A recent public records request by Tampa Bay Times reporter Lawrence Mower has uncovered a revealing memo from Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) that could mark a major turning point in how the state handles insurance regulation. The document, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, details a proposal to reunify the state’s fragmented insurance oversight system—a system that no other state in the nation follows and that Florida itself created through a 1998 constitutional amendment.
At the time, voters approved the split as a good-government reform: Dismantle the powerful elected Insurance Commissioner’s office and distribute its duties between a newly created Department of Financial Services (DFS) and a separately administered OIR. The goal was to reduce political influence over insurance regulation. But more than 20 years later, it’s becoming clear that the experiment has had unintended consequences—and serious flaws.
According to the OIR memo, this divided structure has weakened consumer protection, delayed enforcement, and created bureaucratic hurdles that serve no one. In fact, between 2018 and 2023, of the 52,160 property and casualty complaints received by DFS, only 5.2% were referred to OIR for further review. Of those, only a fraction involved actual statutory violations, suggesting that consumer complaints often get mishandled or never reach the experts best equipped to deal with them.
Mower’s article, As the Insurance Crisis Spiraled, Did Florida Bury Consumer Complaints, paints a broader picture of what appears to be a brewing power struggle between the Chief Financial Officer’s office and the OIR. While both claim a role in protecting consumers, the overlap has created confusion—and the friction is surfacing publicly. Florida’s unique, bifurcated model leaves no clear chain of command. As the OIR memo notes, even routine matters like human resources and purchasing are complicated by DFS’s administrative control, despite state law expressly forbidding such interference.
The consequences of this disjointed oversight have been felt most acutely in recent scandals, where delayed action, lack of coordination, and blurred lines of authority contributed to failures in consumer protection. In high-profile cases involving insurance company insolvencies and consumer complaints, investigators struggled with slow information-sharing, duplicate work, and cases falling through the cracks—failures that might have been avoided under a unified regulatory structure.
OIR proposes to fix this by consolidating all insurance regulatory functions—including consumer services, agent and agency investigations, and fraud enforcement—under a single roof. The model would mirror what exists in most other states, where a single Insurance Commissioner has the authority and resources to act swiftly and decisively on behalf of consumers.
At the very least, the proposal is an admission that the OIR and DFS are failing to properly regulate Florida’s insurance industry and provides reasons for the failure. This is a significant memo all Florida leaders should study to change the current status quo of high premiums and complaints of underpaid and denied claims.
Critically, the proposal doesn’t seek to recreate the old, politicized model of an elected Insurance Commissioner. The OIR would remain a Cabinet agency, with the Commissioner appointed by the Governor and Cabinet and confirmed by the Senate. However, the agency would have full control over its operations, better enabling it to react to market problems, protect consumers, and ensure fair practices in an increasingly stressed insurance marketplace.
Florida’s insurance crisis demands a regulatory framework that works. As Mower’s reporting shows, and as the OIR memo outlines, the state’s divided system is no longer defensible. The time has come to place real authority—whether full or at least meaningfully shared—with the Insurance Commissioner and move toward a structure that mirrors what has proven more effective. This experiment of a divided insurance regulatory structure is not working.
Twenty years ago, Florida chose fragmentation to limit political power. Now, the lesson appears clear: fragmentation has weakened consumer protections instead. If lawmakers act on this proposal, they would be correcting a well-intentioned reform that, over time, simply failed to deliver.
Thought For The Day
“The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that it does exist.”
— Zig Ziglar
