Relief of the Estate of Mark LaGatta by the Department of Transportation
Summary
SB 78 is a claims bill that provides a one-time appropriation to compensate the Estate of Mark LaGatta for injuries and damages arising from a 2020 motorcycle crash involving the Florida Department of Transportation during roadwork on State Road 24 in Levy County. The bill recites that a DOT employee backing a tractor with a box blade into the eastbound lane caused the collision, resulting in severe leg injuries, amputation, extensive hospitalization and surgeries, and permanent inability to return to work. It also notes that Mr. LaGatta later died, and that the remaining amount of the civil judgment is now payable to his estate.
The bill appropriates $2.2 million from the General Revenue Fund and directs the Chief Financial Officer to issue a warrant to the Estate of Mark LaGatta from DOT funds in the State Treasury. It specifies that the payment, together with the $120,000 already paid under Florida’s sovereign immunity statute, is intended to be the sole compensation for all present and future claims arising from the incident. The bill also caps attorney fees at 25 percent of the total amount awarded and takes effect upon becoming law.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would create a specific statutory appropriation to satisfy a portion of a court judgment and resolve all remaining claims related to the LaGatta accident. It does not broadly amend transportation or tort law, but it does operate within Florida’s claims bill process and sovereign immunity framework under section 768.28, Florida Statutes, by authorizing payment above the normal statutory cap for a single, named claimant. The practical effect is to transfer state funds to the estate and close out litigation arising from the incident.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill. The text states that the Department of Transportation agreed to support the claim bill, which is a strong indicator of non-opposition from the affected agency. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence of formal debate or divided sentiment in the materials available. Overall, the bill appears to be presented as a remedial measure to address a serious injury caused during state roadwork.
Contention
The main substantive issue is the size and source of the payment, since the bill authorizes a $2.2 million appropriation beyond the ordinary sovereign immunity payment already made. In claims bills like this, potential points of concern typically include whether the state should pay a judgment in excess of statutory limits, whether the amount is justified by the facts and damages, and how attorney fees are limited. In the materials provided, however, there is no expressed opposition from legislators or the department, and the bill itself frames the payment as final and exclusive compensation for the incident.