Relief/Kristen and Lia Mcintosh/Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services:
Summary
HB 6513 is a claim bill that provides a specific appropriation to compensate Kristen and Lia McIntosh for severe injuries they suffered in a February 12, 2022 collision involving a Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services law enforcement officer. The bill recites the facts of the crash, the resulting injuries, and the related lawsuit and settlement. It authorizes payment above Florida’s normal sovereign-immunity limits because the parties agreed the damages exceeded the statutory cap and a consent judgment was entered contingent on legislative approval.
The bill appropriates $2.252 million from the Agricultural Emergency Eradication Trust Fund to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the relief of the two claimants. It directs the Chief Financial Officer to issue warrants for $1.001 million to Kristen McIntosh and $1.251 million to Elizabeth Thornton as guardian for Lia McIntosh, with Lia’s funds to be placed in a trust for her exclusive benefit. The bill also states that the statutory payment and the award under the act are intended to be the sole compensation for all present and future claims arising from the incident, and it limits attorney fees to 25 percent of the total award.
The bill’s impact on state law is narrow but significant: it creates a one-time exception to Florida’s general limits on tort claims against the state and its agencies under section 768.28, Florida Statutes. By authorizing payment from a specified trust fund and directing the state treasury to satisfy the judgment, it allows recovery beyond the usual $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident caps. It also establishes a trust arrangement for the minor claimant and resolves all related claims arising from the crash.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and context is supportive and remedial rather than controversial. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is described as agreeing that the injuries far exceeded the statutory cap and as supporting the claim bill, which suggests institutional acknowledgment of the severity of the harm and the appropriateness of additional compensation. The bill’s companion measure passed and HB 6513 was laid on the table, indicating the relief was ultimately handled through the companion legislation.
The main point of contention in claim bills of this kind is usually whether the Legislature should authorize payment above sovereign-immunity limits, but no active opposition is reflected in the provided context. The bill’s findings emphasize the seriousness of the injuries, the prior settlement, and the consent judgment, which appear designed to justify the extraordinary appropriation. Any practical concern would center on the use of public funds for a private claim and the precedent of paying above statutory caps, though the record provided shows support rather than dispute.
Impact
HB 6513 would create a one-time statutory appropriation from the Agricultural Emergency Eradication Trust Fund to satisfy a private claim against the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services arising from a state employee’s negligence. It authorizes payment beyond Florida’s sovereign-immunity damage caps, directs the Chief Financial Officer to issue specific warrants to the claimants, requires one award to be held in trust for a minor, and bars additional recovery for claims arising from the incident. It also caps attorney fees at 25 percent of the total award.
Sentiment
The available context indicates a generally supportive and noncontroversial posture toward the bill. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is expressly described as supporting the claim bill and acknowledging that the injuries exceeded the normal statutory limits, which suggests agreement that additional compensation was warranted. The companion measure passed, and there is no recorded committee debate or vote opposition in the provided materials.
Contention
The principal issue inherent in the bill is the Legislature’s willingness to pay a private claim above the state’s normal liability caps, which can raise concerns about sovereign immunity, use of public funds, and precedent for future claims. In this case, however, those concerns appear muted because the agency involved supported the settlement and the claim bill, and the bill is framed as a narrow remedy for extraordinary injuries. No specific opposing member, committee objection, or contested amendment is reflected in the provided record.