However, in the coming weeks, the Senate and House will have to reconcile their differences on how far they will go in making changes — especially when the changes may have an impact on homeowners' wallets.
On Wednesday, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee and the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee approved bills (SB 1728 and HB 1307) that include steps to shift policies from Citizens Property Insurance to private insurers.
While lawmakers would eventually need to agree on those steps, a more contentious debate could center on a provision in the Senate bill that would result in reduced coverage for roof damage for many homeowners across the state.
Roof-damage claims, including claims involving allegedly unscrupulous contractors, have been blamed by insurance industry officials for driving up premiums. The Senate bill would allow insurers to sell policies that do not provide replacement coverage for roofs that are more than ten years old.
Rather, such policies would compensate homeowners for roof damage based on depreciated or "actual cash" values of roofs. Insurers would be required to pay replacement costs if roofs were damaged in named hurricanes.
Opponents of the proposal claimed Wednesday that it would harm low-income residents by forcing them to pay more for roof repairs without replacement coverage.
"Given that lower-income families are more likely to own older homes, won't this bill, as it stands now, disproportionately affect lower-income homeowners, including some of our seniors and veterans on fixed incomes?" Senator Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg, inquired.
Senate Banking and Insurance Chairman Jim Boyd, a Republican from Bradenton who is sponsoring the bill, said the change would apply broadly and would not affect only low-income families.
"Regardless of the value of the home, if you have an older home with an older roof, it's still a problem," Boyd said, adding that "after 15, 20, 25 years, most people have to replace their roof." And that is, unfortunately, a cost of homeownership."
Other supporters of the Senate bill cited what they called a crisis in the property-insurance market, which they said has an impact on home sales.
"We're going to have to fix this," said Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland. "It's not even a question of insurance costs. You will not be able to obtain insurance. That's a much bigger issue."
Legislators have approved measures in recent years to address issues such as reducing lawsuits over property insurance claims. However, insurers have continued to face financial difficulties, prompting them to seek significant rate increases and drop customers.
As a result, a large number of homeowners have sought coverage from Citizens, which was established as a last-resort insurer. Citizens had 759,305 policies as of December 31, up from 542,739 a year earlier. Citizens officials stated that the insurer could have more than one million policies.
State leaders have long sought to move policies out of Citizens and into the private market, owing to financial risks if major hurricanes or multiple hurricanes hit Florida. If Citizens fails to pay claims on time, homeowners across the state may be charged to make up the difference.
The Senate and House bills both include changes intended to push policies out of Citizens, with the House bill focusing solely on Citizens issues.
The Senate bill, for example, would address situations in which homeowners receive coverage offers from private insurers. According to the bill, such customers would be ineligible for renewal with Citizens unless the premiums charged by private insurers were more than 20% higher than what Citizens would charge.
The House bill would also include a 20% threshold, but it would be phased in over four years.
Rep. Matt Willhite, D-Wellington, questioned the proposal, claiming that if Citizens customers are picked up by private insurers, they could end up paying up to 19% more for coverage.
"Are we still going to tell Floridians they'll have to pay 19% more just to get it from another company than one (policy) that we could offer and save them money on?" Willhite inquired.
The goal, according to House sponsor Tommy Gregory, R-Sarasota, is not to raise homeowners' costs, but to bring more into the private market.
"I believe the message to Floridians is that the government is not here to subsidize their insurance," Gregory said. "I mean, if we wanted to subsidize everyone's insurance, we could do so." We could reduce everyone's insurance rates by 19%. Of course, in order to raise that 19 percent, we'd have to levy a tax on all Floridians."