2021 Florida Session Update
WEEK 9
LIFE AND HEALTH
1. FLAHIGA SB 1470/HB 797
PASSED
HB 797 by Representative Robinson passed on the House Floor on April 15th and then passed the full Senate on April 21st. The bill is now headed to the Governor for approval. The bill updates Part III of Chapter 631 which establishes the Florida Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association (“FLAHIGA”) by adding conforming language contained in the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) “Life and health Insurance Guaranty Association Model Act.”
FLAHIGA is the safety net that pays the policyholder claims of insolvent life, annuity, health and long-term care insurance companies should they be rendered insolvent. In Florida, the state Chief Financial Officer maintains the duty to liquidate insolvent insurers, and FLAHIGA has the duty to pay outstanding claims. All U.S. states have a guaranty fund, and when an insurance company sells in multiple states, the different state guaranty funds work together to assure claims are paid. The changes include:
· Including a definition of Moody’s Corporate Bond Yield Average.
· Updating the definition of “person” to include all legal entities including LLC’s.
· Clarifying that FLAHIGA, in dealing with an impaired insurer, may also assume or reissue policies of insolvent carriers, in addition to guaranteeing and reinsuring them.
· Confirming that FLAHIGA may intervene in court proceedings involving insurer impairments or liquidations occurring in other states or involving subrogation issues.
· Clarify that FLAHIGA may both avoid paying an improper claim and recovering payment of improper claims.
· Confirm membership in the National Association of Life and Health Guaranty Associations.
· Remove the $250 cap on Class A assessments, which are made to pay expenses of the association, as other provisions of the Statute allow expense payments to be made from Class B assessments, which are made primarily to pay claims of insolvent life and health insurance companies. Clarify that Class A assessments may be made on a pro-rata, or non-pro-rata basis.
· Clarify that if an insurer receives a deferral from paying an assessment to FLAHIGA because the assessment would endanger the assessed insurers financial solvency, that once the insurer regains financial strength, it still owes the assessment.
· Remove the reduced assessment level levied on non-profit annuity insurers, placing them on par with other annuity insurers.
· Grant power to the FLAHIGA Board to remove a member insurer board member if that insurer becomes impaired or insolvent.
· Require the FLAHIGA Board to establish a policy and procedure to address conflicts of interest.
- This legislation will strengthen the “safety net” of FLAHIGA to pay the claims of insolvent life, annuity, health, and long-term care insurance companies.
The Senate companion SB 1470 by Senator Boyd passed its final committee stop in Senate Appropriations on April 15th and will be up next on the floor.
2. FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT AND INSURANCE BENEFITS FUND SB 1586/SB 1596/HB 1245/HB 1249
FAILED
SB 1596 by Senator Cruz was not heard in its first committee the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee. The bill created the Florida Family and Medical Leave Act which would have required an employer to allow certain employees to take family and medical leave to bond with a minor child up the child’s birth, adoption or foster care placement. The bill also requires an employer to provide notice to employees of certain rights relating to family and medical leave and authorizes an employee to file a civil action against an employer for a violation.
SB 1586 by Senator Cruz also has yet to be heard in its first of three committees, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee. The bill creates the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Benefits Fund under DFS. It provides that money credited to the trust fund shall be used or the purpose of administering the family and medical leave insurance benefits program.
The House versions of these bills are HB 1245 and HB 1249 and both were never heard in their first committee stops.
These bills are dead.
3. CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE SB 728/HB 733
PASSED
SB 728 by Senator Broxson passed off the full Senate floor on April 1st and unanimously passed the full House on April 14th. The bill provides insurers with credit for reinsurance and eliminates additional collateral requirements for reinsurers if the reinsurer is domiciled in a “reciprocal jurisdiction” and meets requirements set forth in the bill.
The bill’s revisions to Florida law governing credit for reinsurance enact 2019 revisions to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and the Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation.
The requirements include, but are not limited to:
· Minimum capital and surplus requirements;
· Minimum solvency or capital ratios;
· Annual confirmation from the domiciliary supervisory authority stating that the reinsurer meets the capital, surplus, and minimum solvency or capital ratio requirements; and
· Prompt claims payment practices.
The bill defines a reciprocal jurisdiction as:
· A non-United States jurisdiction that is subject to an in-force covered agreement with the United States or, in the case of a covered agreement between the United States and the European Union, an EU member state;
· A United States jurisdiction that meets the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ requirements for accreditation; or
· Any other qualified jurisdiction that meets the Office of Insurance Regulation’s requirements as set forth in rule.
The bill also provides insurers with protections against reinsurer failure that include, but are not limited to, requiring the reinsurer to post collateral equal to all outstanding reinsurance liabilities in the event the reinsurer enters into receivership; requiring the reinsurer to consent to the jurisdiction of courts of the State of Florida; and requiring the reinsurer to post collateral equal to all outstanding liabilities if the reinsurer resists enforcement of a court order from a jurisdiction in which it has consented.
HB 733 by Representative Fetterhoff has passed all three of its committees and was substituted for HB 728 which has now passed the full House and Senate.
HEALTH
1. PBM TRANSPARENCY SB 390/HB 1155
FAILED
SB 390 by Senator Wright passed its third and final committee on April 21st but was never heard on the Senate floor. The bill authorizes OIR to examine each PBM as often as it deems necessary. An amendment was adopted striking the change to the definition of the term “maximum allowable cost” and authorization for OIR to require health insurers to cancel contracts entered into with PBMs if fees were deemed unreasonable.
HB 1155 by Representative Toledo passed the House floor on April 23rd. The bill also authorizes OIR through market conduct examinations to examine PBMs as often as it deems necessary. The bill also requires DFS to be given access to certain records, data and information and then authorizes the department to investigate certain violations. Additionally, the bill provides that PBMs may not do a number of things including:
· Charging a pharmacist or pharmacy a fee related to the payment of a pharmacy claim; or
· Retroactively denying, holding back, or reducing payments for cover claims.
An amendment was adopted limiting the bill to a $10,000 fine for failure of a PBM to register with OIR and an appeal process for audits. The two bills were never matched up. The Senate never took up the House bill.
2. MEDICAID SINGLE PBM HB 1043/SB 1306
FAILED
HB 1043 by Rep. Fine would have required the Agency for Health Care Administration to select single pharmacy benefit administrator through a competitive procurement process. The bill aimed to increase dispensing fee payments to independent pharmacies for filling prescriptions and fund the fee increase by recouping a portion of capitation fees to managed care plans. This bill would have likely had a large fiscal impact to the state once the analysis is performed by the Appropriations committee. This bill was referred to three committees and has not yet been heard. However, the Finance subcommittee heard a presentation on the topic by AHCA Deputy Secretary Beth Kidder and an actuary from Milliman, which has done a study on the issue.
SB1306 by Senator Rodriguez has been referred to three committees and was not heard in a Senate committee.
These bills are dead.
3. RETROACTIVE DENIAL OF HEALTH CARE CLAIMS SB 1388/HB 851
FAILED
HB 851 by Representative Valdes was not heard in its first of four committee stops. The bill would have prohibited health insurers and HMOs from retroactively denying claims because of insured and subscriber ineligibility at any time under certain circumstances.
Meanwhile 1388 by Senator Harrell, which was not heard in any of its three committees, also prohibited health insurers, at any time, from retroactively denying a claim because of the ineligibility of the insured if the insurer verified the insured’s eligibility at the time of treatment or provided an authorization number. The bill also prohibited HMOs, at any time, from retroactively denying a claim because of the ineligibility of the subscriber if the HMO verified the subscriber’s eligibility at the time of treatment or provided an authorization number.
These bills did not pass.
4. TELEHEALTH CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE RX & REMOTE PHARMACY SB 700/HB 1477
FAILED
SB 700 by Senator A Rodriguez passed its second committee in Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services. The bill makes a number of changes relating to telehealth including:
· Authorizes AHCA, to reimburse for telehealth services involving store-and-forward technology and remote patient monitoring services under the Medicaid program.
· Expands the definition of telehealth to include:
- A telehealth provider’s supervision of health care services through the use of synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications technology.
- Telephone calls, personal emails, fax transmissions, and other nonpublic-facing telecommunications.
· Authorizes a nonphysician health care practitioner who is required to maintain a formal supervisory relationship with a physician, including a physician who is registered as an out-of-state telehealth provider enrolled in Medicaid, to satisfy that requirement through telehealth.
· Authorizes a telehealth provider, practicing in a manner consistent with his or her scope of practice, to prescribe Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substances through telehealth.
· Prohibits the prescription of Schedule I and II controlled substances through telehealth.
· Creates a new type of pharmacy establishment, a “remote-site pharmacy,” where medicinal drugs are compounded or dispensed by a registered pharmacy technician (RPT) who is remotely supervised by an off-site pharmacist acting in the capacity of prescription department manager only at institutional pharmacies.
· Authorizes an off-site pharmacist to remotely supervise an RPT at a remote-site pharmacy and authorizes an RPT operating under such remote supervision to compound and dispense drugs at institutional pharmacies.
· Provides for permitting and regulation of institutional remote-site pharmacies DOH.
· Provides requirements for remote-site pharmacies.
· Prohibits a remote-site pharmacy from performing centralized prescription filling.
· Authorizes a pharmacist to serve as prescription department manager for up to three remote-site pharmacies that are under common control of the same supervising pharmacies and requiring him or her to visit the remote site on a schedule as determined by the Board of Pharmacy.
· Authorizes a pharmacist, at the direction of a physician, to administer certain extended-release medications.
An amendment was adopted adding the peer-to-peer language from SB 864 and SB 1568 Department of Health. Both SB 700 and SB 864 stalled in the Appropriations Committee.
HB 247 by Representative Fabricio passed all of its committees and passed the full House floor on April 22nd. Similar provisions of HB 247 are included in SB 1568, Department of Health which ultimately died on the last day of session.
No telehealth measures passed this session.
5. TELEHEALTH REPEALER SB 864/HB 6079
FAILED
HB 6079 by Representative Stevenson was never heard in its first of three committee stops. The bill strikes the prohibition on audio only telephone calls. The bill also allows for an out-of-state peer-to-peer second opinion to be issued for a patient.
SB 864 by Senator Brodeur is the companion for this bill and passed its first of three committees last week in the Senate Health Policy Committee. An amendment was adopted to clarify that peer-to-peer reviews to be conducted in consultation with a Florida licensed physician with authority over patient but ultimate authority is not required. This provision was also included in SB 700 via an amendment on April 8th. The bill will be up next in Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services. Please see SB 700 as this substance of this language has been added to this bill. But the peer-to-peer provisions of SB 864 are included in SB 1568, ultimately died on the last day of session when the Department of Health bill failed to pass.
6. LOSS RUN (OMNIBUS) SB 742/HB 815
FAILED
HB 815 by Gregory is an Omnibus insurance bill passed all three of its committees but ultimately did not pass with time running out on session. A provision of the bill would correct the application of the 2020 loss run statute as it relates to group health insurance, removing conflicting provisions of existing laws.
7. INSULIN CO-PAY CAP SB 786/HB 109
FAILED
SB 786 by Senator Cruz required policies to cap insured's monthly cost-sharing obligation for covered prescription insulin drugs at $100 for a 30-day supply, regardless of the amount or type of insulin needed to fill the insured's prescription. SB 786 was heard in its first of three committee stops the Senate Banking and Insurance committee and ultimately was never heard in its second stop, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services.
The House companion for this bill is HB 109 by Representative Bell was workshopped in the House Finance Subcommittee on April 9th, but was never considered for a vote by the committee.
These bills are not going to pass.
8. MANDATES:
Mental Health Reporting SB 1024/HB 701
PASSED
HB 701 by Representative Stevenson passed the last of its three committee stops this week and passed the full House on April 15th. The bill then passed the full Senate on April 21st and is now headed to the Governor. As amended, the bill requires health insurers and HMOs to provide written notice to covered individuals outlining federal and state requirements for coverage of behavioral health services. Additionally, the bill requires the written notice to include the statewide toll-free telephone number at DFS. Finally, it requires OIR to report on the number of mental health related consumer complaints received during the past year.
SB 1024 by Representative Brodeur passed all of its committees and then floor.
Hearing Aid Coverage HB 373/SB 1268
FAILED
SB 1268 by Senator Baxley passed two of its three committees and ultimately was never heard in its final stop Senate Appropriations. The bill required that health insurer or HMO contracts provide major medical coverage for a dependent child to provide hearing aid coverage for children from birth through 18 years. The bill also required a minimum coverage limit of $3,500 per ear within a 24-month period.
HB 373 by Representative Brannan was not heard in its first of three committee stops.
These bills are dead.
DENTAL
1. MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR ADULT DENTAL SERVICES SB 1552/HB 1117
FAILED
SB 1552 by Senator Pizzo was never heard in its first of three committees, the Senate Health Policy Committee. The bill would have required the reimbursement of certain adult dental services by AHCA under the Medicaid program. The bill prohibited reimbursement for these services if provided in a mobile dental unit and requires that the minimum benefits provided under Medicaid prepaid dental health to cover certain adult dental services.
HB 1117 by Representative Nixon was never heard in its first of three committee stops.
These bills are not going to pass this session.
PROPERTY
1. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE SB 76/HB 305
PASSED
SB 76 by Senator Boyd passed off the full Senate floor on April 7th and went to the House before being bounced back and forth and ultimately passing both chambers. This legislation was substantially amended on the last day of session and removed many of the provisions sought by the property insurance industry. As amended the bill:
· Contains provisions requiring insurers to report detailed data on property insurance claims, including attorneys’ fees paid per claim.
· Mandating that contracts between insurers and their affiliates contain payments that are fair and reasonable.
· Eliminates the provisions in statute allowing an MGA that only services a single insurer to avoid examination by the OIR.
· Contains provisions designed to reduce solicitation of public adjusters and roofing contractors.
· Raises Citizens Property Insurance Rates by gradually increasing the current rate cap of 10% by 1% per year until it reaches to 15% between now and 2026.
· Requires Citizens to charge rates as though they purchase reinsurance, even if they don’t, which will have the effect of raising its rates.
· Reduces from 3 year to 2 years the statute of limitations on filing hurricane claims or reopened claims, but allows supplemental claims to be filed for up to 3 years for any claim caused by any peril.
· Creates a new attorney fee provision for property insurance claims requiring claimants to file a pre-suit settlement demand, which includes attorneys’ fees. Insurers may pay it or deny it, but must promptly investigate claims. Insurers must respond within 10 days of getting the presuit demand.
· In suits for residential or commercial property insurance, attorneys’ fees shall be calculated:
- If the difference between the amount obtained by the claimant and the presuit settlement offer, excluding reasonable attorneys’ fees, is less than 20 percent of the disputed amount, the insurer pays no attorneys’ fees.
- If the difference is between 20% and 50%, the insurer pays the claimants fees and costs in the same percentage that they achieved in the settlement. For example, if they get 40% more than the presuit settlement offer, then they would get 40% of their fees.
- Over 50%, the insured gets all their attorneys’ fees paid.
Importantly the industry received no relief on the explosion of roofing claims and exorbitant attorneys’ fees being awarded due to the attorney fee multiplier. HB 305 passed the Commerce Committee on April 23rd and was ultimately replaced by the Senate version before passing on the final day of session.
2. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS/SUBROGATION SB 630/HB 867
PASSED
SB 630 revises the regulation and governance of condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations. The bill authorizes condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations to extinguish discriminatory restrictions in recorded title transactions. The bill changes include prohibiting a unit owner’s insurance policy from including rights of subrogation against the association if the association’s policy does not provide subrogation rights against the unit owner. Fannie Mae mortgage lending guidelines require that the insurance policy for a condominium project waive the right of subrogation against unit owners. The bill also creates a prohibition for certain uses of escrow funds including insurance costs. The bill passed all of its committees and passed off the Senate floor this week and is headed over to the House.
HB 867 by Representative Shoaf has passed its final committee the House Judiciary Committee on March 29th and has been placed on the House calendar. The House could take up the Senate bill early next week.
3. CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE SB 728/HB 733
PASSED
SB 728 by Senator Broxson passed off the full Senate floor on April 1st and unanimously passed the full House on April 14th. The bill provides insurers with credit for reinsurance and eliminates additional collateral requirements for reinsurers if the reinsurer is domiciled in a “reciprocal jurisdiction” and meets requirements set forth in the bill.
The bill’s revisions to Florida law governing credit for reinsurance enact 2019 revisions to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and the Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation.
The requirements include, but are not limited to:
· Minimum capital and surplus requirements;
· Minimum solvency or capital ratios;
· Annual confirmation from the domiciliary supervisory authority stating that the reinsurer meets the capital, surplus, and minimum solvency or capital ratio requirements; and
· Prompt claims payment practices.
The bill defines a reciprocal jurisdiction as:
· A non-United States jurisdiction that is subject to an in-force covered agreement with the United States or, in the case of a covered agreement between the United States and the European Union, an EU member state;
· A United States jurisdiction that meets the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ requirements for accreditation; or
· Any other qualified jurisdiction that meets the Office of Insurance Regulation’s requirements as set forth in rule.
The bill also provides insurers with protections against reinsurer failure that include, but are not limited to, requiring the reinsurer to post collateral equal to all outstanding reinsurance liabilities in the event the reinsurer enters into receivership; requiring the reinsurer to consent to the jurisdiction of courts of the State of Florida; and requiring the reinsurer to post collateral equal to all outstanding liabilities if the reinsurer resists enforcement of a court order from a jurisdiction in which it has consented.
HB 733 by Representative Fetterhoff has passed all three of its committees and was substituted for HB 728, which has now passed both the House and Senate.
4. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE SB 1574
FAILED
· Requiring reasonable agent commission for policies placed in Citizens not to exceed the average of commissions paid in the preceding year by the 20 admitted insurers writing the greatest market share of property insurance in Florida. Given the recent Citizens Property Insurance Board discussion regarding the concept of removing all agent commissions to advance depopulation goals, Senator Brandes developed this language in response.
· Providing that eligible surplus lines insurers may participate in depopulation, take-out, or keep-out programs; and
· Authorizing information from underwriting files and confidential claims files to be released by Citizens to entities considering writing or underwriting risks insured by Citizens.
· Revising the method for determining the amounts of potential surcharges to be levied against policyholders;
· Removes all new business, 2nd homes, and any homes with dwelling values over 700,000 from the Citizens (glide path) premium cap.
It has been a long-held belief by agent groups that commission levels should not be inserted into the statute in any context for various reasons, including the fact that what goes up can also go down. These groups are lobbying Citizens to not take any action to reduce agent commissions.
There is no House companion for this bill.
AUTO
1. PIP REPEAL SB 54/HB 719
PASSED
SB 54 by Senator Burgess was taken up by the Senate on April 14th. The bill ultimately bounced back and forth before crossing the finish line on the last day of session.
The bill repeals the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, which requires every owner and registrant of a motor vehicle in this state to maintain Personal Injury Protection coverage. Beginning January 1, 2022, the bill enacts financial responsibility requirements for liability for motor vehicle ownership or operation, as follows:
· For bodily injury (BI) or death of one person in any one crash, $25,000, and, subject to that limit for one person, $50,000 for BI or death of two or more people in any one crash.
· The existing $10,000 financial responsibility requirement for property damage (PD) is retained.
· Adds mandatory MedPay coverage of $5,000 with a mandatory offer of $10,000. An auto policy is deemed to have MedPay coverage of $10,000 unless the insurer obtains a written refusal of the coverage.
· Adds a weakened “no-pay, no play” provision which requires a $10,000 setoff of noneconomic damages for injuries caused by an uninsured driver except when at fault driver is driving under the influence, acted intentionally, recklessly, or with gross negligence, fled from the accident scene, or acting if furtherance of a felony.
· Adds $5,000 in mandatory Medical Payments (MedPay)
Changes the bad faith part of the bill Important changes to this part of the bill include:
· Removes an insurer’s “fiduciary” duty to its insured to handle claims in good faith and replaces it with a “duty.”
· Changes duty of good faith.
· Adds some best practices. Triggers best practices on the insurer’s receipt of actual notice of the incident or loss. Puts the burden on the party bringing the bad faith claim to prove the insurer had actual notice and when the notice was received.
· Removes the EUO. Adds a duty to cooperate. Adds a disclosure of assets.
· Removes the condition precedent that a claimant must serve a demand for settlement before filing a third-party action for bad faith failure to settle.
· Reduces the safe harbor from 60 days to 45 days. Conditions safe harbor on insurer compliance with the best practices set out in the bill.
The bill increases required coverage amounts for garage liability and commercial motor vehicle insurance. It increases the cash deposit amount required for a certificate of self-insurance establishing financial responsibility for owners and operators of motor vehicles that are not for hire vehicles.
HB 719 by Representative Grall passed its final committee on April 19th and will likely be substituted for the Senate bill on April 23rd and the Senate version ultimately passed.
2. NAMED DRIVER EXCLUSION SB 420/HB 273
PASSED
SB 420 by Senator Hooper passed the full Senate on April 21st and now awaits a hearing in the House. The bill authorizes private passenger motor vehicle policyholders to exclude identified individuals from the following coverages under their policy:
· Personal injury protection (PIP) coverage applicable to the identified individual’s injuries, lost wages, and death benefits;
· Property damage liability coverage;
· Bodily injury liability coverage, when required by law;
· Uninsured motorist coverage for any damages sustained by the excluded individual; and
· Any coverage the policyholder is not required by law to purchase.
However, a private passenger motor vehicle policy may not exclude coverage when:
· The identified excluded individual is injured while not operating a motor vehicle;
· The exclusion is unfairly discriminatory under the Florida Insurance Code; or
· The exclusion is inconsistent with the underwriting rules filed by the insurer.
The exclusion of an identified named driver is invalid unless the named policyholder consents in writing to the exclusion of a named driver and the excluded named drivers are listed on the policy’s declarations page or policy endorsement. An individual excluded by name in an insurance policy would not be covered for damages that occur while operating a motor vehicle that is insured under the policy. An excluded driver must separately comply with financial responsibility laws.
The House version of the bill, HB 273 by Representative Plakon, passed all its three committees and has been placed on the House calendar. Note this language is also included in SB 54 regarding PIP.
3. PEER-TO-PEER CAR SHARING SB 708/HB 785
FAILED
SB 708 by Senator Brandes was never heard in its first committee, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee. The bill would have done the following:
· Creates definitions for peer-to-peer car sharing;
· Creates insurance coverage requirements for peer-to-peer;
· Names the liabilities and insurance exclusions;
· Provides a notification process for implications of a lien being on the vehicle; and
· Lists the required recordkeeping for a peer-to-peer program.
HB 785 by Representative Busatta Cabrera was also never heard in its first of two committees and will be up first in House Tourism, Infrastructure and Energy.
These bills did not pass but see SB 566/HB 365 regarding peer-to-peer provisions contained in those bills.
4. MOTOR VEHICLE RENTALS SB 566/HB 365
PASSED
SB 566 by Senator Perry passed the Senate floor on April 22nd. The bill seeks to specify the applicable sales tax rate on motor vehicle leases and rentals by motor vehicle companies and peer-to-peer car sharing programs. The bill also specifies the applicable rental surcharge on these same leases, rentals and car sharing programs. Additionally, the bill names the insurance requirements for peer-to-peer car sharing programs. Providing an exemption from vicarious liability for peer-to-peer and shared vehicle owners.
The House version HB 365 by Representative Caruso has also passed all three of its committees and has been placed on the House calendar. The House could decide to take up the Senate bill next week.
5. AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS SB 1230/HB 1039
FAILED
SB 1230 by Senator A Rodriguez was not heard in its first of three committees, the Senate Transportation Committee. The bill would have authorized counties and municipalities to install automatic license plate reader systems under certain circumstance. It also requires DOT in coordination with DHSMV to install and operate automated readers on state infrastructure.
The bill also establishes the Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Program to enhance public safety through increased compliance with chapter 324. The program must include:
· A system for matching the license plate reader program with insurance data for registered vehicles;
· Appropriate safeguards and controls to prevent misuse or unauthorized access;
· A disaster recovery plan to ensue service continuity in the event of a disaster; and
· A process for notifying the owner of record of a vehicle who has been identified as out of compliance with chapter 324.
HB 1039 by Representative Plakon was also not heard in its first of three committees.
These bills did not pass.
6. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES SB 1620/HB 1289
PASSED
HB 1289 by Representative McFarland passed the House floor on April 23rd, passed the senate with amendments on April 26th and then was fully passed when the house voted to support it on April 29th. The bill now awaits approval from the Govenor. The bill defines a low-speed autonomous delivery vehicle. The bill also authorizes the operation of a low-speed autonomous delivery vehicle on certain streets and roads with a posted speed limit of up to 45 miles per hour under specified conditions.
SB 1620 by Senator Brandes passed all three of its committees and was ultimately substituted for the House version.
GENERAL INSURANCE
1. INSURANCE OMNIBUS SB 742/HB 815
FAILED
HB 815 by Representative Gregory is an Omnibus insurance bill that passed all three of its committees and was placed on the House calendar, but ultimately did not pass as time ran out on session. The bill has several components to it including the following:
· Adding affiliates of insurance companies to the list of entities allowed to employ all-lines adjusters;
· Incentivizing home hardening by including Code-Plus fortification measures in the permitted discounts for insurance policyholders, and making the ISO Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) an optional part of ratemaking;
· Requiring impaired workers’ compensation carriers to continue to report data to OIR in the same manner as non-impaired companies, maximizing the information available for ratemaking and review purposes;
· Correcting the application of the 2020 loss run statute as it relates to group health insurance, removing conflicting provisions of existing laws;
· Authorizing the use of multiple approved models (by the Hurricane Loss Methodology Commission) in property insurance ratemaking, increasing the amount of data available in the filing process, and retaining full OIR discretion as to how multiple models are used;
· Increasing flood insurance coverage options for consumers by exempting flood insurance from the diligent effort process, due to a lack of standalone admitted market options;
· Clarifying the timing of notice of suit on an insurer when served through the Department of Financial Services in response to competing regulatory guidance and case law;
· Ensuring that collateral protection insurance policies—that also insure a homeowner’s interest—are eligible for the CAT Fund so long as they represent the last known coverage amount reported to and by homeowners through the federally proscribed process, increasing affordability for policyholders;
· Aligning the distinction between commercial residential and truly commercial policies in Citizens with the CAT Fund’s requirements, ensuring that condo owners are able to access CAT Fund coverage when appropriate, lessening Citizens’ private reinsurance costs and corresponding rate need;
· Coinciding the application of law and ordinance coverage to the time of loss, guarding against unnecessary inflationary cost drivers, and incentivizing the repair of damaged homes by stipulating that full replacement cost value be paid within 2 years of the date of loss or 1 year from the notice of claim, whichever is later;
· Preventing vendor gamesmanship by clarifying that all services related to the inspection, repair, and restoration of homes are included in the 2019 AOB law, and ensuring that vendors send notice of a lawsuit to the appropriate designee of an insurer; and
· Authorizing personal and general lines agents to sell home warranties, service warranties, and motor vehicle service agreements without also having to secure a lesser limited lines license.
SB 742, the companion measure by Perry passed Senate Judiciary on March 29th and was ultimately never heard in its final committee Senate Appropriations.
We would expect to see many of these components back next year. The bills are dead for this session.
2. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES SB 1408/HB 1209
PASSED
HB 1209, by Representative Fetterhoff, passed the House floor on April 21st and passed the full Senate on April 26th. The bill has several components to various Divisions within DFS including the following:
Division of Insurance Agent and Agency Services:
· Continuing education change lowering the update course requirement to four hours (from five hours) for individuals licensed to solicit, sell, or adjust insurance.
· Addresses inadvertent failure to agent appointment issues to ensure proper appointment by an insurance company, including providing a process to correct.
· Allows for an up to 2-year suspension of a title insurance agent license for violations of the Florida Insurance Code (makes consistent with other agent license types).
· Makes it a felony crime for a person to knowingly aid and abet the unlicensed transaction of insurance.
Division of Investigative and Forensic Services (DIFS):
· Clarifies statute regarding false impersonation of law enforcement officers to include all DIFS officers rather than a subset.
· Clarifies the definition of “two-component explosive” in s. 552.081(13), F.S., to reference any detonator rather than the specific “No. 6 blasting cap.”
Division of Public Assistance Fraud (PAF):
· Clarifies statute to designate PAF as a criminal justice agency. This division transferred from FDLE in 2005 and though they operate as a criminal justice agency, statute was not appropriately amended to reflect at the time of the move. Maintaining this designation is critical to our work to fight public assistance fraud.
Division of State Fire Marshal:
· Firefighter Cancer coverage from Insurance Risk management Task Force.
· Corrects the clause that disallows a certified volunteer firefighter who is transitioning to a regular or permanent firefighter from continuing to serve their communities during training.
· A previously permitted fire alarm system that needs repairs will not be deemed compliant until the permit application has been issued and approved.
· Alteration of existing fire sprinkler systems if no change of occupancy or water demand.
· Amends Fire & Emergency Incident Information System Technical Advisory Panel members.
· Extends period for compliance with high-rise minimum radio signal strength for fire department communication.
· Prohibits influencing a fire safety inspector.
· Amends firefighter’s employment, standards, and training council to include DOH representative.
Division of Risk Management:
· Strengthens protections for state agencies and universities within the DFS Risk Management program regarding protections for sexual harassment victims – this allows the department to train against retaliation of a victim by disseminating personal identifying information.
· DMS must validate and approve out-of-pocket deductibles, copays, coinsurance costs and one-time cash payout for firefighter cancer claims.
SB 1408 by Senator Burgess passed all of its three committee stops and was substituted for the House version and passed by the full Senate on April 26th.
3. DFS CONSUMER PROTECTION SB 1598/HB 717
PASSED
HB 717 by Representative Clemons passed its third of three committees in House Commerce this week and was placed on the House calendar. The bill makes the following changes to the laws governing the divisions under the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS):
· Consumer Credit Scores and Security Freezes – The bill prohibits consumer reporting agencies from charging a fee for reissuing a personal identification number used to remove a security freeze. It requires that insurers notify applicants of the availability of DFS’s financial literacy resources at certain times.
· Consumer Services – The bill requires that licensees provide documents when responding to written requests from DFS’s Division of Consumer Services.
· Professions – The bill defines “claims adjusting,” establishes insurance adjusting firms’ licensure requirements and penalties, and adds grounds upon which DFS may revoke or suspend licenses. The bill also establishes penalties for aiding and abetting unlicensed adjusting firms and bail bond agents.
· Agency Names – The bill provides the specific authority for DFS to disapprove agency names containing the words “Medicaid” and “Medicare.”
· Industrial Class Insurers – The bill amends the laws regarding industrial life insurance, small policies written upon individual lives, so that no such policies may be sold in Florida after July 1, 2021.
· Policyholder Rights – The bill extends the time that a policyholder has to cancel a contract with a public adjuster, and amends the Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights. The bill also provides claims handling requirements, including policyholder notification of a change in adjuster, for both admitted and surplus lines insurers.
· Export to Surplus Lines – The bill mandates that the notification regarding the export of a policy to the surplus lines market, currently given only to commercial policyholders, be given to all policyholders.
· Unfair or Deceptive Acts – The bill adds two grounds, based upon effectuating an entire insurance policy without consent, to the list of acts that constitute sliding.
· Foreign Venue Clauses Prohibited – The bill requires dispute resolution for policies sold in Florida, and insuring property in Florida, on the admitted or surplus lines markets, occurs in Florida.
· Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) Deductible – Currently, a policyholder whose claim is covered by FIGA must pay a $100 deductible on that claim. The bill eliminates that deductible.
· Florida Workers’ Compensation Insurance Guaranty Association (FWCIGA) – FWCIGA covers claims for workers’ compensation policies that are in effect on the date of the final order of an insurer’s liquidation, leaving some policyholders whose policies have lapsed prior to liquidation with unpaid claims. The bill eliminates that disparity by removing an exception to the definition of “covered claim.”
The Senate version SB 1598 by Senator Gruters passed the Senate and is in messages to the House.
4. INSURANCE CONSUMER ADVOCATE SB 1066
FAILED
SB 1066 by Senator Taddeo was not heard in its first of three committees, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee. The bill authorizes the insurance consumer advocate to collect certain information that may include information asserted as trade secret information unless the trade secret information can be individually extrapolated, in which this trade secret information would remain protected.
There is no House companion and the bill is dead.
WORKERS COMPENSATION
1. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE FOR EMPLOYEES LEASING COMPANIES HB 1305/SB 1458
FAILED
HB 1305 by Representative Fabricio passed the first of its three committees on March 23rd. The bill had one of its three committees of reference removed, but ultimately was not heard in its final committee stop. This bill was aimed at employee leasing companies where the client company is a subcontractor. If there is a contract between a subcontractor as the client company in an employee leasing company arrangement, and workers’ compensation insurance is provided by an employee leasing company to the leased employee’s company, such an individual is deemed to be an employee of the leasing company for workers’ compensation insurance unless the subcontractor has secured additional workers’ compensation coverage applicable to the employee. If additional coverage is obtained by the subcontractor for employees not subject to the employee leasing arrangement, compensation coverage is applicable upon the earliest of the hiring of the person not covered by the leasing arrangement, the commencements of work by such a person or the hiring of the person directly by the employee leasing company. A strike-all amendment was adopted.
The companion measure, SB 1458 by Senator Brandes, was not heard in a Senate committee.
These bills are unlikely to pass.
2. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE FOR EMPLOYEE LEASING COMPANIES SB 820/HB 1183
FAILED
SB 820 by Senator Perry was not heard in its first of three committees, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee. The bill would have revised the definitions for purposes of the Florida Insurance Code and requires that the insurer of an employee leasing provide workers’ compensation coverage to all employees of the client company under certain conditions. The bill also required insurers to conduct annual audits of employee leasing companies and client companies for certain purposes.
HB 1183 by Representative Fabricio was not heard in its first of three committees, the House Insurance and Banking Committee.
These bills did not pass.
WARRANTY
1. OMNIBUS SB 742/HB 815
FAILED
HB 815 by Gregory is an Omnibus insurance bill passed all three of its committees but then slowed down and ultimately ran out of time this session. A provision of the bill authorizes personal and general lines agents to sell home warranties, service warranties, and motor vehicle service agreements without also having to secure a lesser limited lines license. It will be up next in the State Administration Subcommittee.
SB 742, the companion measure by Perry passed Senate Judiciary on March 29th and was never heard in Senate Appropriations.
These bill are dead for session.
TORT REFORM
1. COVID-19 LIABILITY PROTECTION SB 72/HB 7 (APPROVED BY GOVERNOR)
PASSED
The bill provides several COVID-19-related liability protections for businesses, educational institutions, government entities, religious organizations, and other entities. Under the bill, a covered entity that makes a good faith effort to substantially comply with applicable COVID-19 guidance is immune from civil liability from a COVID-19-related civil action. The bill also provides that for any COVID-19-related civil action against a covered entity, a plaintiff must:
· Plead his or her complaint with particularity.
· Submit, at the time of filing suit, a physician's affidavit confirming the physician's belief that the plaintiff's COVID-19-related injury occurred because of the defendant's conduct.
· Prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant was at least grossly negligent.
Senate companion, SB 72 by Senator Brandes passed off the full Senate floor March 18th and then passed the House on March 26th. The bill was signed into law by Governor DeSantis on March 29th. The bill was amended in committee to include the provisions of SB 74 to make the Senate version an all-encompassing Covid-19 liability protection bill coving both businesses and health care providers.
As it relates to businesses, the bill provides protections for all persons, including businesses, charities, educational institutions, and others against a COVID-19-related claim. Specifically, the bill requires a court to dismiss without prejudice any lawsuit bringing a COVID-19-related claim if the complaint is not pled with particularity, or if the person filing the lawsuit failed to provide an affidavit of a physician attesting that the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries or damages. If the court determines that the defendant made a good faith effort to substantially comply with government-issued health standards or guidance, the defendant is immune from liability.
As it relates to health care providers, the bill requires a plaintiff who files a COVID-19-related lawsuit to prove that a health care provider’s conduct constituted gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Under the bill, a health care provider has strong liability protections when the provider substantially followed authoritative or applicable government-issued heath standards or guidance related to COVID-19.
HB 7 does not contain the health provider protections that SB 72 as amended now does. Those are contained in a separate bill, HB 7005. These bills have been left pending since SB 74 was enacted.
2. HEALTHCARE COVID-19 LIABILITY SB 74/HB 7005
FAILED – LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN SB 72
SB 74 by Senator Brandes was not considered in its third and final Senate committee after the provisions of the bill were amended onto SB 72 creating a universal Covid-19 liability bill. SB 74 remains in the Rules Committee where it was tabled.
The bill, which is unlikely to be heard again since it is now in SB 72, provides heightened liability protections to health care entities for negligence claims by patients and residents arising under existing laws governing medical malpractice and long-term care facility litigation related to:
· Contracting COVID-19;
· Injury due to delay or omission in scheduling surgery or an act or omission in providing care for a medical condition due to a lack of resources caused by COVID-19;
· Novel or experimental COVID-19 treatment given to a COVID-19 patient; or
· Treatment of a COVID-19 patient whose injuries were related to an exacerbation of pre-existing conditions by COVID-19.
HB 7005 by Representative passed the House Judiciary Committee in week 2 and is sitting on the House calendar. This bill contains similar provisions to SB 74. This pair of bills is unlikely to move further given its inclusion in SB 72 which the Governor has already signed into law.
3. ACCURACY IN DAMAGES SB 846/HB 561
FAILED
SB 846 by Senator Brandes passed its first of three committees in Senate Judiciary committee on Tuesday, March 9th. The bill creates the state statute for the recovery of past medical expenses in personal injury or wrongful death actions. The bill defines the term health care coverage for the purpose of this new section.
The bill also specifies that certain evidence offered to prove damages for the cost of past medical expenses is admissible in a personal injury or wrongful death suit under certain circumstances. The bill also specifies damages that may be recovered by a claimant for the reasonable and necessary cost or value of medical care rendered.
HB 561 the House companion has yet to be heard in its first of three committee stops.
These bills are unlikely to pass.
OTHER
1. DRONES BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SB 44/HB 1049/SB 518/HB 433
PASSED
SB 44 By Senator Wright provides additional exceptions to the statutory ban on certain uses of drones by law enforcement agencies, fire departments, state agencies, and political subdivisions of the state. Currently, statutes prohibit a:
· Law enforcement agency from using a drone to gather evidence or other information.
· Person, or state or local entity, from using a drone to capture images of private property in violation of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
However, these prohibitions are subject to exceptions, and the bill adds to these exceptions. Specifically, the bill no longer prohibits a law enforcement agency from using a drone to:
· Assist with traffic management, except that the agency may not issue a traffic citation based on images or video captured by a drone; and
· Facilitate evidence collection at a crime scene or traffic crash scene.
Additionally, the bill provides that statutes do not prohibit a state agency or political subdivision to use a drone to assess damage due to a natural disaster, or for the management of vegetation and wildlife management on public land or water. Finally, the bill provides that this section does not prohibit certified fire department personnel to use drones, as long as they use the drone to perform tasks within the scope and practice authorized under their certifications.
HB 1049 by Representative Giallambardo is the House companion to SB 44. Like SB 44 the bill expands the exceptions to the prohibition on drone surveillance to permit the use of a drone by law enforcement.
SB 518 by Senator Diaz creates an exception for the statutory prohibitions relating to use of drones to allow for a state agency or political subdivision for the assessment of damage due to a hurricane, a flood, a wildfire, or any other natural disaster.
Meanwhile HB 433 passed the House floor and is the companion to HB 518. This pair of bills ultimately died.
2. CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY HB 969/SB 1734
FAILED
HB 969 by Representative McFarland passed the full House on April 21st but ultimately didn’t cross the finish line. The amendments removed civil remedy in favor of UTP penalties, which makes this provision similar to the better Senate version. The bill also added entity level GLB exemption but made it contingent on how data is shared. The bill now makes the following changes to Florida law.
It adds “biometric data” to the definition of “personal information” in the Florida Information Protection Act. Thus, entities in possession of fingerprints, DNA, and other biological or physiological identifying information must take reasonable measures to protect the biometric data and report data breaches.
The bill would have required certain businesses to publish a privacy policy for personal information and defines “personal information” as information that identifies, relates to, or describes a particular consumer or household, or is reasonably capable of being directly or indirectly associated or linked with, a particular consumer or household. The term does not include public information that is readily available to the public from government records or deidentified or aggregate consumer information.
The bill gave consumers certain rights related to personal information collected by a business, including:
· The right to access personal information collected,
· The right to delete or correct personal information, and
· The right to opt-out of the sale or sharing of personal information.
The bill required businesses to comply with certain consumer requests and make certain information available on the business’s website. Additionally, it allowed the Department of Legal Affairs to bring an action against, and collect civil penalties from, a business who violates these requirements. Consumers whose personal information has been breached, sold, or shared after opting-out, or retained after a request to delete or correct may also bring a cause of action against the business in certain limited circumstances. The bill would have had an effective date of January 1, 2022.
The bill was modeled after the original version of the California Consumer Privacy Act and the business community is already raising questions of its impact on Florida businesses.
SB 1734 By Senator Bradley passed the Senate floor and was substituted for HB 969 before ultimately failing to get across the finish line.
Insurers have been worked with a coalition of business groups to try to improve these bills, which ultimately resulted in the continued improvements as it moved through the process. Before ultimately keeping the bill from approval this session.
3. FARMING OPERATIONS SB 88/HB 1601
PASSED – SIGNED INTO LAW BY GOVERNOR ON APRIL 29TH
SB 88 by Senator Brodeur is a priority of President Simpson and passed off the floor a final vote on March 18th and passed the full House on April 22nd. The Governor has until April 29th to act on the bill. The bill amends the Florida Right to Farm Act. The general purpose of the act is to protect reasonable agricultural activities conducted on farm land from nuisance lawsuits. The bill provides stronger liability protections to farms that comply with best management practices and environmental regulations.
The definition of “farm operations” is expanded to add “agritourism” activities to the list of farm operations that receive limited legal protections in nuisance suits and other similar civil actions. The definition is further revised to include the generation of “particle emissions” to the list of conditions or activities that constitute farm operations.
The bill defines “established date of operation” for an agritourism activity as the date the specific agritourism activity commenced, providing for a separate established date of operation for an agritourism activity than for the farm operation.
The burden of proof that a plaintiff must meet in a nuisance action or similar legal action is raised to the clear and convincing evidence standard if the claim is based upon allegations that the defendant’s conduct did not comply with government environmental laws, regulations, or best management practices.
The bill limits those who may bring a nuisance action against a farm operation to people whose real property that is alleged to be damaged is located within one-half mile of the alleged source of the nuisance. The bill limits compensatory damages in a private nuisance action to the reduction in the fair market value of the plaintiff’s property, which may not exceed the fair market value of the property.
The bill prohibits a plaintiff from recovering punitive damages for a farm operation in a private nuisance action unless the alleged nuisance is based on substantially the same conduct that resulted in either a criminal conviction or a civil enforcement action by a government environmental regulatory agency and the conviction or enforcement action occurred within 3 years of the first act forming the basis of the nuisance action.
A losing plaintiff is liable for a farm’s litigation costs and expenses incurred defending a nuisance action if the farm operation has been in existence for 1 year or more before the legal action was instituted and the farm operation conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices or government environmental laws.
HB 1601, the House companion sponsored by Representative Williamson passed the House floor.
4. CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS SB 270/HB 21
FAILED
HB 21 by Representative Andrade narrowly passed its second of three committees in week 2 and ultimately went no further. The bill makes the following changes to the construction defect statute:
· Limits actionable violations of the Florida Building Code to material violations.
· Requires a claimant to attempt to resolve a construction defect claim or Florida Building Code violation claim under any applicable warranty before sending a notice of claim or commencing legal action.
· Increases the specificity of detail a claimant must provide in the notice of claim and requires the claimant to include photographs of the damage and repair estimates or expert reports.
· Requires a claimant to affirm in the notice of claim that he or she has personal knowledge of the alleged defect and acknowledge that he or she is aware of the penalties for perjury.
· Requires a claimant to personally sign the notice of claim under penalty of perjury.
· Mandates that the respondent serve a copy of the notice of claim on each person the respondent believes is responsible for the defect.
· Requires a prevailing claimant to notify any mortgage company with a security interest in the property of the claim’s outcome and the defect’s repair.
The Senate version of the bill, SB 270 by Senator Perry, passed one of its three committees and was never heard in Community Affairs.
These bills dead for this session.
5. CORPORATE INCOME TAX HB 999
FAILED
HB 999 by Representative Hawkins was not heard in its first of two committees the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would have mandated mandatory unitary combined reporting requiring multistate and multinational companies to file a single Florida corporate income tax return covering their entire business versus the ability to file separate returns for subsidiaries.
The result of this change would have been an expansion in the number of entities required to file and pay Florida corporate income taxes. Which would require separate legal entities located completely outside of the State to being paying Florida corporate income tax if they have a common ownership with a Florida corporate taxpayer. The result of this would have been that income resulting from activities occurring outside of the State would become taxable.
There is no Senate companion at this time. This bill did not pass.
6. URBAN AGRICULTURE SB 628/HB 1013
PASSED
SB 628 by Senator Rouson passed its third and final committee this week and unanimously passed the full Senate on April 15th. The bill exempts farm equipment used in urban agriculture from certain provisions requiring farm equipment to be located at least 50 feet away from a public road. The bill does not exempt nonresidential farm buildings, fences, or signs located on lands used for urban agriculture from the Florida Building Code or local governmental regulations.
The also bill defines “urban agriculture” and provides applicability and expressly preserves local governmental authority to regulate urban agriculture under certain circumstances.
HB 1013 by Representative Rayner passed the House floor then was substituted for SB 628.
7. PROHIBITED GOVERNMENTAL TRANSACTIONS WITH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES AND FOR CHINESE PRODUCTS HB 439/SB 810
FAILED
HB 439 by Rep. Fine was never heard after being referred to four committees and would have prohibited agency or local governmental entity from purchasing any good made, or that contains specified percentage of parts that were produced, in China; prohibits agency or local governmental entity from purchasing any good or service made, sold, or provided by certain technology companies; provides that contract for purchase or provision of goods or services by agency or local governmental entity must include provision authorizing termination of such contract in certain circumstances. This bill could have impacted any vendor contracting with the state that hosts its cloud servers on Amazon or Google and could cause those contracts to be terminated. The State Board of Administration has done a memo demonstrating the large fiscal impact to the state of the bill.
SB 810 by Senator Gruters was referred to FIVE committees but was also never heard yet in committee.
These bills are dead.
8. QUASI-PUBLIC ENTITIES SB 1570/HB 1083
FAILED
HB 1083 by Representative Shoaf will be on the House Special Order Calendar on April 20th. This bill was taken up on the House floor on April 23rd. An amendment was adopted by the sponsor that removed the salary cap provision from the bill. The bill requires every Quasi-Public Entity (QPE) to conduct a cost benefit analysis through use of a third-party vendor selected by the Governor to determine if its more cost beneficial to conduct the activities of the QBE out of an existing state agency. This analysis must be completed no later than August 1, 2023, and shall complete one every 10 years thereafter. The bill will be on third reading on April 26th.
The definition of “Quasi-Public Entity” is:
“Quasi-public entity” means an entity established by general law, regardless of form, for a public purpose or to effectuate a government program and which is not directly controlled by a governmental entity. The term does not include citizen support organization or a direct-support organization.
All such existing entities are repealed on June 30, 2025, unless saved from repeal through re-enactment by the legislature.
The bill required that detailed information must be submitted annually on each entity and any affiliated entity including fiscal plans for 3 years, copies of the code of ethics, tax returns, etc. These reports must be offered on each QPE’s website for public review. Minutes must be posted on the website, and all meetings of the governing boards must be videotaped.
Additionally, the bill would have required that third party lobbyists may not be retained using public funds by such entities, although a lobbyist may be hired in house at a QPE, or staff of the QPE may register as a lobbyist. Executive directors of QPE’s may not be involved with the selection appointment or retention of board members of the governing body. Additionally, all contracts entered into by the QPE must be posted on the CFO’s state contracting website.
SB 1570 by Senator A Rodriguez passed its second of two committees on April 15th in Senate Appropriations ultimately died on the house floor. The bill was previoulsy amended in committee to allow exemptions to Joint underwriting associations, a risk apportionment plan, or other entity (example Citizens) created under certain state statutes, research institutes of the state university system and licensed health care facilities.
SB 1570 does the following:
· Defines “quasi-public entity” to mean an entity established by general law, regardless of form, for a public purpose or to effectuate a government program and which is not directly controlled by a governmental entity. The term does not include a citizen support organization or a direct-support organization.”
· Requires the Governor to designate a department with which each quasi-public entity will be affiliated, and the requirements of the affiliated department.
· Requires each quasi-public entity to have an operational audit completed by the Auditor General at least once every three years.
· Requires each quasi-public entity to submit an annual report, on September 15, to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and its affiliated department.
· Requires a quasi-public entity to include additional specified information if the entity is organized as a corporation or has created an affiliated entity
· Requires each quasi-public entity to maintain a publicly available website with certain content.
· Prohibits a quasi-public entity from using public funds to retain a lobbyist to represent the entity before the legislative or executive branch. However, a full-time employee of the entity may register as a lobbyist to provide such representation.
· Prohibits a quasi-public entity from creating an entity separate from itself, including a citizen support organization or a direct-support organization.
· Requires any meeting of a quasi-public entity to be video recorded. Additionally, the bill prohibits the executive director or an officer with similar responsibilities from recommending or being involved with the selection, appointment or retention of any member of the quasi-public entity’s governing body.
· Requires each quasi-public entity to post certain information on the Department of Financial Services contracting tracking system within 30 days after executing a contract.
The House and Senate bills were similar but not identical. The Senate bill had exemptions not included in the House version. The House currently had the cap on Salaries which is not included in the Senate.
9. MEDICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS SB 1370/HB 911
FAILED
HB 911 by Representative Buchanan passed all of its committees and passed the House on April 23rd. The bill allows licensed veterinarians to establish a veterinarian/client/patient relationship (VCPR) remotely and practice veterinary telemedicine as follows:
VCPR
· Allows the VCPR to be established in person, or by means of veterinary telemedicine if audiovisual technology is used to establish such relationship.
· Specifies that a physical examination is not required for the veterinarian to assume responsibility for making medical judgments or providing treatment.
Veterinary Telemedicine
· Defines “veterinary telemedicine” to mean the practice of veterinary medicine in a remote setting, including through the use of telephone or audio-visual technology or by other means consistent with the veterinarian’s professional judgment, as long as the veterinarian/client/patient relationship is established either in person or by audio-visual technology.
· Prohibits veterinarians from prescribing controlled substances if the veterinarian/client/patient relationship has been established remotely and the veterinarian has not previously performed a physical examination, unless the controlled substance is prescribed for the following:
- Inpatient treatment at an animal clinic or hospital; or
- The treatment of a patient receiving hospice services.
· Requires veterinarians to hold a current license to practice veterinary medicine in Florida in order to practice veterinary telemedicine in Florida.
· Grants the Board jurisdiction over a veterinarian practicing veterinary telemedicine in Florida, regardless of where the veterinarian’s physical offices are located.
· Specifies that the practice of veterinary telemedicine is not a violation of the standard of care, and a veterinarian may not be disciplined solely for practicing veterinary telemedicine.
The Senate companion SB 1370 by Senator Rodriguez passed its second of three committees on March 17th but was never heard by Senate Rules.
10. OGSR/OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION SB7019/HB 7049
PASSED
HB 7049 by Government Operations Subcommittee and Representative Shoaf passed its final committee in State Affairs this week and was ultimately substituted . Current law makes certain proprietary business information held by OIR confidential and exempt from public record requirements. This includes proprietary business information and supporting documents contained in documents, such as the actuarial opinion summary, principle-based valuation report, enterprise risk report, and insurance holding company registration.
To protect certain sensitive and strategic financial information, the Legislature in 2016 created a public record exemption for ORSA summary reports, substantially similar ORSA reports, CGAD reports, and supporting documents held by the OIR. The documents are confidential and exempt from public records requirements and does not apply to information obtained by the OIR that would otherwise be available for public inspection.
The bill saves from repeal these public record exemptions, which will repeal on October 2, 2021, if this bill does not become law.
SB 7014 by the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee still carrying an amendment that would allow the CFO’s Insurance Consumer Advocate to review the confidential information. SB 7014 was the version that passed in the end and is headed to the Governor.
11. FIDUCIARY DUTY OF CARE HB 573/SB 758
FAILED
HB 573 by Representative Beltran passed the House floor on April 23rd with an amendment bringing it closer to the House bill. The bill would have established fiduciary duty of care standards applicable to ‘appointed public officials’ and ‘executive officers.’ According to the bill’s legislative findings and purpose, codifying a fiduciary duty of care will require appointed public officials and executive officers stay adequately informed of affairs, perform due diligence, perform reasonable oversight, and practice fiscal responsibility regarding decisions involving corporate and proprietary commitments on behalf of a governmental entity.
Beginning January 1, 2022, the bill also would have required certain appointed public officials and executive officers to complete a minimum of five hours of board governance training within 180 days of appointment. Those appointed prior to January 1, 2022, must complete such training by December 31, 2022. The bill specifies content for the required training and categories of authorized training providers.
The bill also required a certification by each trained official and officer acknowledging training, familiarity with governing laws and policies and a commitment to uphold such laws and policies and faithfully discharge the fiduciary duties imposed by the bill. The bill contains exceptions to the training and certification requirement for certain appointed public officials and executive officers.
The bill mandated the appointment of an executive officer or general counsel be subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the governing body of the governmental entity. The bill also requires all legal counsel and lobbyists employed by a governmental entity to represent the legal interest of the governmental entity’s governing board and not the interest of any individual or employee.
SB 758 by Senator Diaz passed its second of three committees on March 16th and was ultimately never heard in its final committee Senate Appropriations.
12. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS SB 702/HB 253
FAILED
SB 702 by Senator Thurston has passed all three of its committee stops and passed off the Senate floor on April 7th. The bill clarifies that any interest in an IRA or individual retirement annuity received in a transfer incident to divorce remains exempt from creditor claims after the transfer is complete. The bill clarifies existing law and is remedial in nature. The bill applies retroactively to all transfers made incident to divorce.
The House companion HB 253 by Representative Geller passed its first committee back on March 30th and now awaits a hearing in House Banking and Insurance.
These bills are unlikely to pass.
13. ELECTRONIC LEGAL DOCUMENTS SB 848/HB 483
PASSED
SB 848 by Senator Powell will be up in its third and final committee on April 16th. The bill amends the existing process for an online notary who witnesses an electronic record to require the online notary to verify both the witness’ and principal’s identities. Under current law, the notary is not required to verify the principal’s identity when the notary supervises the witnessing of an electronic record. The bill requires an online notary to ask the principal certain questions when only one witness is in the physical presence of the principal if an electronic record to be signed is a will, revocable trust, health care advanced directive, agreement regarding succession or a waiver of spousal rights, or power of attorney. These questions are intended to prevent fraudulent or otherwise invalid transactions. For example, these questions might elicit information that would allow the notary to verify that the principal is capable of understanding the record or document in question and capable of giving proper legal consent. Under current law, these questions are necessary and apply in the above scenarios when an online notary witnesses an electronic record, regardless of how many witnesses are in the presence of the principal. The bill also updates statutory forms used by notaries public and online notaries to reflect how, by physical presence or by audio video technology, the principal and each witness appeared before the notary. The bill takes effect upon becoming law.
The House companion HB 483 by Representative Altman has passed the full House on April 21st and then passed the full Senate on April 22nd. This bill is now headed to the Governor. The House version is identical to the Senate version.
Thank you to our 2021 Corporate Sponsors!
