Interestingly, these caps do not apply to claims brought under the FTCA. The first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. § 2674 makes this explicit, stating:

“The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual [emphasis added] under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.”

Simply put, although FTCA claims are brought against the federal government and its entities — just as claims under Florida’s Section 768.28 are brought against the state and its subdivisions — for purposes of damages, FTCA claims are treated as if they were brought against an individual rather than a government entity under 768.28.

Currently, under Florida law, individuals are not entitled to the misguided constraints of arbitrary damage caps.

Unfortunately, because Florida’s substantive law governs FTCA claims arising in the state, the FTCA does not protect all claims from the reach of every flawed or restrictive Florida law. For example, the Florida Wrongful Death Act (Fla. Stat. §§ 768.16–768.26) restricts recovery for certain survivors in medical malpractice cases, and those limitations still apply even to claims brought under the FTCA. Thus, the wrongful death of a patient resulting from medical malpractice at a VA hospital is governed by the same restrictive Florida law that applies to any other medical malpractice wrongful death case.

Florida’s sovereign immunity cap — essentially a modern echo of the old maxim that ‘the king can do no wrong’ –makes pursuing most tort claims against the state and its subdivisions virtually untenable. Very few lawyers are willing to invest the time and resources to challenge the sovereign for limited damages, knowing the state can fight with impunity, indifferent to the outcome, and effectively discourage even the thought of pursuing otherwise meritorious claims.

Thankfully, Congress chose not to shield the federal government with the same outdated liability protections that the Florida Legislature grants to state entities.*

*For administrative settlements, attorney fees are capped at 20%, while for cases that proceed to a federal court lawsuit and result in a settlement or judgment, the cap increases to 25%.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

That changed in 1975, when the Florida Legislature enacted Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, which partially waived sovereign immunity. For the first time, individuals could sue the state and its subdivisions—cities, counties, municipalities—for certain torts. However, this right came with significant limitations. Most notably, the statute capped damages at $100,000 per person and $200,000 per incident, regardless of the actual extent of the injuries or the number of victims. These caps remained unchanged for 36 years.

Modest Reform, Lingering Injustice

In 2009, the Legislature passed a long-overdue amendment, increasing the caps to $200,000 per individual and $300,000 per claim, effective July 1, 2011. While this was a step in the right direction, it remains grossly inadequate for victims of catastrophic government negligence.

Under these limits, if four people are severely injured by a government employee’s negligence, they must divide a maximum of $300,000 among them—no one may recover more than $200,000 individually, even if their injuries are lifelong or fatal. Not even a jury’s decision overrides the cap. For example, say a jury, after weighing the evidence, decides that a person’s damages, between pain and economic loss, exceed $5 million. After the verdict is rendered, the judge will thank the jurors for their service and send them on their way. In the case of a single harmed person, the most the court can award to that person is the $200,000 cap. That’s perverse. The jury’s opinion, after weighing the evidence fairly and impartially, is entirely disregarded in favor of unfair money-influenced legislation.

In 2025, two bills were put forward in the Florida Legislature to increase the limits to $1 million/$3 million, with incremental increases over time. The bills were opposed by organizations such as the Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, and Florida Hospital Association, while 25 lobbyists were amassed to kill the bills. While one of the bills was approved by the House, both died before reaching the Governor’s desk.

Planning-Level Immunity: An Untouchable Zone

Despite the partial waiver, absolute immunity remains intact for governmental decisions classified as planning-level or discretionary. These include judgments regarding the design, improvement, or initial construction of infrastructure—such as road layouts, intersection design, and placement of traffic control devices.

However, Florida courts have carved out a narrow exception: When a government entity is aware of a serious hazard that creates a hidden danger—effectively a trap—for the public, immunity is waived, and liability may attach (subject again to the statutory damage caps).

When Immunity Becomes Indifference

Our firm recently litigated a case that illustrates the dangers of this doctrine. We represented the husband and three young children of a woman who drowned after her cousin’s car veered into a canal at a poorly marked curve on a dark, rainy night. We uncovered that other vehicles had previously gone off the road at the same location, resulting in fatalities and near-fatal accidents. Just two months after our case, another young woman died under almost identical circumstances at the same curve.

The danger was well known. Still, no corrective action was taken until after these avoidable tragedies. After our lawsuit was instituted, one of the responsible government entities installed an extended guardrail—a fix costing very little —but only after multiple preventable deaths.

We argued, successfully, that this was not a protected planning-level decision. Rather, it was a failure to correct a known trap. But even when liability is established, the available remedy remains a fraction of what private defendants would face.

The Real Problem: Lack of Accountability

This case underscores the greatest flaw in sovereign immunity: a lack of financial accountability. Government entities, shielded from large verdicts, face little incentive to act with the same diligence expected of private citizens or corporations. Where a private business may be compelled to act swiftly to avoid multi-million-dollar judgments, the government can act slowly—or not at all—knowing that its worst-case financial exposure is capped by law.

In effect, sovereign immunity insulates misconduct and dulls the motivation to prevent harm. When negligence results in death or permanent injury, a figurative slap on the wrist is the only consequence.

It’s not just outdated. It’s unjust.

Time for Change

Our firm firmly believes that sovereign immunity, in both its absolute and limited forms, should be abolished or substantially reformed. Government entities should be held to the same standard of care as private individuals and corporations when their negligence causes serious harm.

In a just society, no one—least of all the government—should be above accountability.

**********************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.

Sovereign Immunity is a legal concept applied in monarchies and constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Jordan, and the Netherlands, to make the sovereign or state immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. It is derived from the Latin maxim Rex non potest peccare, meaning “the king can do no wrong.” Florida has enacted a modified version of sovereign immunity in the area of civil law involving personal injuries and wrongful death.

Under Florida civil law, people and companies who are not protected by sovereign immunity can be held accountable up to the full measure of the damages caused by their negligence. Those damages can include pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of income. In cases involving serious injuries or the loss of life, the full measure of damages can be in the millions.

Florida’s sovereign immunity law limits the amount of compensation the sovereign can be compelled to pay. Under section 768.28(5)(a), Florida Statutes, the sovereign, described as “the state and its agencies and subdivisions,” is limited to paying $200,000 per individual, $300,000 per claim. In other words, the most a sovereign will ever have to pay in a single case is $300,000. It does not matter how substantial the actual losses are.

This arbitrary sovereign immunity cap defeats the public policy of encouraging safe conduct.

Because of the cap, most personal injury and wrongful death lawyers refuse to accept cases against sovereign entities. Not only is the potential recovery limited, cap defendants tend to put up the biggest fight since it is taxpayer money rather than their own being used to fund the fight.

Some other reasons why lawyers reject cap cases:

Another important public policy is the principle known as “judicial economy.” Essentially, limiting the use of court resources. The sovereign immunity cap defeats this policy. In non-sovereign cases, the defendant can be motivated to settle for a reasonable sum to avoid the potential of having to pay a significantly higher jury verdict. The sovereign cap eliminates this leverage point. Even in cases with clear fault and damages well in excess of the cap, sovereign defendants almost never offer to settle for the full cap amount. This is because they have nothing to lose and often gain by holding out.

Prosecuting any case to a jury verdict is costly and time-consuming. Where the potential recovery is capped no matter what the jury says, it quickly reaches the point where continuing to push forward does not make sense. The sovereign knows this, so it holds out. Even if a jury awards ten or even a hundred times more than the cap, the sovereign cannot be compelled to pay a penny more than the cap amount.

Not even a successful demand for judgment can result in the cap being breached. Under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, a plaintiff can recover attorney’s fees and costs from a defendant if the plaintiff recovers a judgment in an amount at least 25% greater than a settlement offer served in accordance with the statute. In some instances, those fees and costs can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The purpose of the statute is to encourage settlements. The statute works exceedingly well in non-cap cases. In cap cases, it is virtually meaningless. Not even an award under 768.79 can force the sovereign to pay more than the cap amount. If, for example, the jury verdict is $2,000,000 and the 768.79 award is $350,000, the most the sovereign has to pay is $200,000 to any one person and no more than $300,000 if more than one person is involved.

Interestingly, the sovereign immunity cap does not apply in workers’ compensation cases. The sovereign can be held to full account for the benefits available under the workers’ compensation system. However, it should be noted that non-economic damages such as pain and suffering are not available in workers’ compensation cases. This is often the largest damage element of a personal injury or wrongful death case. Nevertheless, the sovereign’s exposure in a workers’ compensation case can be sizeable, well above $300,000.

The sovereign immunity cap has worn out its usefulness, if it ever had any to begin with, in America’s jurisprudential system — Florida is not the only state to employ the concept. It is time for the antiquated concept to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

With all of this said, anyone harmed through the negligence of a sovereign should consult with a lawyer to learn his or her rights. We are in suit now against a non-cap surgeon and the sovereign hospital in which the surgeon caused significant harm to our client performing surgery in the hospital. (We only decided to sue the sovereign because the action is ancillary to our case against the non-sovereign doctor. We would not have filed suit against the sovereign alone.)

********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com and kgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.