Relief/Mande Penney-Lemmon/Sarasota County:
HB 6503 is a claims bill providing special relief to Mande Penney-Lemmon for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle crash involving a Sarasota County employee. The bill recites the facts of the October 1, 2018 collision on the Venice Avenue Bridge, including that the county employee was driving a county vehicle, was wearing headphones, failed to notice stopped traffic, and struck Penney-Lemmon’s vehicle from behind. It also describes the resulting injuries, including neck and back injuries, a shoulder tear, jaw dysfunction, traumatic brain injury, chronic headaches, and related anxiety and depression.
The bill authorizes Sarasota County to pay Penney-Lemmon $2,291,364.63, which represents the excess of the jury’s verdict over the $200,000 sovereign immunity cap already paid under section 768.28, Florida Statutes. It also limits attorney fees to 25 percent of the amount awarded and states that the statutory payment and the amount under the act are intended to be the sole compensation for all present and future claims arising from the incident. The act takes effect upon becoming law.
This bill creates a one-time, private appropriation obligation for Sarasota County rather than changing general statewide law. It operates as a claims bill to authorize payment above Florida’s sovereign immunity cap for tort claims against a local government, and it confirms that the county’s statutory liability limit has already been satisfied. The bill affects Sarasota County, Mande Penney-Lemmon, and any attorneys handling the claim by capping fees and closing out further claims tied to the accident.
The available record suggests the bill was noncontroversial and remedial in nature, with no recorded committee transcript debate or vote opposition included in the provided materials. The bill’s findings present a straightforward narrative of negligence, serious injury, a jury verdict, and a need to compensate the claimant for damages beyond the statutory cap. Its final enactment as Chapter No. 2025-252 indicates it ultimately received legislative approval.
The main substantive issue is the size of the excess judgment and the policy of paying above the normal sovereign immunity limit, which is inherent in any claims bill. Potential points of concern include whether public funds should be used to satisfy a large award, whether the county employee’s negligence was sufficiently established, and the fairness of the attorney-fee limitation. No specific opposition, amendments, or committee disputes are reflected in the provided history, so any contention appears limited to the general claims-bill context rather than this measure alone.