Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
JONI JAMESA Legislature resistant to sweeping changes hasn't stopped the drive to curb lawsuits.
TALLAHASSEE - Dillard's decision last week to pay $15-million to compensate the family of a girl who lost three fingers in an escalator accident could be a made-to-order rallying cry to thwart a push by Florida businesses to rein in lawsuits.
But the business lobby's ambitious agenda was struggling for support in the Florida Legislature well before that.
Senate leaders signaled late last year they weren't interested in sweeping changes to civil litigation laws, such as capping noneconomic damages for victims or making it harder for juries to financially punish companies.
Noneconomic damages accounted for the lion's share in the Dillard's case. The jury was considering punitive damages when Dillard's announced it would settle the suit for $15-million, issue an apology and replace the 32-year-old elevator that mangled dozens of shoes over the years.
But the Senate's lack of enthusiasm for change has not tempered businesses' enthusiasm for the biggest legal overhaul campaign since 1999.
That year, state lawmakers passed substantial changes in how businesses can be sued. Punitive damages were capped at no more than four times the economic damages a victim suffers; car rental companies gained immunity in renter's accidents; airplane manufacturers couldn't be sued for products more than 20 years old.
"We know in the Senate that there is not going to be a majority of senators" to cap damages or for broad changes to punitive damage law, said Associated Industries of Florida president Barney Bishop. So the group will first look for changes it can get through the Senate, he said.
Business leaders say they need the relief. Unlike criminal law, where punishment is fairly predictable, civil law offers no clear lines about when businesses can be held liable for a plaintiff's injury or damages.
"We're not trying to close the door to the courthouse, we're just trying to make a level playing field," said Mary Ann Stiles, general counsel for AIF.
Among the issues expected to get lawmakers' attention this year: proposals to grant immunity for businesses when their customers are victims of crimes; immunity for utility companies and cities from liability for broken street lights; and shielding businesses from paying a majority of a verdict when a jury assigns them the minority of the blame.
The issues are just the start of a pair of ambitious campaigns launched in recent months by AIF and the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
Gov. Jeb Bush and House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City, support the effort. The Florida chamber has launched a new entity, Florida Justice Reform Institute, with more than $1-million. AIF has published a list of more than two dozen changes it wants in civil litigation law.
But all the money and muscle means little without the backing of the Senate.
Senate President Tom Lee, R-Brandon, signaled soon after taking office in November that he doesn't want to encourage businesses to be negligent in maintaining their property.
"This is such a difficult issue because people talk about "tort reform' like it's a meaningful concept. It is almost a cliche," Lee said. "It means so many things to so many people, and the devil is in the details."
The Senate has a history of being less than friendly to limiting lawsuits. Lee saw his own effort to limit businesses' liability for accidents fail in 1999. And two years ago, the Senate thwarted Bush and the House, which wanted to cap noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases at $250,000. The Senate acquiesced only when the cap was raised to $500,000.
Last year, the House voted overwhelmingly to override a 2003 Florida Supreme Court ruling to grant utility companies and cities immunity from lawsuits when people are harmed because of a broken street light. But the Senate version, which would have limited the immunity to 30 days after a utility or city is told the light is broken, never got out of committee.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Daniel Webster, R-Winter Garden, a 25-year legislative veteran and longtime advocate of overhauling the state's civil litigation laws for business, cautions little will be accomplished this year.
Webster, who owns an air conditioning company, estimates he'll be able to tackle just four or five of the lawsuit changes businesses are proposing, partly because of the sheer complexity of the issues.
Indeed, the AIF agenda is a laundry list of complex legal issues.
Insurers want to make it harder to accuse a company of "bad faith" for not settling an insurance claim soon enough; doctors want immunity in high-risk settings; the construction industry wants immunity from some mold claims. The list goes on.
So far none of AIF's issues have made it into a bill.
Business leaders insist they're not seeking freedom from responsibility.
"We're not talking about not holding businesses accountable when they're negligent," said Pam Philp, a former staffer for Bush who now is executive director of the Florida Justice Reform Institute. "It's about holding them responsible for their share."
--Joni James can be reached at 850 224-7263 or jjames@sptimes.com