A Decision That Stung
On May 29, 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis halted HB 6017, a bill poised to lift a long-standing cap on wrongful death damages. The veto hit families hard, especially those who had rallied for years to reform the law. They viewed the bill as a path to fair compensation for their grief. Yet others welcomed the decision, arguing it shields Florida’s healthcare system from runaway costs. This divide exposes a tough question: how to weigh justice for grieving families against the pressures of an overburdened medical system.
The veto upheld a 1990 rule in Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, known to critics as the 'free kill' provision. This law restricts who can claim non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, in wrongful death cases. Adult children and parents of adult decedents are excluded from these awards, leaving many feeling their loss is dismissed. HB 6017, dubbed the Keith Davis Family Protection Act, aimed to end this limit. Passed with broad bipartisan support in March 2025, it carried hopes for change. DeSantis’s veto dashed those expectations.
The Case for the Veto
DeSantis justified his veto by highlighting economic risks. He argued that removing the damage cap would inflate medical malpractice insurance premiums, raising healthcare costs for everyone. He also feared it could deter doctors from practicing in Florida, deepening a physician shortage projected to reach 60,000 vacancies nationwide by 2025. Research backs some of these concerns: states with caps often see 10-15% more practicing doctors and malpractice premiums fall by up to 20%. For DeSantis, preserving the cap was a practical step to protect Florida’s medical landscape.
The insurance industry reinforced this stance, flexing significant influence. Between 2024 and 2025, medical liability insurers poured over $75 million into state-level lobbying, advocating for tort reform to curb payouts. Organizations like the American Tort Reform Association argued that caps ensure economic stability. They cautioned that uncapped damages could spark unpredictable verdicts, burdening hospitals, small businesses, and patients. From this angle, the veto appears as a safeguard for affordability and access.
Voices of the Bereaved
For families and their supporters, the veto felt like a gut-wrenching setback. Advocacy groups, such as the Florida Justice Association, argue that the 'free kill' rule denies justice to those who lose loved ones to negligence. They emphasize that the cap disproportionately affects low-income and minority families, who often depend on non-economic damages to address emotional harm. Without these awards, many believe the law fails to hold negligent parties accountable, leaving a gap in fairness.
Supporters of HB 6017 also question the economic rationale. They argue that lifting caps would strengthen accountability, pushing healthcare providers to prioritize safety. Research shows mixed results—while caps reduce premiums, their effect on care quality, such as hospital readmissions, remains unclear. Some studies suggest liability pressure encourages safer practices. For those championing the bill, the veto favors corporate interests over human suffering, limiting families’ ability to seek redress.
A National Tug-of-War
Florida’s struggle mirrors a broader national debate over wrongful death laws. Since the 1970s, states like California and Texas have imposed damage caps to tame malpractice costs, following models like California’s 1975 MICRA law. These reforms aimed to curb excessive verdicts that spiked insurance rates. Yet cases like the $6 billion 3M earplug settlement highlight the stakes when victims confront powerful defendants. The challenge lies in balancing fair compensation with economic stability.
In 2025, 14 states advanced tort reform, from Georgia’s expert-witness standards to Oklahoma’s adjusted claims caps. These efforts often tie to budget negotiations, blending business and insurance priorities with bipartisan support. Critics, however, warn that caps and arbitration clauses favor corporations, restricting victims’ access to courts. Florida’s veto amplifies this conversation, prompting questions about how to fairly value a life lost to negligence.
The Road Ahead
The veto paves the way for a potential showdown. Florida lawmakers, who passed HB 6017 with strong bipartisan support, could pursue a two-thirds override vote—a rare but feasible option. Meanwhile, families and advocates pledge to continue their fight, sharing stories of loved ones lost to medical errors. Their push for reform clashes with the state’s need to attract doctors and control costs, placing policymakers in a difficult position.
The debate is far from over. DeSantis has expressed interest in patient safety reforms but remains committed to damage caps. For now, the 'free kill' provision endures, a focal point for both sides. Florida faces a complex challenge: delivering justice for families while maintaining a healthcare system that serves all. The path forward requires careful navigation.
People at the Center
At its heart, this issue is about human lives. Families mourning loved ones seek recognition of their pain, not just a number on a check. Doctors and hospitals, grappling with rising costs, need stability to care for patients. Both perspectives carry weight, rooted in real consequences. The veto of HB 6017 doesn’t settle this divide—it sharpens it, urging Florida to confront what fairness means when lives are lost.