The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Banking and Insurance
BILL: SB 1526
INTRODUCER: Senator Boyd
SUBJECT: Public Records/Annuity Contract Payees
DATE: January 24, 2022
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Schrader Knudson BI Pre-meeting
2. JU
3. RC
I. Summary:
SB 1526 creates a public records exemption to prevent from public disclosure the personal
identifying information and annuity contract numbers of a payee of a structured settlement as
defined in s. 626.99296(2) and the names of family members, dependents, and beneficiaries of
such payee are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
The bill has an effective date of July 1, 2022.
II. Present Situation:
Access to Public Records - Generally
The Florida Constitution provides that the public has the right to inspect or copy records made or
received in connection with official governmental business.
1
The right to inspect or copy applies
to the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, including all three
branches of state government, local governmental entities, and any person acting on behalf of the
government.
2
Additional requirements and exemptions related to public records are found in various statutes
and rules, depending on the branch of government involved. For instance, section 11.0431, F.S.,
provides public access requirements for legislative records. Relevant exemptions are codified in
s. 11.0431(2)-(3), F.S., and adopted in the rules of each house of the legislature.
3
Florida Rule of
General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 governs public access to judicial branch
1
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 24(a).
2
Id.
3
See Rule 1.48, Rules and Manual of the Florida Senate, (2018-2020) and Rule 14.1, Rules of the Florida House of
Representatives, Edition 2, (2018-2020)
REVISED: BILL: SB 1526 Page 2
records.
4
Lastly, chapter 119, F.S., known as the Public Records Act, provides requirements for
public records held by executive agencies.
Executive Agency Records – The Public Records Act
The Public Records Act provides that all state, county and municipal records are open for
personal inspection and copying by any person, and that providing access to public records is a
duty of each agency.
5
Section 119.011(12), F.S., defines “public records” to include:
All documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films,
sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of
the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or
received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connections with the transaction
of official business by any agency.
The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this definition to encompass all materials made or
received by an agency in connection with official business that are used to “perpetuate,
communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type.”
6
The Florida Statutes specify conditions under which public access to public records must be
provided. The Public Records Act guarantees every person’s right to inspect and copy any public
record at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the
custodian of the public record.
7
A violation of the Public Records Act may result in civil or
criminal liability.
8
The Legislature may exempt public records from public access requirements by passing a
general law by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate.
9
The exemption must state
with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption and must be no broader than
necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the exemption.
10
4
State v. Wooten, 260 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4
th
DCA 2018).
5
Section 119.01(1), F.S. Section 119.011(2), F.S., defines “agency” as “any state, county, district, authority, or municipal
officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law
including, for the purposes of this chapter, the Commission on Ethics, the Public Service Commission, and the Office of
Public Counsel, and any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on behalf
of any public agency.”
6
Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Assoc., Inc., 379 So. 2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980).
7
Section 119.07(1)(a), F.S.
8
Section 119.10, F.S. Public records laws are found throughout the Florida Statutes, as are the penalties for violating those
laws.
9
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 24(c).
10
Id. See, e.g., Halifax Hosp. Medical Center v. News-Journal Corp., 724 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1999) (holding that a public
meetings exemption was unconstitutional because the statement of public necessity did not define important terms and did
not justify the breadth of the exemption); Baker County Press, Inc. v. Baker County Medical Services, Inc., 870 So. 2d 189
(Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that a statutory provision written to bring another party within an existing public records
exemption is unconstitutional without a public necessity statement). BILL: SB 1526 Page 3
General exemptions from the public records requirements are contained in the Public Records
Act.
11
Specific exemptions often are placed in the substantive statutes relating to a particular
agency or program.
12
When creating a public records exemption, the Legislature may provide that a record is “exempt”
or “confidential and exempt.” There is a difference between records the Legislature has
determined to be exempt from the Public Records Act and those which the Legislature has
determined to be exempt from the Public Records Act and confidential.
13
Records designated as
“confidential and exempt” are not subject to inspection by the public and may only be released
under the circumstances defined by statute.
14
Records designated as “exempt” may be released at
the discretion of the records custodian under certain circumstances.
15
Open Government Sunset Review Act
The provisions of s. 119.15, F.S., known as the Open Government Sunset Review Act
16
(the
Act), prescribe a legislative review process for newly created or substantially amended
17
public
records or open meetings exemptions, with specified exceptions.
18
The Act requires the repeal of
such exemption on October 2nd of the fifth year after creation or substantial amendment, unless
the Legislature reenacts the exemption.
19
The Act provides that a public records or open meetings exemption may be created or
maintained only if it serves an identifiable public purpose and is no broader than is necessary.
20
An exemption serves an identifiable purpose if it meets one of the following purposes and the
Legislature finds that the purpose of the exemption outweighs open government policy and
cannot be accomplished without the exemption:
It allows the state or its political subdivisions to effectively and efficiently administer a
governmental program, and administration would be significantly impaired without the
exemption;
21
It protects sensitive, personal information, the release of which would be defamatory, cause
unwarranted damage to the good name or reputation of the individual, or would jeopardize
the individual’s safety. If this public purpose is cited as the basis of an exemption, however,
only personal identifying information is exempt;
22
or
11
See, e.g., s. 119.071(1)(a), F.S. (exempting from public disclosure examination questions and answer sheets of
examinations administered by a governmental agency for the purpose of licensure).
12
See, e.g., s. 213.053(2)(a), F.S. (exempting from public disclosure information contained in tax returns received by the
Department of Revenue).
13
WFTV, Inc. v. The Sch. Bd. of Seminole County, 874 So. 2d 48, 53 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 2004).
14
Id.
15
Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
16
Section 119.15, F.S.
17
An exemption is considered to be substantially amended if it is expanded to include more records or information or to
include meetings as well as records. Section 119.15(4)(b), F.S.
18
Section 119.15(2)(a) and (b), F.S., provides that exemptions required by federal law or applicable solely to the Legislature
or the State Court System are not subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
19
Section 119.15(3), F.S.
20
Section 119.15(6)(b), F.S.
21
Section 119.15(6)(b)1., F.S.
22
Section 119.15(6)(b)2., F.S. BILL: SB 1526 Page 4
It protects information of a confidential nature concerning entities, such as trade or business
secrets.
23
The Act also requires specified questions to be considered during the review process.
24
In
examining an exemption, the Act directs the Legislature to question the purpose and necessity of
reenacting the exemption.
If the exemption is continued and expanded, then a public necessity statement and a two-thirds
vote for passage are required.
25
If the exemption is continued without substantive changes or if
the exemption is continued and narrowed, then a public necessity statement and a two-thirds vote
for passage are not required. If the Legislature allows an exemption to expire, the previously
exempt records will remain exempt unless otherwise provided by law.
26
Public Records and the Judicial Branch
In Locke v. Hawkes, 595 So. 2d 32, at 36-37 (Fla. 1992), the Florida Supreme Court found that
the Legislature, and its members, are not an “agency” as specified in the Public Records Act.
Thus, the Public Records Act would not apply to records of the Legislature. Further, looking at
the history of the legislation, the court found that if the Legislature intended to include itself
within the definition of ch. 119, F.S., it would have done so (but it did not).
27
Instead, the court
found that the Public Records Act only applied to “executive branch agencies and their officers
and to local governmental entities and their officers;” entities over which the Legislature has
some means of control. As a coequal branch of government, the judicial branch “is not an
‘agency’ subject to the supervision or control by another coequal branch of government.”
28
Similarly, as with similar reasoning used regarding the Legislature in Locke, the Public Records
Act would not also apply to judicial records.
29
23
Section 119.15(6)(b)3., F.S.
24
Section 119.15(6)(a), F.S. The specified questions are:
What specific records or meetings are affected by the exemption?
Whom does the exemption uniquely affect, as opposed to the general public?
What is the identifiable public purpose or goal of the exemption?
Can the information contained in the records or discussed in the meeting be readily obtained by alternative means?
If so, how?
Is the record or meeting protected by another exemption?
Are there multiple exemptions for the same type of record or meeting that it would be appropriate to merge?
25
See generally s. 119.15, F.S.
26
Section 119.15(7), F.S.
27
Legislative records are public pursuant to s. 11.0431, F.S. Public records exemptions for the Legislature are codified
primarily in s. 11.0431(2)-(3), F.S., and adopted in the rules of each house of the Legislature.
28
Times Pub. Co. v. Ake, 645 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), approved, 660 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1995). See also FLA.
CONST., art. II, s. 3 (providing for the separation of powers between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches; stating
“[n]o person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly
provided herein.”). See also Florida Attorney General, GOVERNMENT-IN-THE-SUNSHINE MANUAL, A REFERENCE FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA’S PUBLIC RECORDS AND OPEN MEETINGS LAWS, Judiciary at 11, (Vol. 43, 2021 Ed.), available
at http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/wf/mnos-b9qq79/$file/sunshinemanual.pdf.
29
See Times, supra note 28, which states that “ chapter 119 does not apply to judicial records nor to the clerk of the circuit
court in his capacity as the court's record keeper” BILL: SB 1526 Page 5
However, the judicial branch is required to maintain access to public records pursuant to article
1, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution.
30
To meet its constitutional obligation, the judicial
branch adopted Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 entitled
“Public Access to and Protection of Judicial Branch Records” which states that the public is to
have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as provided in that rule.
These exceptions include:
All records made confidential under the Florida and United States Constitutions and
Florida and federal law; and
All records presently deemed to be confidential by court rule, including the Rules for
Admission to the Bar, by Florida Statutes, by prior case law of the State of Florida,
and by the rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission;
The judiciary may adopt, and has adopted, “legislative statements of policy as part of the rules
governing matters within the jurisdiction of the judiciary,” including the disclosure or public
inspection of court records.
31
Public Record Exemptions for Certain Court Records and Files
In s. 119.0714(1), F.S., the Legislature has provided that certain information, such as social
security numbers
32
and bank account numbers,
33
contained in court records and files should be
either exempt or confidential and exempt from the disclosure requirements of the public records
30
See GOVERNMENT-IN-THE-SUNSHINE MANUAL, supra note 28. Even before article I, section 24 was passed to require
access to public records and meetings by all branches of government, the Florida Supreme Court had recognized that access
to court proceedings must be safeguarded as open, “public events.” See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531
So. 2d 113, 116–19 (Fla. 1988) (“[B]oth civil and criminal court proceedings in Florida are public events and adhere to the
well-established common law right of access to court proceedings and records. . . . The reason for openness is basic to our
form of government. Public trials are essential to the judicial system’s credibility in a free society.”) (citing Craig v.
Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n. 17 (1980)). See also
William A. Buzzett and Deborah K. Kearney, Commentary to 1992 Addition [of FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24], Fla. Stat. Ann.
(Westlaw 1992), noting the following history leading to the passage of article I, section 24:
Florida’s public records and open meetings laws have been a matter of statute since 1967. (Earlier
requirements for public records had existed for some time.) Those statutes were not designed to apply to
the legislative or judicial branches of state government, but were expressly intended to apply throughout
the executive branch and to local governments, including counties, municipalities, and districts. The
Supreme Court, the Senate and the House of Representatives each provided some form of access to records
and proceedings by rule. In 1978, the Constitution Revision Commission proposed elevating these laws to
constitutional status and applying them to records and meetings of the Legislature. That proposal was not
adopted.
In Locke v. Hawkes, 595 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1992), the Florida Supreme Court determined that, based on
separation of powers requirements, the public records law did not apply to the legislative branch, nor to
constitutional officers of the other branches. The decision meant that records of legislators, as well as those
of the governor and cabinet officers, at least with respect to the exercise of their constitutional powers, were
not subject to the law. The decision caused a stir among the public and particularly the press. Efforts were
quickly begun for constitutional change, which concluded with the successful passage of this amendment.
31
See Florida Pub. Co. v. State, 706 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citing Timmons v. Combs, 608 So.2d 1, 3
(Fla.1992)). The court in Florida Pub. Co., did, however, decline to rule on whether the courts must adopting legislative
statements or expressions of policy as part of rules governing matters within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Rather, the
court, only ruled that it is not precluded from doing so.
32
Section 119.0714(1)(i), F.S.
33
Section 119.0714(1)(j), F.S. BILL: SB 1526 Page 6
laws. Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 has not expressly adopted all of
the statutory public records exemptions contained in s. 119.0714, F.S. However, the rule cross-
references s. 119.0714, F.S., in several places including:
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(1)(B)(iii), regarding Social Security, bank account,
charge, debit, and credit card numbers;
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xiii), regarding protected information regarding
victims of child abuse or sexual offenses; and
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(1)(B)( xxiii), in formation that can be used to identify a
petitioner or respondent in a petition for an injunction against domestic violence,
repeat violence, dating violence, sexual violence, stalking, or cyberstalking.
Structured Settlements
A structured settlement is an agreement for the periodic payment of damages for personal
injuries, the payments of which are established by a settlement or judgment in resolution of a tort
claim.
34
This arrangement typically involves one party paying a lump-sum premium to an
insurance company to purchase an annuity in the name of the injured victim (the payee). Once
the annuity is purchased, the insurance company begins to make periodic payments to the payee
for a negotiated period of time.
Instead of making the payments itself, the insurance company may instead decide to assign its
payment obligations to a structured settlement company. In exchange for accepting its new
payment obligations, the structured settlement company typically receives from the insurance
company a lump-sum payment equivalent to the present value of the future payments that are
owed to the payee.
35
In order to obtain the necessary liquidity to make its newly-obligated
periodic payments, the structured settlement company may use this lump-sum to purchase an
annuity from a life insurance company.
36
After the establishment of a structured settlement, the payee’s financial circumstances may
change. For example, the payee’s periodic payments may be insufficient to pay for an
immediate, large financial need, or the payee may see the benefit of a one-time cash infusion to
alleviate an incurred obligation. As such, instead of receiving payments under a structured
settlement plan, the payee may wish to transfer his or her rights to payments to another
organization—known as a transferee—in exchange for a lump sum payout of all or part of the
structured settlement. In 2001, the Legislature created s. 626.99296, F.S., to protect recipients of
structured settlements during the transfer process.
37
Fundamentally, the statute requires such
transfers to receive prior court approval.
38
This approval must be conditioned upon statutorily-
enumerated factors, including the payee establishing that the transfer is in their own best
interests—taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents.
39
34
See s. 626.99296(2)(m), F.S.
35
Gregg D. Polsky and Brant J. Hellwig, Taxing Structured Settlements, 51 B.C. L. REV. 39, 41-2 (January 2010).
36
Id.
37
Section 626.99296, F.S.
38
Id. at subsection (3); and Rapid Settlements, Ltd. v. Dickerson, 941 So. 2d 1275, 1276-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming
lower court decision to deny petition, noting that “[t]ransfers of structured settlement rights are regulated by statute and court
approval is required before a transfer may go forward.”).
39
Section 626.99296(3), F.S. BILL: SB 1526 Page 7
The transferee contracting to receive structured settlement rights must, at least 20 days before the
scheduled hearing on an application for such a transfer, file with the court (and provide to all
interested parties) a notice of the proposed transfer and the application for its authorization.
40
Interested parties in this circumstance includes:
The payee;
The current party obligated to make continuing periodic payments to the payee;
An insurer that has issued an annuity contract to be used to fund these periodic
payments;
Any beneficiary irrevocably designated under said annuity contract to receive
payments following the payee’s death (or, if such designated beneficiary is a minor,
the designated beneficiary’s parent or guardian); and
Any other party to the structured settlement who has continuing rights or obligations
to receive or make payments pursuant to said settlement.
The notice must include:
A copy of the transferee’s application to the court;
A copy of the transfer agreement;
A copy of the required disclosure statement that was provided to the payee;
A statement that interested parties may support, oppose, or otherwise respond to the
transferee’s application, in person or by counsel, by submitting written comments to
the court or by participating in the upcoming hearing; and
The time and place of the hearing and the manner in which, and the time by which, a
written response to the application must be filed in order to be considered by the
court.
2016 Revisions to Structured Settlement Law
In 2016, the Legislature revised s. 626.99296, F.S., for the purpose of greater protecting the
recipients of structured settlements. As part of these revisions, s. 626.99296, F.S., expanded the
information that must be provided to the court about the payee in a transfer application. This
information includes:
41
The payee’s name, age, and county of domicile and the number and ages of the
payee’s dependents;
A copy of the transfer agreement;
A copy of the required disclosure statement that was provided to the payee;
An explanation of reasons as to why the payee is seeking approval of the proposed
transfer; and
A summary of each of the following:
o Any transfers by the payee to the transferee or an affiliate, or through the
transferee or an affiliate to an assignee, within the 4 years preceding the date of
the transfer agreement.
40
Id. at (4).
41
Id. at (4)(d). BILL: SB 1526 Page 8
o Any transfers within the 3 years preceding the date of the transfer agreement
made by the payee to any person or entity other than the transferee or an affiliate,
or an assignee of a transferee or an affiliate, to the extent such transfers were
disclosed to the transferee by the payee in writing or are otherwise actually known
by the transferee.
o Any proposed transfers by the payee to the transferee or an affiliate, or through
the transferee or an affiliate to an assignee, for which an application was denied
within the 2 years preceding the date of the transfer agreement.
o Any proposed transfers by the payee to any person or entity other than the
transferee, or an assignee of a transferee or an affiliate, to the extent such
proposed transfers were disclosed to the transferee by the payee in writing or are
otherwise actually known by the transferee, for which applications were denied
within the year preceding the date of the transfer agreement.
Structured Settlement Transfer Fraud
The large amount of personal and financial information about the payee, and, potentially, that
payee’s dependents, that must be submitted to a court to approve a structured settlement transfer
may increase the risk of such persons being targeted by fraud relating to the transfer. The
potential for such fraud, and the incentives for fraud, is increased by the revelation that:
The payee potentially has a substantial sum of money due to them, with the specified
amount due to them contained within the transfer agreement submitted to the court;
The payee may be experiencing a financial hardship and have an immediate need for
funds (s. 626.99296(4)(d), F.S., requires the submission of an explanation of reasons
as to why the payee is seeking approval of the proposed transfer);
42
The payee may have recently serious negative life event, such as a serious injury or
the death or serious injury of a loved one, (which could be the reason for the tort
claim that gave rise to the structured settlement to begin with);
43
and
A transfer of funds is imminent.
Fraudulent actors, and other companies engaging in misleading marketing tactics, are able to
search court records looking for orders and other information relating to the transfer of a
structured settlement. Using the substantial publicly available information, such a person can
approach a payee with customized solicitation via mail, email, text message, or other medium,
that appears to be from a legitimate source (such as a court official or representative of the
transferee). The person can then engage with the payee and obtain all, or a portion of, that payees
structured settlement through fraud or deceit.
42
Persons having significant debt concerns, experiencing job loss, or having had a negative change in financial status are
more likely to be victims of fraud. See: Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Fraud in the United States (March 2013),
available at: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/consumer-fraud-united-states-2011-third-ftc-
survey/130419fraudsurvey_0.pdf, and D Shadel, K Pak & J Sauer 2014, Caught in the scammer’s net: Risk factors that may
lead to becoming an internet fraud victim, AARP RESEARCH (2014), available at:
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/econ/2014/Caught-Scammer-Net-
Indiana.doi.10.26419%252Fres.00076.007.pdf.
43
Persons having experienced recent serious negative life events, such as a serious injury or the death or serious injury of a
loved one, are more likely to be victims of fraud. Id. BILL: SB 1526 Page 9
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
Section 1 of the bill amends s. 119.0714(1), F.S., to make exempt from public records
disclosure, if not already closed by order of a court, the following information in a court file:
Personal identifying information and annuity contract numbers of a payee of a
structured settlement as defined in s. 626.99296(2), F.S.; and
The names of family members, dependents, and beneficiaries of such a payee.
The section also provides that this new exemption is subject to the Open Government Sunset
Review Act, s. 119.15, F.S., and will be repealed, unless saved from repeal by the Legislature, on
October 2, 2027.
Section 2 of the bill provides the public necessity statement, required pursuant to Article I, s.
24(c) of the State Constitution, for the public records exemption. It states, in part, that recipients
of structured settlements have been targets of criminal and fraudulent acts based upon publicly
available identifying information. Further, it states that protecting the personal identifying
information and annuity contract numbers of a payee of a structured settlement and the names of
family members, dependents, and beneficiaries of such payee outweighs any public benefit that
may be derived from the disclosure of such information.
Section 3 of the bill specifies an effective date of the bill of July 1, 2022.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
Vote Requirement
Article I, s. 24(c) of the State Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the members present and
voting for final passage of a bill creating or expanding an exemption to the public records
requirements. This bill enacts a new exemption for the protection of personal identifying
information and annuity contract numbers of a payee of a structured settlement and the names of
family members, dependents, and beneficiaries of such payee, thus, the bill requires a two-thirds
vote to be enacted.
Public Necessity Statement
Article I, s. 24(c) of the State Constitution requires a bill creating or expanding an exemption to
the public records requirements to state with specificity the public necessity justifying the
exemption. Section 2 of the bill contains a statement of public necessity for the exemption.
BILL: SB 1526 Page 10
Breadth of Exemption
Article I, s. 24(c) of the State Constitution requires an exemption to the public records
requirements to be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the law. The
purpose of the law is to protect personal identifying information and annuity contract numbers of
a payee of a structured settlement and the names of family members, dependents, and
beneficiaries of such payee. This bill exempts only this information from the public records
requirements. The exemption does not appear to be broader than necessary to accomplish the
purpose of the law. However, see Section VII, Related Issues, below for a discussion of the
potential ambiguity regarding the scope of this proposed legislation.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
The judicial branch is not subject to the Public Records Act. Florida Rule of General
Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(c)(7), however, provides that records made
confidential by Florida law shall be confidential, with the burden of having such
documents treated as confidential within a court file upon the filing party. Additionally,
the judicial branch may adopt the public records exemptions passed by the Legislature.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
None.
C. Government Sector Impact:
None.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
Proposed s. 119.0714, F.S., states, that the proposed exception applies to “the payee of a
structured settlement as defined in s. 626.99296(2).” Section 626.99296(2) defines: BILL: SB 1526 Page 11
“Payee” as an individual who is receiving tax-free damage payments under a structured
settlement and proposes to make a transfer of payment rights under the structured
settlement; and
“Structured settlement” as an arrangement for periodic payment of damages for personal
injuries established by settlement or judgment in resolution of a tort claim.
It is potentially unclear whether the exception being created means to incorporate only the
definition of “structured settlement” in the reference to s. 626.99296(2), or incorporate the
definition of “payee” as well. If the reference to s. 626.99296(2) is only to “structured
settlement” then the public records exception created could potentially apply to any structured
settlement in Florida— not just those for which a transfer application has been filed.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the section 119.0714 of the Florida Statutes:
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.