The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal recently issued a significant decision in Wolf v. Williams[i], clarifying that a critical aspect of Florida’s momentous tort reform effort, Section 768.0427[ii], is not retroactive. This ruling provides some clarity on a contentious issue, but it may not fully resolve ongoing disputes over whether the statute, which limits the admissibility of certain medical expense evidence in personal injury cases, applies to lawsuits filed before its March 2023 effective date. The case is a crucial win for claimants and a significant development for insurers and defense counsel navigating Florida’s shifting litigation landscape.

Background: The Pack Forms

In February 2019, Exylena Williams and Eli Wolf were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Jacksonville. Williams sued Wolf in November 2019, alleging permanent spinal injuries. Wolf admitted fault but contested the severity of Williams’ injuries.

The trial became a battle of medical experts, and the jury ruled in favor of Williams, awarding damages for past and future losses. Wolf appealed on two key grounds: (1) the trial court’s refusal to apply Section 768.0427 retroactively and (2) the court’s ruling that references to “defense organizations” did not improperly suggest the existence of liability insurance.

The Alpha Issue: No Retroactive Application of Tort Reform

Wolf argued the trial court should have applied the newly enacted Section 768.0427, despite the date of filing pre-dating the effective date of the statute. This statute limits recoverable medical expenses and restricts the admissibility of certain billing evidence at trial. The recoverable amounts are what was actually paid, regardless of the payment source. For unpaid or future medical expenses, the statute permits evidence such as the amount healthcare coverage would pay, the claimant’s share under insurance, or—for uninsured claimants—a percentage above Medicare or Medicaid rates. Additionally, the statute mandates the disclosure of letters of protection and related information to ensure transparency in medical expense claims. The Florida Legislature enacted the statute to provide juries with a more realistic assessment of medical damages. Tort reform advocates argue that plaintiffs’ attorneys often present inflated medical costs at trial to increase non-economic damages, only to negotiate them down post-trial.

However, the appellate court held the statute applies prospectively, only affecting cases filed after March 24, 2023. The ruling aligns with prior Florida Supreme Court precedent, emphasizing that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, new statutes are presumed to operate prospectively. This decision effectively settles ongoing litigation disputes about whether defense counsel can leverage the new law in cases filed prior to the effective date.

Crying Wolf: The Insurance Implication Argument Falls Flat

Wolf also contended that Williams’ references to “defense organizations” unfairly suggested to the jury that he had insurance coverage. Florida law prohibits introducing evidence of liability insurance unless relevant to a material issue. Wolf argued that the terminology was a veiled attempt to imply the presence of insurance and bias the jury against him.

The appellate court rejected this argument, ruling that “defense organizations” was a permissible phrase used to explore financial bias in expert witness testimony. The decision reinforces prior holdings that courts have broad discretion in allowing inquiries into financial relationships between experts and defense-affiliated entities.

Huff and Puff, But the Law Won’t Budge

This case is a major ruling, as plaintiff and defense attorneys have hotly debated whether the statute applies to cases filed prior to March 24, 2023. Conflicting trial court rulings on the issue have contributed to the uncertainty. The confirmation that Section 768.0427 is not retroactive means that claims filed before March 24, 2023 will proceed under prior evidentiary rules, allowing plaintiffs to board gross medical expenses at trial. For insurance carriers and defense attorneys, the ruling highlights the need to challenge excessive medical costs through other evidentiary means, such as expert testimony on medical billing.

Additionally, the court’s ruling on insurance references provides further guidance on how financial bias inquiries can be framed without violating Florida’s prohibition against introducing evidence of liability coverage.

“Howl” to Proceed?

The Wolf decision provides much-needed clarity on the application of Florida’s tort reform law. However, future challenges and potential legislative amendments could shift the landscape again. For now, insurers and defense teams must prepare to litigate pre-March 2023 cases under the old evidentiary standards while leveraging the new statute for cases filed after its enactment.

Keep Reading

From the Kitchen to the Courtroom: Bargains, Bread and Briefs Arizona Business Owners Owe a Duty of Reasonable Safety to Invitees, Unreasonably Dangerous Condition or Not Not So Peachy Lately: Georgia Attacking Nuclear Verdicts® with New Tort Reform Laws Cracking the Code: Demystifying the Legal Lingo in Insurance Defense Day in the Life of a Litigator: Keith Bostwick It Ends with Lawsuits for Hollywood Co-Stars Collaboration Is Key to Preparation in the Weeks Before Trial But I Didn’t Mean to Do It … Be Bold, Be Bright, But Be Brief…

More by this author

Taming the Wolf: Florida’s Fifth DCA Holds the Line on Tort Reform Off the App, Off the Hook: Defeating Vicarious Liability Jurors Take Reptilian Bite Out of R.J. Reynolds with Florida Nuclear Verdict® Pump Up the Trial Jams – A Curated Playlist to Take Back Justice for All in Trial

Sources

[i] Wolf v. Williams, Case No. 5D2023-3234. L.T. Case No. 2019-CA-008017. November 25, 2024.

[ii] Section 768.0427, Florida Statutes (2024).