SB 6 is a local claim bill that authorizes Miami-Dade County to pay Jose Correa $4.1 million as compensation for injuries he suffered in a 2021 collision with a county bus. The bill’s findings state that Correa was lawfully crossing in a marked crosswalk when a county bus driver failed to observe him and turned into him, causing severe injuries including a below-knee amputation and long-term medical needs. The bill also notes that Correa and the county reached a $4.3 million settlement, with $200,000 payable under Florida’s sovereign immunity limits and the remaining $4.1 million contingent on enactment of this claim bill.
The bill directs Miami-Dade County to appropriate the award from unencumbered funds and issue payment to Correa. It further provides that the county payment under section 768.28, Florida Statutes, together with the amount awarded by the bill, constitutes the sole compensation for all present and future claims arising from the incident. The bill also caps attorney and lobbying fees related to the claim at 25 percent of the total amount awarded, and it takes effect upon becoming law.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would create a specific statutory authorization for Miami-Dade County to pay a named individual a lump-sum settlement above the normal sovereign immunity cap in section 768.28, Florida Statutes. It does not amend the general tort claims framework statewide, but it operates as a special relief act that overrides the practical payment limit for this one claim and directs county funds to satisfy the remaining settlement balance. The bill also limits future litigation over the same incident by making the payment the exclusive compensation for related claims and restricting fees tied to the award.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported in committee, passing the Senate Judiciary Committee 10-1. The bill text itself is framed sympathetically, emphasizing the severity of Correa’s injuries, the county employee’s negligence, and the need to fulfill an agreed settlement. There is no transcript available showing detailed debate, but the strong committee vote indicates broad agreement that the claim warranted special legislative relief.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the use of public funds to pay a large claim above the statutory sovereign immunity cap, even though the payment arises from a settlement and a serious injury case. Another possible concern is precedent: claim bills can be viewed as exceptional remedies, and some lawmakers may be reluctant to authorize individualized payments outside the ordinary tort claims process. The 10-1 committee vote suggests at least one member objected or had reservations, but no transcript is available to identify the specific concern.