FORT PIERCE, Fla. — As Florida senators work to give Citizens Property Insurance customers more power to dispute claim denials, the state's insurer of last resort is moving in the opposite direction by expanding a controversial arbitration process that critics say unfairly favors the company over homeowners.
New documents obtained by WPTV show Citizens is pushing more policyholders into its mandatory arbitration system, which forces disputes out of traditional courts and before a single judge paid by Citizens.
WATCH WPTV'S COVERAGE BELOW:
The expansion comes despite growing scrutiny from lawmakers and questions from a circuit judge about whether the process is constitutional.
"Citizens, I'm just giving them my money. I'm just giving it up, just giving it away," said Brandi Roberts, a Fort Pierce homeowner whose claim has been pending for a year and a half.
Roberts filed a claim with Citizens after Hurricane Milton damaged her home in October 2024, causing water and wind damage.
Despite hiring an attorney, she says she was advised to drop her case — not because her claim was weak, but because her lawyer said her chances of winning were almost zero under the arbitration system. If she were dispute her claim and lose, she could owe Citizens thousands of dollars to cover their attorney fees.
"She didn't really want that to happen to me due to the fact that I am on a fixed income and I'm having difficult times right now," Roberts said.
Her case is one of many WPTV uncovered in our first investigation, when we found the mandatory arbitration clause was added to Citizens' policies in 2023, requiring disputes to be heard by judges paid by Citizens.
A contract we found showed Citizens pays the judges up to $250,000 annually, and our WPTV investigation found Citizens won 99% of disputes when we reviewed a full year of final hearing cases.
"So at this point, through your reporting, people in the state of Florida are pretty well educated about what Citizens is doing," said Insurance attorney, Aaron Bass.
Yet even though lawmakers drafted a bill to give policyholders a choice between arbitration and a jury trial, Bass said Citizens is now expanding the process by adding new language to renewal policies that would force even appraisal disputes into arbitration.
Currently, when a homeowner and insurer agree damage exists but disagree on repair costs, either side can demand an appraisal — a common step in storm claims.
"They hire neutrals for each side to get together and try to decide what a fair payment on the case is," Bass said.
But the new policy language allows Citizens to challenge appraisal awards it considers too high and take what was once a final decision back before the judge it pays.
"What this is saying is, if you have a disagreement with citizens, it's handled our way or the highway, and all you have is a sheet of paper to show your mortgage company that you have homeowners insurance," Bass said.
Citizens defended the expansion in a statement, saying the arbitration process "resolves disputes much faster than state court." The company noted that multiple Florida judges have ruled the process constitutional and that arbitration saves time and money.
“Following an appraisal, Citizens has the right to refer any remaining disputed items to DOAH for resolution. This is better for both sides because the DOAH forum resolves disputes much faster than state court. Like all cases referred to DOAH, Citizens reviews the disputed appraisal items again to decide whether to settle or continue toward a final hearing.”
The renewed policies also cause concern because it includes language forcing existing lawsuits into arbitration, meaning homeowners who already went to court could lose their right to a trial and potentially waste time and legal fees already spent.
"If you do have a dispute, it should be fair to both parties," Bass said.
For Roberts, the system leaves her questioning her insurance investment.
"It just makes me feel like, why am I investing my money with this insurance company if you're not going to help me?" Roberts said, "How are they able to just pay the judge? I'm confused, is that legal?"
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.