Florida Premises Liability Funding
Pre-settlement funding for Florida premises liability claims. Negligent security foreseeability, the post-HB 837 51% bar, and the 2-year SOL explained.
Non-recourse funding is repaid only from a settlement or award. Independent capital providers set the terms.
Bills do not wait for your case.
Rent, medical bills and living costs keep arriving while a case moves through the court. An advance against a pending case can cover them and is repaid only if the case produces a recovery.
The Florida rules that shape this claim
The rules below shape how a Florida premises liability funding claim is underwritten and how quickly it can move toward resolution.
Two years for a negligence claim accruing on or after March 24, 2023, following the shortening from four years under 2023's HB 837 (Fla. Stat. § 95.11). A claim accruing before that date generally remains subject to the prior four-year period.
Florida shifted from pure comparative negligence to modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar under HB 837 (Fla. Stat. § 768.81) — a plaintiff found more than 50% at fault recovers nothing. Florida retains a status-based duty framework for premises claims generally, with the clearest statutory statement addressing trespassers: Fla. Stat. § 768.075 limits an owner's liability to an undiscovered trespasser (no duty to warn absent intentional misconduct) and to a discovered trespasser (a duty to avoid gross negligence and warn of known, non-obvious dangers), while preserving common-law duties to invitees and licensees and the attractive-nuisance doctrine. That common-law duty to a business invitee — to maintain reasonably safe premises and warn of latent dangers — is the basis for negligent-security liability in Florida, which is governed by case law rather than a specific statute. Fla. Stat. § 768.0755, by contrast, applies only to a narrower category of claim (falls caused by a transitory foreign substance such as a spill) and does not govern a negligent-security or structural-failure theory. Florida courts have long recognized that a commercial property owner's duty extends to protecting invitees from foreseeable third-party criminal conduct where the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition — established through evidence such as a documented history of similar incidents on the property (Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1983); Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)).
No general statutory cap on economic or non-economic damages in an ordinary premises-liability claim.
Generally unavailable on unliquidated tort damages, such as pain and suffering, before a verdict is rendered.
Filed in the Florida county where the incident occurred or where the defendant resides, has its principal place of business, or maintains an agent (Fla. Stat. § 47.011).
Florida has no dedicated consumer litigation funding statute. No statutory cap.
How Florida regulates consumer legal funding
Reviewed September 17, 2026. Legal information, not legal advice.
How terms are set for Florida plaintiffs
Rates and terms are set by the capital provider and written in the provider’s agreement before signing.
A negligent-security claim that depends on establishing a documented pattern of prior similar crime, or that names a property owner alongside a separate management company and security vendor, generally takes longer to value and resolve than a claim involving a single, well-documented hazard, since both the foreseeability record and the allocation of responsibility across defendants require more extensive discovery.
Why doesn't Florida's transitory-substance statute apply to a negligent security claim?
Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 is narrowly written to cover falls caused by a spilled substance at a business — it has no application to an assault, a structural collapse, or an elevator malfunction, which remain governed by ordinary common-law premises duties.
This distinction matters because the transitory-substance statute places a specific notice burden on the plaintiff for that one fact pattern; a negligent-security or structural-failure claim is instead evaluated under the broader common-law duty of reasonable care and the foreseeability standard developed in cases like Stevens v. Jefferson.
What kind of evidence establishes foreseeability in a Florida negligent security claim?
Florida courts look to whether the owner had actual or constructive knowledge that a dangerous condition existed — commonly shown through a documented history of similar criminal incidents on or near the property, prior complaints, or a known pattern the owner failed to address.
A hotel, apartment complex, or retail center with a record of prior assaults, break-ins, or complaints about inadequate lighting or broken locks presents materially stronger foreseeability evidence than a property with no such history, under the framework set out in Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne.
How did HB 837 change the stakes of a disputed Florida claim?
Florida moved from pure comparative negligence to a 51% bar in 2023, meaning a plaintiff found more than half at fault now recovers nothing rather than a reduced amount.
In a negligent-security case, a defendant will often argue the plaintiff's own conduct — entering a known high-risk area, ignoring a posted warning — contributed to the harm; post-HB 837, a strong version of that argument threatens the entire claim rather than just its size.
Premises Liability Funding questions in Florida
For an incident on or after March 24, 2023, Florida's statute of limitations is two years under HB 837 (Fla. Stat. § 95.11). An incident before that date generally remains subject to the prior four-year period, so the exact date controls which deadline applies.
Yes. Negligent security is a distinct common-law theory addressing a property owner's duty to protect invitees from foreseeable third-party criminal conduct, separate from the transitory-substance statute (Fla. Stat. § 768.0755) that governs spill-related falls. Foreseeability is typically shown through a documented history of similar incidents on the property.
Florida is now a modified comparative-negligence state with a 51% bar under Fla. Stat. § 768.81: your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but eliminated entirely if a jury finds you more than 50% responsible. This changed from Florida's prior pure-comparative system in 2023.
No confirmed Florida statute specifically governs consumer pre-settlement litigation-funding disclosures as of this writing. General Florida consumer-protection and contract law still applies to a funding agreement, and this should be reconfirmed given active legislative attention to litigation funding nationally.
Fla. Stat. § 95.11 · 2023 Fla. HB 837 · Fla. Stat. § 768.81 · Fla. Stat. § 768.075 · Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 · Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1983) · Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) · Fla. Stat. § 47.011
Reviewed September 17, 2026. Legal information, not legal advice.
Request funding for your case.
Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.