Florida lawmakers are reviewing legislation that would allow policyholders of Citizens Property Insurance to choose between mandatory arbitration and traditional jury trials.
The proposal follows sustained criticism of the insurer’s dispute resolution framework and growing legal pressure around its structure.
The bill emerged after investigative reporting showed Citizens’ arbitration process removes homeowners from public courtrooms and places disputes into a private system decided by a single administrative law judge. That judge operates under a structure funded by the insurer rather than the policyholder.
- Gloria Nitch, a homeowner in Vero Beach, encountered the limits of that system after Citizens denied her Hurricane Milton damage claim. She and her husband later learned they had no access to a standard jury trial. The discovery came after the claim dispute escalated beyond internal review.
- Jason Nitch questioned the fairness of the arrangement, saying it felt inappropriate for an insurer to pay the official responsible for resolving disputes. His concern reflects a broader criticism shared by consumer advocates and attorneys representing policyholders.
- Attorney Ardalan Montazer, who represents multiple homeowners in disputes with Citizens, said he had never seen odds so heavily tilted against policyholders. He argued that the absence of choice removes procedural fairness from the process.
An investigation by WPTV identified contracts showing Citizens pays the state roughly $250,000 per administrative law judge assigned to handle its cases.
Public records also revealed internal emails in which a lawmaker questioned whether Citizens held proper legal authority to implement mandatory arbitration before the policy took effect.
A review of final hearing outcomes over a full year showed judges ruled in Citizens’ favor in 99% of resolved cases.
According to Beinsure analysts, such a disparity raises structural questions about neutrality rather than case-specific merit.
The proposed bill would change that structure by giving policyholders the option to select arbitration or pursue a jury trial.
Montazer said choice alone would materially improve fairness, noting that current Citizens policyholders enter arbitration by default with no alternative.
Citizens declined to comment directly on the legislation but continues to defend the arbitration system. The insurer argues the process delivers faster and lower-cost resolution than traditional litigation.
Citizens also said nearly 50 judges rejected prior legal challenges and that only about 1% of claims moved to arbitration since reforms took effect.
In a formal statement, Citizens said the Division of Administrative Hearings process has resolved disputes involving government entities for more than five decades.
The insurer emphasized that administrative law judges operate under statutory protections and that Citizens, like other government bodies, funds the process administratively.
Citizens also linked arbitration to pricing outcomes. In January, Ron DeSantis announced rate decreases affecting more than 330,000 Citizens policyholders. The insurer said arbitration played a role in setting 2026 rates by containing dispute costs.
Judicial scrutiny continues. Last year, a Hillsborough County judge questioned the legality of the arbitration framework, stating the homeowner presented a strong argument that access to courts rights were compromised.
Montazer said consumer choice addresses the core concern. He argued arbitration becomes defensible only when policyholders opt in knowingly rather than being locked into the process automatically.
The bill has received favorable votes from two Florida House committees and now advances to its next legislative stage.
The debate unfolds as an appeals court continues reviewing a constitutional challenge to Citizens’ arbitration system, keeping the issue firmly in legal and political focus.
