’s mention of it) could change that landscape, potentially opening new litigation fronts if courts allow bad faith findings in initial breach suits.

Every legislative shift in Florida is measured against its impact on premiums and market health. Insurers warn that reviving litigation incentives will reverse the recent trend of stabilization. Critics of bills like HB 1551 and SB 554 argue they will “incentivize litigation, whether meritorious or not,” triggering higher losses for carriers. In turn, higher losses mean pressure for rate increases or new underwriting restrictions.

Several industry analyses underscore this risk. The Wall Street law firm newsletter notes that reinstating fee awards could produce “attorney windfalls” and complicate claims handling. The Florida Assoc. of Insurance Agents Director warned SB 554 “could escalate loss adjustment expenses” and force reinsurers to hike rates. In practice, that may mean insurers petition the Office of Insurance Regulation for higher rate filings to cover anticipated legal costs.

On the other hand, proponents of the new legislation claim they would actually lower costs by forcing insurers to settle fairly. They argue that if insurers know they’ll pay fees after winning a case, they will offer more to claimants upfront, saving on litigation. For example, sponsor Cassel says HB 1551 will “discourage wrongful claim denials” and protect consumers. If that theory holds, annual premiums might drop slightly as fewer cases go all the way through court.

Market reaction: The very fact that new bills are being considered suggests sensitivity. According to the Governor’s press office, Florida’s insurance market  improved  markedly after the 2021–2023 reforms: average annual premium increases dropped to just 1% statewide and even decreased in many counties. Eleven new carriers entered Florida in that time. Insureds moved 477,000 policies back into the private market after 2022 (versus only 16,000 in 2021).

Reversing the litigation reforms now could stall or reverse those gains. Several of the new carriers (for example, some smaller “non-admitted” insurers) have explicitly stated they will not expand in Florida if HB 1551 passes. The state Citizens insurer – which had been growing rapidly as the private market shrank – is now shrinking. With rollback bills, Citizens could start growing again as private companies bail. Citizens premiums, already falling for many, could rise if carrier exits resume.

At the macro level, rate and profit trends in 2025 are likely to be the key barometers. Florida’s Insurance Commissioner has signaled the department will closely watch any negative rate impacts from these bills. The OIR’s new focus on data transparency and insurer solvency (via SB 2-D’s stability unit provisions and SB 554’s reporting mandates) means regulators can potentially block rate hikes they deem unjustified. The legislature itself is looking at requiring higher reserve buffers (SB 1740) to prevent another wave of insolvencies.

Implications for Policyholders: Higher insurance costs may be the most likely immediate effect of undoing reforms. Economist studies (and insurance press) show that Florida’s litigation environment was a key driver of earlier premium spikes. If fees and AOBs return, expect multi-family owners and contractors to sue more aggressively. Losses financed by insurer balance sheets (and ultimately by premiums) could rise. Even homeowners without lawsuits might see higher rates as carriers hedge against increased judicial costs. Conversely, reinstated protections (like mandatory mediation) could spare some small businesses legal bills. But overall, most forecasters think reintroducing litigation risk will raise Florida’s insurance costs again over the next few years.

• Insurance Industry: Carriers and agents uniformly oppose reviving one-way fees. The American Insurance Association and Florida Insurance Council have mounted campaigns (via radio, mail, and lobbyists) to kill HB 1551/SB 554. AIF’s weekly legislative updates emphasize that any reversal of recent tort reforms will deter insurers. They argue Florida must “entice” companies to enter or stay, not push them away with unstable law. Trade group executives repeatedly note that even litigation by non-Florida lawyers (“runaway litigation”) has driven numerous carriers insolvent as recently as 2021–2022. Agents warn that undoing tort reform could shut down smaller mutuals and upend the tentative recovery in homeowner coverage.
• Legislators (Republicans): Many GOP lawmakers have sponsored these rollback bills. Rep. Cassel (HB 1551 sponsor) publicly says Florida has the most complex insurance contracts, and insureds “should not have to pay to fix their homes” out of pocket after winning a case. Sen. Gaetz (SB 554) has framed his bill as increasing insurer accountability through transparency and consumer-friendly claims processes. Legislators backing these bills often cite constituent stories of insurers lowballing claims or engaging in “bad faith” tactics. They see their role as protecting consumers from corporate interests. However, some more moderate Republicans (e.g. Rep. Mike Caruso, R-Delray Beach) have expressed concerns about undoing the reforms that helped fix the market.
• Consumer Advocates and Attorneys: Organizations like the Americans for Insurance Reform (AFIR) and public interest attorneys have been vocal that insurers have dominated the 2021-22 legislative sessions. They welcomed SB 2-A in 2022 but now see the 2025 proposals as attempts to weaken consumer rights. Although AFIR hasn’t issued a formal statement on HB 1551, they routinely argue that insureds need fee access to enforce their rights. In media reports, consumer attorneys (often linked to PIP or homeowners) describe HB 1551 as an overdue fix. For example, attorney Anthony Lopez (of  Your Insurance Attorney), in an InsuranceNewsNet interview, said the new fee law would “level the playing field” and help homeowners who sue over denied claims. Some smaller advocacy groups have also criticized the carrier industry’s “fear-based” arguments, noting Florida’s vast insurance litigation history and pointing out that big rate hikes are driven by catastrophes and reinsurance costs, not just lawyers.
• Regulators and Executives: Florida’s insurance regulators under CFO Jimmy Patronis (re-elected) have primarily defended the 2022 reforms. The Office of Insurance Regulation (now led by Commissioner Yaworsky) publicly announced audits of claims-handling and urged legislative caution on consumer-impact matters. The OIR’s February 2025 memo on concurrent causation and its support for litigation-funding regulations show a balanced approach: cracking down on insurer abuses while restraining claim-funding excess. No top regulator has endorsed the rollback bills – their stance is best gleaned from what they’ve said (e.g. calling for more data, not new legal fees). In contrast, Governor DeSantis’s office explicitly praised the 2022-23 reforms and reported positive market trends as evidence they worked. The administration frames any rollbacks as risking those gains.
• Insurance Agents and Brokers: Local agencies like Comegys Insurance in St. Petersburg are on the front lines advising clients. Their “Insurance Shake-Up” blog for 2025 alerts business owners that the market is still “hard” and urges policy reviews. Agents have mixed views: some support easing litigation (to keep carriers writing business), while others worry that making insurers unhappy will reduce options. Overall, agencies emphasize staying informed – they’ll help customers understand how any legislative change affects their coverage. For example, if HB 1551 passes, agencies like Comegys will likely explain coverage implications and the mediation process, and refer clients to legal counsel for settlement decisions under SB 554-style rules. The agent community is also concerned about proposed increases in regulatory requirements (such as higher capital or course-hour changes in SB 794), which could raise operating costs that might trickle down to customers.

In summary, stakeholders are polarized. Insurers and their lobbyists see HB 1551/SB 554 as consumer giveaways that will destabilize the market. Some legislators and consumer lawyers see them as necessary correctives to carrier “abuses.” The truth is complex: any change will have trade-offs. But all agree Florida’s insurance landscape is deeply affected by these debates. At a minimum, the uncertainty is causing actors to hedge – insurers tightening underwriting, banks wary of housing market, and households budgeting higher or unpredictable insurance costs.

• Stay Informed on 2025 Legislation: Bills like HB 1551 and SB 554 could change your rights. Comegys Insurance and other agencies will be tracking progress, but consumers should also monitor news. (For example, ask your agent: What if HB 1551 passes? How would that affect settlement negotiations? How could that affect my coverage or claims handling? (For settlement-strategy questions, consult an attorney.)
• Review Your Insurance Portfolio: In a hard market, know your coverage. Consider raising deductibles if it suits your budget, mitigate risks (e.g. installing stronger roof or shutters), and see if you can bundle or switch carriers. Independent agents like Comegys suggest shopping 90–120 days before renewal.
• Understand Your Claim Rights: Learn about Florida’s claim processes. Under SB 2-A, one-way fees are gone and AOB assignments are banned, so after Jan 2023 policies you cannot sign over claims. If SB 554 passes, expect to get a mandatory estimate early and be offered mediation before suing. Keep all receipts and documentation. Early in 2025, also ensure your property has required flood insurance if you’re with Citizens.
• Consult Professionals Early:  The new laws make presuit demands and offers crucial. If you have a dispute, consider consulting an attorney before you send a demand. And if SB 794 or SB 1555 pass, any claim denial will have to be reviewed by a person – so verify who they are.

Note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or insurance advice and is not a guarantee or offer of coverage. For advice about your specific situation, please consult a licensed insurance professional (and an attorney for legal questions).