768.0427: A Day Late and a Dollar Short for Wolf

768.0427 retroactivity was the threshold question in Wolf v. Williams, No. 5D2023-3234 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 25, 2024), and the answer was short: Florida’s 2023 medical-damages statute does not reach a lawsuit filed before it took effect. The defendant asked the trial court to try a 2019 car-crash case under section 768.0427, Florida Statutes, the evidence-of-medical-expenses provision of the 2023 tort reform law (HB 837). The statute arrived more than three years after the complaint was filed — a day late and a dollar short for the defense. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, and in the same opinion approved a plaintiff’s use of the phrase “defense organizations” when probing expert bias.

Facts: A 2019 Lawsuit Meets a 2023 Statute

In February 2019, Eli Wolf and Exylena Williams were involved in a car accident in Jacksonville. Williams sued Wolf for negligence in November 2019 (Lower Tribunal No. 2019-CA-008017). Wolf admitted negligence. The fight was over damages: the defense contended Williams sustained short-term muscle sprains, while Williams contended she sustained a permanent spinal injury.

While the case was pending, the Legislature enacted HB 837 (Ch. 2023-15, Laws of Fla.), effective March 24, 2023. Section 768.0427 limits the evidence a jury may hear on past medical expenses to amounts actually paid, ties evidence of unpaid and future medical charges to insurance or Medicare and Medicaid benchmarks, and requires specific disclosures when treatment is provided under a letter of protection. Wolf moved to apply the new statute at trial, squarely raising 768.0427 retroactivity. The trial court denied the motion.

At trial, Williams’s counsel questioned witnesses about their financial ties to “defense organizations.” Wolf objected that the phrase signaled to the jury that he was insured. The court overruled the objection. The jury found a permanent injury and awarded past and future damages, and Wolf appealed.

Issues on Appeal

1. 768.0427 retroactivity: Should the trial court have applied section 768.0427 to a personal injury action filed in November 2019, before the statute’s March 24, 2023 effective date?
2. Insurance reference: Did allowing the phrase “defense organizations” improperly suggest liability insurance and require a new trial?

Holding on 768.0427 Retroactivity

The Fifth District affirmed on both issues. On 768.0427 retroactivity, the court held that the statute applies only to causes of action filed after March 24, 2023, so it had no application to a complaint filed in 2019. On the insurance issue, the court held that permitting the “defense organizations” questioning was within the trial court’s discretion and did not improperly inject insurance into the trial.

Rationale: How the Court Resolved 768.0427 Retroactivity

The Legislature answered the question itself. Reviewing the issue de novo, the court looked first to the enacting legislation. Section 30 of Chapter 2023-15 provides that, except as otherwise expressly provided, the act applies to causes of action filed after its effective date. Florida courts apply a statute retroactively only when the Legislature clearly intends that result — see Bionetics Corp. v. Kenniasty, 69 So. 3d 943, and Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass’n v. Devon Neighborhood Ass’n, 67 So. 3d 187 — and here the Legislature expressly chose the opposite.

Because the session law resolved the 768.0427 retroactivity question on its face, the court had no need to decide whether applying the statute to a pending case would impair vested rights. The analysis began and ended with the text.

Bias questioning is not an insurance reference. Florida law bars a party from telling the jury that the defendant is insured, but it allows a party to expose financial relationships between the opposing side and a retained expert to show bias. Relying on Vazquez v. Martinez, 175 So. 3d 372, Herrera v. Moustafa, 96 So. 3d 1020, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Matthews, 377 So. 3d 1235, the court treated “defense organizations” as functionally equivalent to phrasing Florida courts have already approved for bias cross-examination. The phrase does not mention insurance, and the trial court acted within its broad discretion in allowing it.

Why the Statute Came a Day Late for the Defense

Section 768.0427 is one of the most consequential defense-side changes in HB 837 because it can shrink the medical-expense figure the jury sees — especially in letter-of-protection cases, where billed charges often exceed what health insurance would pay. But the statute keys on the filing date of the cause of action, not the accident date or the trial date. Williams filed in 2019, so her case was tried under the pre-reform evidentiary rules even though trial took place after the statute became law.

Wolf is the first appellate ruling on 768.0427 retroactivity. For pre-reform cases still on the docket, the argument that the statute governs a pending case is now foreclosed unless another district court disagrees, and both sides should plan their damages presentations accordingly.

Practice Points on 768.0427 Retroactivity

• Check the filing date first. The controlling date for 768.0427 retroactivity is when the cause of action was filed. A case filed before March 24, 2023 is tried under the pre-reform rules for medical-expense evidence, no matter when trial is set.
• The opposite timing cuts the other way. Because the act turns on the filing date, a claim arising from a pre-2023 accident but filed after March 24, 2023 falls within the statute’s text. Wolf did not decide that version of the 768.0427 retroactivity question, so watch for later appellate decisions.
• Think twice before dismissing and refiling. A voluntary dismissal and new filing of a pre-reform case may create a post-reform filing date and change the 768.0427 retroactivity analysis. Weigh that risk before restarting a case.
• Collateral-source setoff still applies. In pre-reform cases, the long-standing post-verdict collateral-source reduction under section 768.76 continues to govern, so the defense is not without tools when section 768.0427 does not apply.
• Bias cross is fair game; insurance is not. Under Wolf, asking an expert about financial ties to “defense organizations” is permissible. Counsel on both sides should still avoid words like “insurer” or “insurance company” and seek a pretrial ruling on exact phrasing through a motion in limine.
• Know which decisions bind your trial court. Absent a conflicting decision from another district, Wolf binds Florida trial courts statewide under Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992).

Read the Opinion

Read the full opinion — Fifth District Court of Appeal (PDF). If you are pursuing or defending a personal injury claim affected by 768.0427 retroactivity and need to know which version of Florida law applies, contact Cox Law, PLLC. We serve clients throughout Florida.

---

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article or contacting Cox Law, PLLC through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information in this article without first seeking professional legal counsel. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.