For more than a century, Florida’s one-way attorney-fee statute was a foundational enabler of first-party property insurance litigation. Under pre-2023 law, a policyholder who sued an insurer and obtained any recovery was entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs paid by the insurer. That regime, codified in sections of Florida Statutes such as § 627.428 and § 626.9373, effectively removed much of the financial risk for plaintiffs’ counsel prosecuting coverage disputes and served as a primary leverage tool in settlement negotiations. Insurers routinely offered policy limits or modest multiples thereof late in litigation because doing otherwise triggered significant fee exposure under this one-way fee-shifting structure.

Statutory Reform: March 24, 2023 and HB 837

On March 24, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 837 into law as part of a broad package of tort-reform measures. Among its significant effects, HB 837 repealed the automatic one-way fee-shifting provisions in the property insurance context by amending Florida Statutes to state that “there is no right to attorney fees under” Sections 627.428 and 626.9373 in residential or commercial property insurance lawsuits. The legislative overhaul also reconfigured the limited presuit notice and presuit demand mechanisms that previously tied recovery of fees to percentages of recovery.

In practical terms, this means that an insured who sues a property insurer today generally cannot recover attorney’s fees merely because they obtained any recovery, even if the insurer wrongfully denied a claim, unless they satisfy one of the new statutory avenues for fee awards:

• Proposal for Settlement (Offer of Judgment): Under § 768.79, a policyholder (or insurer) who serves a formal settlement offer and recovers (or defeats the offer) by at least the statutory percentage threshold can recover fees from the date the offer was served. This statutory mechanism remains significant but is markedly different from the historic, automatic entitlement regime.
• Declaratory Relief for Total Coverage Denials: HB 837 created § 86.121, which re-introduces one-way attorney fees in limited circumstances where a carrier has issued a total coverage denial and the insured successfully obtains a declaratory judgment establishing coverage. This right is limited to true coverage disputes for named insureds and does not extend broadly to all policy actions.

HB 837 also amended fee-calculation standards, creating a rebuttable presumption that the lodestar (hours multiplied by reasonable rate) is sufficient and reasonable and making fee multipliers more exceptional.

Market Impact and Litigation Dynamics After Fee Shifting Reform

At the time of the 2023 reform, commentators and much of the plaintiffs’ bar predicted a dramatic contraction in property insurance litigation. The rationale was straightforward: without the ability to shift fees in most cases, lawyers would be unwilling to finance prolonged litigation where recovery did not justify their time and expense. Indeed, the historic one-way fee right was a central driver of litigation economics in the Florida market.

Nonetheless, litigation has continued at robust levels. Law firms representing consumers and policyholders have adapted by:

• Focusing on Offer-of-Judgment strategies early in cases, seeking to trigger fees under § 768.79 when the case progresses beyond presuit negotiation.
• Filing declaratory relief actions in appropriate coverage-denial circumstances to capture fee awards under § 86.121.
• Pursuing bad faith and related extracontractual causes of action where fee recovery might be available under other statutory schemes (e.g., § 624.155 in certain contexts), though these measures are fact-intensive and carry distinct requirements.

From anecdotal and market commentary, many homeowner claims are still resolving for significant sums (e.g., $40,000–$50,000 and higher) where the underlying claim has merit — and plaintiffs’ counsel can still net a contingency share that makes representation economically viable. This reality does not entirely offset the absence of guaranteed fee shifting, but it appears to have blunted the doomsday scenario predicted by many observers that plaintiff practices would collapse overnight.

At the same time, insurers largely remain incentivized to settle meritorious claims rather than litigate to judgment in the face of fee risk via offers of judgment or declaratory actions, or to avoid adverse precedent. Market reports and stakeholder commentary suggest that both sides continue to adjust strategies based on the new fee regime — and that settlement dynamics in first-party property cases remain active, albeit with different calculus than under the old one-way regime.

Legislative Developments and the Push to Modify Fee Shifting Again

The statutory landscape is not static. As of early 2026, multiple bills have been filed or considered in the Florida Legislature seeking to revise the fee-shifting framework in first-party property insurance litigation:

• House Bill 1551 (2025) was approved by the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee, and its sponsor described it as aiming to strike a “prevailing party” standard — colloquially, a loser-pays or two-way fee approach where whichever side prevails in judgment could recover reasonable attorney fees. Proponents frame the proposal as restoring fairness, while opponents argue it would undermine recent reforms that stabilized the insurance market.
• Senate Bill 554 (2025) is another legislative effort addressing insurance practice, claims handling, and attorney fees. Among its provisions, SB 554 would provide for recovery of attorney fees on a percentage basis tied to presuit demands and expand certain insurer obligations, though the text contains complex exceptions and interactions with bad-faith litigation.
• Public discourse and committee activity indicate an ongoing debate over whether the 2023 prohibition on one-way fees went too far and should be calibrated to restore some measure of fee recovery for consumers without returning to pre-reform conditions.

At present, none of these proposals have become law, and Florida’s current statute preserves the post-2023 fee framework for property insurance litigation. Nevertheless, the legislative thrust illustrates that fee shifting remains a live issue in Tallahassee.

Conclusions and Practical Considerations

Since the repeal of one-way fee shifting in March 2023:

• The legal environment for first-party property insurance litigation has materially changed. Automatic recovery of attorney fees against insurers is no longer the norm in coverage lawsuits.
• Litigation persists, with settlements and trial outcomes still producing recoveries that justify attorney engagement in many cases, particularly where policyholder counsel can structure dispute resolution to capture fees under offers of judgment or declaratory relief avenues.
• Market and litigation dynamics have evolved, with both plaintiffs and insurers recalibrating expectations, negotiation leverage, and case management strategies.
• Legislative efforts continue to refine or potentially reverse aspects of the 2023 reform, including proposals to institute a prevailing party fee standard or other modifications — though as of early 2026 none have been enacted.

Overall, Florida’s first-party property insurance litigation landscape is in a state of transition rather than collapse. Fee shifting remains a central policy issue, subject to legislative and judicial interpretation. Attorneys, insurers, and policyholders alike are adapting to a new equilibrium where risk, reward, and strategy must be recalculated in every claim and lawsuit.