Legal Reform

Senator Dan Webster (R-Winter Garden) presented House Bill 145, the repeal of joint and several liability, to the full Senate on second reading this afternoon. Senator Dave Aronberg (D-Greenacres) filed an amendment which he described as a “compromise” because it repealed joint and several liability and fixed the alleged problems associated with Fabre. However, the business community has fought hard against similar amendments, maintaining that such amendments would practically defeat the purpose of abolishing joint and several liability. The Fabre doctrine is important to the business community in that it allows the jury to apportion fault to a person who is not a party to the lawsuit for the purpose of reducing the other defendants’ percentage of responsibility, but the non-party is not obligated to pay damages based on the jury’s findings. The remaining defendant can have these non-parties to the lawsuit included on the verdict form in order to ensure that that defendant is liable only for the damages that he/she caused. Trial lawyers would obviously like to be able to settle with asset poor defendants and be able to hold the deep pocket defendant liable at trial for all the plaintiff’s damages. Any amendment with a so-called Fabre-fix would inherently undo the original intent of the bill which is to apportion responsibility fairly among all parties involved.

Senator Rod Smith (D-Gainesville), Senator Steve Geller (D-Hallandale Beach), Senator Skip Campbell (D-Tamarac) and Senator Victor Crist (R-Tampa) each gave extended speeches in favor of the “Fabre-fix” amendment while never explaining the real impact and how the amendment would maintaining the unfairness in the current system.

Fortunately, Senator Burt Saunders (R-Naples) and Senator Cary Baker (R-Eustis) spoke in strong opposition to the amendment. Senator Saunders engaged Senator Aronberg in some tough debate on the amendment and demonstrated different aspects of its unfairness. Senator Webster also spoke in opposition of the hostile amendment, describing it as maintaining the current system. The amendment failed by a vote of 22-18. Members voting against the amendment in support of the AIF/FCLR position were:

A second amendment, filed by Senator Campbell was based on model language from a national legislative group that would have created a more complex negligence system for Florida. Even Senator Campbell himself seemed to be reading extensive notes on the amendment text rather than passionately and succinctly advocating its merits. Senator Saunders pointed out that this amendment was similar to Senator Aronberg’s amendment and would also maintain the current system of unfairness. Senator Webster also informed the members that the amendment was unfriendly. This amendment failed by a vote of 26-13. Senator Nancy Argenziano (R-Crystal River) was not present for the vote. Members voting against this amendment and in support of AIF/FCLR were:

Senator Campbell also filed a third amendment, which would have required a mandatory decrease in all insurance rates. Senator Webster reminded the Senators that the Supreme Court found similar legislation unconstitutional. There were no actuarial studies or analysis to support this idea and the business and insurance communities were opposed. This amendment failed by a vote of 19-21. Members voting against this amendment and in support of AIF/FCLR were:

Because all of the amendments were defeated, a clean version of the bill will be available for final passage by the Senate during its session tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. Senator Webster best described the idea of the bill while he was encouraging members to vote against the amendments: it is simply an issue of fairness and no one should pay more than their fair share.

Senator Webster's closing comments

AIF appreciates the leadership of Senate President Tom Lee (R-Brandon) and Senator Webster in guiding this legislation through the Senate. Please encourage other Senate members to vote for this bill on final passage tomorrow.