Relief/Estate of Danielle Maudsley/Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
Summary
HB 6537 is a claims bill that provides a one-time appropriation of $1.75 million from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for the benefit of the Estate of Danielle Maudsley. The bill is based on the death of Ms. Maudsley following an encounter with the Florida Highway Patrol in 2011, during which a trooper used an electronic control device while she was fleeing a substation, allegedly causing catastrophic injuries that left her in a vegetative state until her death in 2013.
The bill also directs the Chief Financial Officer to issue payment to the estate, less any outstanding Medicaid liens tied to Ms. Maudsley’s medical care, and limits attorney fees to no more than 25 percent of the amount awarded. It states that the prior $200,000 payment made under the statutory sovereign-immunity cap, together with the amount awarded by this act, is intended to be the sole compensation for all present and future claims arising from the incident.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would create a specific statutory appropriation outside ordinary agency operations to satisfy a negotiated or judicially recognized claim against the state arising from alleged negligence by a Florida Highway Patrol trooper. It would not broadly change general tort law, but it would operate within Florida’s claims bill process and the sovereign-immunity framework in section 768.28, Florida Statutes, by authorizing payment above the usual liability cap for this single case.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or roll-call history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be presented as a remedial compensation bill for a specific tragic incident, with the preamble emphasizing the severity of the injuries and the prior settlement terms.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the use of public funds to pay an additional $1.75 million beyond the statutory sovereign-immunity payment already made, especially in a case involving alleged law-enforcement negligence. Supporters would likely frame the bill as necessary to fully satisfy the settlement and compensate the estate for catastrophic harm, while opponents could question the size of the award, the precedent of paying claims above the normal cap, or whether the state should bear additional liability after the prior settlement payment.