What Florida Homeowners Need to Know

• A state-funded examination found insurers reported $432 million in losses from 2017 through 2019 while affiliated companies generated roughly $1.3 billion in net income.
• David Jolly wants tighter controls on affiliate payments and proposes moving hurricane and wind risk into a state-backed fund.
• Byron Donalds favors preserving recent insurance reforms while creating a public scorecard showing prices, claim denials and payment speed.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A once-hidden examination of Florida property insurers has pushed an obscure insurance accounting practice directly into the 2026 governor’s race.

The central question is deceptively simple, When an insurance company says it is losing money, where exactly is the policyholder’s premium going?

A consultant hired by Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation examined 53 property insurers and their dealings with affiliated companies. Excluding several outliers, insurers covered by the analysis reported approximately $432 million in losses from 2017 through 2019, while affiliates receiving payments from those insurers generated roughly $1.3 billion in net income, according to the report and the newspapers that obtained it. The consultant concluded that 20 insurers made affiliate payments presumed not to satisfy its test for being “fair and reasonable.”

That does not mean $1.3 billion was illegally removed from insurance companies. Affiliates can legitimately provide underwriting, claims administration, technology, management and other services. Several insurers have disputed the consultant’s methodology, and Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation has described the analysis as flawed and outdated. The figures also concern 2017–2019 operations, not insurers’ current 2026 finances.

But the structure creates a serious transparency issue.

An insurer and its affiliate may share common ownership while keeping separate books. Money paid by the regulated insurer becomes revenue for the related company. The consultant found affiliated managing general agents at some carriers received 20% to 34% of premiums, while total affiliate fees at some companies reached as high as 63%.

That matters because regulators, lawmakers and homeowners may see losses inside the insurance company without necessarily seeing the complete economics of the corporate family.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Jolly seized on the report Monday, calling Florida’s system “corrupt” and backing tougher restrictions on affiliate payments. His broader insurance proposal would shift hurricane and wind risk from private carriers into a state-backed catastrophe fund, which his campaign says could substantially reduce the portion of premiums attributable to hurricane exposure. Jolly proposes funding the system through sources including insurance-company taxes, a possible real-estate transaction fee and existing tourist-tax revenue rather than a direct homeowner assessment. Those projected savings and financing assumptions remain campaign proposals that would require legislative action.

The affiliate issue has already reached Tallahassee.

Republican Rep. Kim Berfield sponsored HB 1399, which would have required insurers to demonstrate that affiliate payments were fair and reasonable, provide cost analyses and benchmarking, submit audited financial information and give regulators greater power to restrict certain transfers. The House passed the measure, but it died in the Senate Rules Committee in March.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Byron Donalds is taking a different approach. His plan emphasizes maintaining lawsuit reforms, reducing regulatory and rebuilding costs, strengthening home-hardening programs and reducing exposure through Citizens Property Insurance. He also proposes an online Insurer Scorecard displaying prices, claim approval and denial rates, and how quickly insurers pay claims, with penalties for inaccurate reporting.

For Florida homeowners, however, the newly exposed affiliate records raise an issue bigger than campaign advertising.

Before policymakers can determine whether insurers need higher premiums, lower litigation costs, greater public backing — or some combination of all three — they need to know where premium dollars actually go.

About the Author

Samuel López is a reporter and news correspondent for USA Herald who has reported for the publication since 2022. López is also an experienced legal analyst with more than two decades working with complex state and federal legal matters, along with professional experience in the insurance sector. His background gives him a practical vantage point for examining insurance regulation, corporate financial structures, litigation and the legal questions affecting policyholders.

Keep Following the Money

If you found this report useful, join readers who turn to USA Herald for deeper legal, insurance and investigative reporting that goes beyond the headline. Subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter for exclusive reports, breaking developments and analysis of the issues affecting consumers, businesses and the courts.

👉 Follow USA Herald on X at RealUSAHerald