For home insurance claims, you deserve a decision that isn’t automated

Floridians already live with the most volatile home-insurance market in the country. Every year, families open renewal notices with a kind of dread that used to be reserved for hurricane season. Premiums jump 15, 20, sometimes 30 percent without warning. After Hurricane Ian, many homeowners saw increases north of 33 or even 40 percent, pushing average annual premiums close to $11,000. That’s nearly four times the national average. And it isn’t slowing down.

Now imagine facing those costs while being denied a claim because some unseen algorithm decided you weren’t worth paying.

That is the real-world context for HB 527, the proposal that cleared a Florida House panel recently. At its core, the bill says something simple: when an insurance company wants to deny or reduce your claim, a human being must make the final call. Not a model. Not an algorithm. Not a black-box decision you can’t challenge or understand. A human who can be questioned, held accountable, and — most importantly — required to follow the law.

If you’ve spent any time talking to Florida homeowners over the last few years, you know how necessary that safeguard is. There’s a widening gap between what people think their insurance buys them and what they actually receive when disaster strikes. And while insurers are free to use AI to speed up paperwork or flag suspicious claims, they shouldn’t be allowed to automate away the rights of the people paying the bills.

The fear isn’t hypothetical. The insurance industry is increasingly leaning on automated systems to sort, evaluate, and even preliminarily deny claims. They frame it as efficiency. But for consumers, efficiency can quickly turn into opacity. When you’re told a claim is “not covered” but no one can explain why beyond a line in a database, the system becomes not efficient but unaccountable.

The moment insurers are allowed to offload their biggest obligations onto automated systems, we lose something essential: the ability to challenge a bad decision before it becomes a financial catastrophe. The strains put on Florida’s insurance market are real, but they don’t justify turning Floridians into test subjects for automated claim denial systems.

Look at the broader landscape. As climate risks rise, home-insurance markets across the country are destabilizing. Households are being priced to the brink, and some are forgoing insurance entirely because the cost has become unsustainable. Injecting opaque AI into that already fragile system would only widen the divide between what families pay and what they actually receive in moments of crisis.

HB 527 doesn’t ban AI or halt innovation. It simply draws a boundary around decisions that have life-altering consequences. If an insurer wants to deny a claim, they need to sign their name to that decision. They need to stand behind it. And they need to be prepared to answer questions when the homeowner inevitably asks: why?

That level of transparency isn’t a burden. And the insurance industry’s opposition to something this basic should raise eyebrows. If algorithms are only being used to help adjusters, why object to requiring those adjusters to make the final decision? If AI is only a tool, why not keep the human hand on the steering wheel?

Because once you automate the denial of a claim, it becomes easier to deny the next one. And the next. And the next. Not because the insurer is acting maliciously, but because automation changes incentives. It reduces friction. It makes it possible to quietly shift risk back onto the people who can least afford it.

That’s what this bill ultimately prevents. It protects the basic right of Floridians to have their claims decided by a person who can listen to context, understand nuance, and be held responsible when they’re wrong. It restores a little balance in a market where homeowners have been losing ground for years. And it sends a clear message that technology should enhance fairness, not erode it.

Florida cannot keep asking families to pay more every year while giving insurance companies more ways to say no. HB 527 is a step toward restoring trust in an industry that desperately needs it. And for the millions of Floridians who have spent the last decade fighting for stable coverage, predictable premiums, and honest treatment, a little human oversight isn’t just a safeguard. It’s a lifeline.

Matthew T. Christ is a partner at Rafferty Domnick Cunningham & Yaffa, based in Palm Beach Gardens.