Florida property insurance has been a moving target for years reforms stacked on reforms, new rules layered on top of old ones, and policyholders left trying to keep up while premiums keep climbing.
Now, two separate bills in the 2026 session take aim at Citizens Property Insurance Corporation from different angles:
- SB 1028 focuses on eligibility and market “diversion,” especially for commercial residential and commercial nonresidential risks, by expanding a commercial lines clearinghouse concept tied to surplus lines offers and a new “premium equalization adjustment.”
SB 1716 focuses on how disputes are resolved by removing language that authorizes certain Citizens claim disputes to be handled through proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).
They’re not the same bill but together they tell a story: continued pressure to reshape Citizens’ role, and continued debate over where (and how) policyholders can fight over claim decisions.
What SB 1028 Is Trying to Do (The Commercial Clearinghouse + “Premium Equalization” Concept)
1) A commercial lines clearinghouse on a deadline
SB 1028’s committee amendment builds out a commercial lines clearinghouse that Citizens must implement on or before January 1, 2027 to facilitate offers from approved surplus lines clearinghouse insurers for commercial residential and commercial nonresidential coverage.
This matters because surplus lines carriers often operate differently than admitted carriers coverage terms, pricing, and underwriting can be more flexible, and the “shopping” process can look very different in practice.
2) A new defined category: “Approved surplus lines clearinghouse insurer”
The amendment defines an “approved surplus lines clearinghouse insurer” with specific AM Best financial strength/size thresholds and an approval/verification process.
3) Citizens must submit an “unalterable indication” and wait
Under the amendment language, Citizens must provide coverage terms, deductibles, and its “unalterable indicated” total cost of insurance to the clearinghouse administrator before surplus lines participants receive the submission then a 5-business-day window applies before Citizens can bind or renew (unless waived).
4) The “20% rule” doesn’t force you out but it can change the price you pay
This is the headline change: the amendment adds a new paragraph to § 627.351(6) paragraph (oo)—that creates a premium equalization adjustment for certain commercial risks when a qualifying surplus lines offer is not more than 20% greater than Citizens’ total cost.
Here’s the practical effect as written:
- If a qualifying surplus lines offer exists within that 20% window, Citizens may still issue/renew, but it must impose an adjustment that effectively charges the policyholder the difference between the surplus lines total cost and Citizens’ total cost.
If the surplus lines offer is equal to or cheaper than Citizens, the adjustment cannot be imposed.
The “total cost” isn’t just premium it includes fees, surcharges, and applicable taxes.
The adjustment expires at the end of the policy term.
So instead of pushing commercial policyholders out of Citizens outright in all cases, this structure can push them toward the private/surplus market by making Citizens financially less attractive whenever the market can offer something “close enough.”
5) Why this is controversial in the real world
On paper, the logic is: if the market can offer comparable terms within 20% of Citizens, then Citizens shouldn’t be the easy button.
But in practice, a lot turns on how “material terms and conditions” are evaluated, how comparable coverage is determined, and what the clearinghouse standards become. The amendment language repeatedly relies on clearinghouse processes and program standards to determine whether terms are substantially equivalent or better.
And for policyholders, “close enough” can be a scary phrase when you’re talking about exclusions, endorsements, claims handling expectations, and the fine print that only becomes obvious after a loss.
What SB 1716 Is Trying to Do (Undo DOAH-Based Claim Dispute Proceedings)
SB 1716 takes a different swing. It amends § 627.351(6)(ll) by deleting provisions tied to Citizens claim dispute resolution proceedings before DOAH.
The Florida Senate bill page describes the purpose plainly: deleting provisions related to the authorization of dispute resolution of claim determinations in proceedings before DOAH. SB 1716 was filed January 9, 2026 (per the Senate tracking page).
Why this matters
When lawmakers experiment with alternate dispute systems, the stakes are always the same: cost, speed, and fairness and who bears the risk when the system gets it wrong.
If dispute pathways narrow or shift, policyholders may feel like the playing field tilts further away from them especially in a climate where many already believe reforms promised premium relief but delivered more friction and higher costs.
(And if you’re a homeowner or business owner reading this thinking, “How does a procedural dispute rule affect me?” it affects what leverage you have when you disagree with a claim determination and what forum you may end up in.)
How These Two Bills “Connect” in the Real World
They connect like this:
- SB 1028 is about getting (especially commercial) risk off Citizens or at least making Citizens less of a pricing shelter when the market is “close.”
SB 1716 is about removing a claims dispute resolution authorization tied to DOAH proceedings in Citizens policies.
One impacts who ends up insured by Citizens and at what effective price. The other impacts how certain disputes over claim determinations may be structured.
Even though they operate in different lanes, both reflect the same broader theme: continued legislative retooling of Citizens often marketed as “stabilization,” often experienced by policyholders as “more complexity, less predictability.”
What Policyholders and Agents Should Watch Next
- How “substantially equivalent” coverage is evaluated in the commercial clearinghouse process (because that’s where the real leverage lives).
How “total cost” is calculated and displayed premium is only part of the story when fees/surcharges/taxes are included.
The development of clearinghouse standards and administration, since the amendment outlines selection criteria and operational structure.
Whether SB 1716 advances and what (if anything) replaces the DOAH-linked dispute authorization that’s being removed.
Today’s Insight
“The price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake.”