HB 1087 would substantially revise Florida’s property insurance dispute-resolution framework. The bill replaces the existing optional mediation structure in s. 627.7015 with a mandatory procedure for disputed property insurance claims, and it directs the Department of Financial Services and the Division of Administrative Hearings to administer that process. It requires insurers to notify policyholders about the procedure, provides for a consumer information pamphlet, and allows a policyholder to file a petition with DOAH to resolve a ripe, due, and owing claim. The bill also sets filing, service, dismissal, response, and timing requirements, including a 14-day deadline for insurers to pay or respond and a 60-day deadline for an administrative law judge to determine coverage.
The bill also repeals several existing property insurance dispute statutes, including provisions on appraisal clauses, suits arising under property insurance policies, consolidation of residential property insurance actions, and mandatory binding arbitration. In their place, it creates a new coordination rule for claims involving both homeowner’s insurance and separate windstorm or flood coverage, making the homeowner’s insurer the primary insurer and allowing subrogation against the other carrier. It further conforms related statutes affecting Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, claim-handling deadlines, and sinkhole neutral evaluation procedures.
The general policy direction of the bill is toward a more centralized, mandatory, and faster administrative process for resolving property insurance disputes. The text emphasizes prompt payment, cost-effective resolution, and reduced reliance on litigation or contractual appraisal. It also preserves some protections for policyholders, such as a rescission period for settlements and dismissal without prejudice for deficient petitions, while imposing obligations on insurers to participate in good faith and with authority to settle.
There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, so the available context does not show detailed debate. However, the bill’s structure suggests likely support from those seeking stronger consumer access to claim resolution and faster insurer action, alongside likely concern from insurers about mandatory participation, shortened deadlines, and the elimination of alternative dispute mechanisms. The bill ultimately died in the Insurance & Banking Subcommittee, indicating it did not advance through the House process.
HB 1087 would amend Florida’s insurance code by rewriting s. 627.7015, repealing ss. 627.70151-.70154, creating s. 627.70156, and conforming several related provisions in the property insurance statutes. It would shift disputed property insurance claims into a mandatory administrative resolution process before DOAH, alter insurer notice and response obligations, and change how claims involving overlapping homeowner’s, windstorm, and flood coverage are paid and subrogated. It would also affect Citizens Property Insurance Corporation’s dispute-resolution authority and related claims-handling timelines.
No committee discussion or votes are provided, so there is no direct record of member sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text, the measure appears consumer-protection oriented and aimed at speeding claim resolution, but it also imposes significant procedural and financial obligations on insurers. The bill’s death in the Insurance & Banking Subcommittee suggests it did not secure enough support to advance, though the specific reasons are not documented here.
The main points of contention are likely to be the mandatory nature of the new dispute process, the elimination of existing appraisal and arbitration-related statutes, and the short deadlines imposed on insurers to pay or respond. Insurers may object to being required to participate in DOAH proceedings, to bearing mediation costs, and to the bill’s limits on alternative dispute resolution. Policyholder advocates may favor the bill’s faster, more accessible process and its requirement that insurers provide notice and act promptly. The coordination rule making the homeowner’s insurer primary when flood or wind coverage also exists could raise disputes among carriers over payment responsibility and subrogation.