DeSantis veto spares government entities from larger payouts in negligence suits

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Monday that he’s vetoing legislation that would help people sue state and local government bodies, saying it would also increase the number of  “unmeritorious” damages lawsuits and balloon local government costs during a time when residents want lower property taxes.

“I have no question, no doubt that that would happen, so we’ll veto that, and, and also just with the local government property tax argument, you know, why would I want to impose more burdens on them?” DeSantis said during a Tampa press conference at which he signed the state fiscal year 2026-27 budget and tax reduction bill.

Offered by Sarasota Republican Rep. Fiona McFarland, HB 145 would have increased the amount government entities could have to pay residents who they injure. Damages caps, last raised in 2010, are set at $200,000 per individual and $300,000 per incident. 

The legislation would have increased the caps to $350,000 per individual and $500,000 per incident.

DeSantis has not officially vetoed the legislation, only promising to do so. He has until June 30 to act on the bill.

Nevertheless, the announcement was met with praise by the special interest groups that opposed the bill throughout the session.

“We applaud the Governor’s careful veto. Our coalition advocates for liability reform that serves Florida families, taxpayers and the public’s treasury,” the group said in a statement. The coalition includes 11 organizations including the Panhandle Area Educational Consortium, the Safety Net Hospital Alliance of Florida, the Florida Hospital Association, and the Florida League of Cities.

The Florida Hospital Association, the largest hospital association in the state, issued a separate statement.

Sovereign immunity refers to the state’s authority to exempt itself from civil lawsuits, although the state does allow negligence claims against itself and its subdivisions — agencies, cities, counties, and public hospitals — within limits.

Injured parties can sue for damages and collect within the liability thresholds established by law, now set at $200,000 per individual and $300,000 per incident.

But if they win awards in excess of the limits they must go to the Legislature in the form of what’s called a claims bill to collect the overage. And that can be a very lengthy, and political, process.

Once a claims bill is filed, each chamber’s presiding officer refers it to a special master, who essentially reconsiders the jury’s recommendation. That allows the defendant to challenge the jury verdict.

Claims bills also go before House and Senate committees that consider special masters’ recommendations. Ultimately, the bills must pass in both chambers.

A Phoenix review shows the Legislature in 2026 passed six claims bills totaling about $13 million.

But DeSantis on Monday defended the claims bill process, saying it “disincentivizes frivolous lawsuits.”

“You have the cap; if it’s above the cap, then you have an ability to seek a claim with, with the state of Florida, and those are, you know, that’s not litigation, you know, that’s that’s a different forum where that is.”

Not suprrising

DeSantis has a history of taking jabs at trial attorneys, blaming them for Florida’s reputation as a “judicial hellhole.” HB 145 was supported by the Florida Justice Association, which represents the trial attorneys.

DeSantis last year vetoed a bill that would have repealed a 35-year-old law that prevents some families from suing for the wrongful death of loved ones due to medical malpractice. He also vetoed legislation in 2021 that would have repealed Florida’s mandatory no-fault automobile insurance coverage known as Personal Injury Protection, or PIP.

In addition to vetoing legislation supported by the FJA, the governor pushed for changes to laws the FJA opposed, such as making it easier for insurance companies to deflect lawsuits filed their policyholders claiming denial or low-balling of benefits.

The FJA has not yet replied to a request for comment.