A Courageous Move for Florida
Governor Ron DeSantis took a stand on May 29, 2025, vetoing HB 6017 and preserving Florida’s $1 million cap on wrongful death pain and suffering damages. His decision wasn’t a casual one. It was a calculated choice to safeguard the state’s economy and healthcare system from a tidal wave of costly lawsuits. This veto protects Floridians from the chaos of unchecked litigation.
Groups like the Florida Justice Association pushed hard for the bill, claiming it would bring justice to families by closing a so-called ‘free kill’ loophole. Their argument tugs at the heartstrings, but it sidesteps a harsh truth. Removing damage caps invites a surge of lawsuits that could bankrupt small businesses, inflate insurance premiums, and drive doctors out of Florida. DeSantis prioritized the state’s long-term stability over emotional appeals.
Why should you care? Because runaway lawsuits don’t just target big corporations. They raise the cost of healthcare, limit access to doctors in rural areas, and burden small businesses already fighting to stay afloat. DeSantis’ veto defends a system that balances fairness with practicality, ensuring Florida remains a place where people can live and work without fear of legal ruin.
This isn’t about denying families their day in court. It’s about preventing a legal free-for-all that enriches trial lawyers while hurting everyone else. DeSantis’ bold move shows he understands the stakes and isn’t afraid to act.
The High Cost of Uncapped Lawsuits
Data paints a clear picture. States with damage caps enjoy malpractice insurance premiums 15–20% lower than those without, based on research from the past decade. Florida’s cap, in place since 1990, has kept premiums manageable, encouraging doctors to practice here. If HB 6017 had passed, premiums could have surged, forcing clinics to raise prices or close, especially in rural areas. With a nationwide physician shortage projected at 60,000 by 2025, Florida can’t afford to lose doctors.
Victims’ rights advocates argue that caps undervalue emotional suffering and shield negligent parties. Their case sounds compelling until you examine the consequences. Uncapped damages don’t just compensate grieving families. They create a lottery-like system where massive awards destabilize businesses and healthcare providers. Small practices could shutter, and hospitals might cut services to cover liability costs. Patients would face longer waits and fewer options. Is that the justice they’re after?
DeSantis’ veto reflects a time-tested conservative principle: legal predictability drives prosperity. States like California and Texas have used caps since the 1970s to stabilize markets and attract professionals. Florida’s cap isn’t a flaw in the system. It’s a cornerstone of economic and healthcare stability.
Lessons From the Past
History backs DeSantis’ decision. In 1975, California’s MICRA law capped non-economic damages, curbing frivolous lawsuits and stabilizing malpractice premiums. Texas adopted similar reforms, and by the 2000s, states with caps saw more doctors and lower costs. Florida’s 1990 cap was a direct response to rising malpractice rates that threatened to push physicians out. These reforms have proven their worth over decades.
Supporters of HB 6017 cite cases like the $6 billion 3M earplug settlement to argue that big awards deter negligence. But those cases involve global corporations, not local doctors or small businesses. Removing caps in Florida would punish the state’s economic backbone, not just wealthy defendants. DeSantis’ veto ensures that local clinics and family-owned businesses aren’t collateral damage in the pursuit of blockbuster verdicts.
Debunking the Opposition
Victims’ rights groups claim that caps discriminate against low-income families by limiting compensation for emotional loss. They argue that Florida’s rule barring adult children or parents of adult decedents from recovering damages creates an accountability gap. Their narrative is emotionally charged, but it overlooks a key reality. Lawsuits can’t erase grief, and flooding courts with uncapped claims would clog the system, delay justice, and burden taxpayers.
Research shows that states with caps maintain care quality, with no significant dips in patient satisfaction or hospital readmission rates. The idea that caps enable negligence doesn’t hold up. Instead, they create a predictable legal environment where doctors can focus on patients, not lawsuits. DeSantis’ veto rejects the flawed assumption that bigger awards equal better outcomes.
A Blueprint for Progress
DeSantis’ veto isn’t just a rejection of a bad bill. It’s a defense of a system that works. Legal predictability allows businesses to thrive, doctors to practice, and families to access affordable care. This conservative approach balances compassion for victims with the needs of the broader community. Could the system improve? Absolutely. DeSantis has signaled support for stronger patient safety measures, but scrapping caps entirely would be reckless.
Floridians need a healthcare system that serves everyone, not one paralyzed by endless litigation. By vetoing HB 6017, DeSantis ensured that trial lawyers won’t hold the state’s future hostage. He stood up for rural clinics, small businesses, and everyday people who depend on a stable economy. His leadership sets a model for other states grappling with similar debates.
The legislature might consider overriding the veto, but they should think twice. Florida’s prosperity depends on keeping costs down and doctors in practice. DeSantis’ veto is a victory for reason, a reminder that true fairness serves the many, not just the loudest voices.