The Forced DOAH Arbitrations Are Halted and Declared Likely Unconstitutional

A significant Order protecting Florida policyholders was issued by a Circuit Court, which granted a sweeping temporary injunction against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, halting the enforcement of its mandatory DOAH arbitration program. ¹ This order challenges the ongoing battle over the constitutionality of Citizens’ arbitration scheme, an issue I have been warning about for some time, including in my earlier article, Florida’s DOAH Arbitration Disaster: How the Legislature Gave Citizens a License to Steamroll Policyholders.

The case arose from a claim filed by Martin A. Alvarez, a Tampa homeowner insured by Citizens, whose property sustained a covered loss on October 9, 2024. When Alvarez disputed the amount of payment, Citizens invoked its mandatory arbitration provision, compelling the case into the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in the state capital, to circumvent litigation before a neutral trial judge in the county where the property is located.

Under Florida Statute § 627.351(6)(ll), Citizens can force policyholders into an expedited arbitration process that operates under compressed timelines, restricts discovery and motion practice and, most critically, provides extremely limited avenues for judicial review. For policyholders, this process has often been a dead end. As I previously explained, statistics show that DOAH arbitrations overwhelmingly favor Citizens. The risk of attorney fees and cost awards for withdrawing claims has chilled many insureds from ever having their day in court. As all arbitration hearings occur in Tallahassee, where state-run Citizens is headquartered, with government-appointed administrative judges presiding, it could give the appearance of a star chamber-like proceeding, where the deck is stacked against policyholders.

In response, Alvarez filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief and an emergency motion for temporary injunction. The complaint challenged both the policy provision and the statute itself, asserting that mandatory arbitration deprives policyholders of their constitutional right of access to courts under Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution and violates due process by forcing disputes into a forum lacking the fundamental attributes of neutrality and fairness. The emergency motion highlighted the irreparable harm policyholders face when they are compelled to participate in an arbitration process that is structurally biased and lacks meaningful appellate remedies.

Circuit Judge Melissa Mary Polo agreed. In her order issued this week, she found that Alvarez had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on his constitutional claims, including violations of due process and the Florida Constitution’s access-to-courts provision. She further held that policyholders like Alvarez face irreparable harm when forced into a forum that deprives them of the traditional protections of the judicial system.

The court emphasized that the balance of equities and public interest favored protecting constitutional rights over Citizens’ interest in maintaining its arbitration program. The order not only enjoined Citizens from enforcing the arbitration clause against Alvarez, but it also extended statewide, preventing Citizens from enforcing similar arbitration provisions against any current or future policyholders and staying all pending DOAH arbitration proceedings until the constitutional questions are resolved.

This ruling is a major step toward vindicating the rights of Florida homeowners who have been trapped in what I have called the DOAH arbitration disaster. By halting Citizens’ use of this statutory arbitration scheme, the court has opened the door for policyholders to pursue their claims in a neutral forum, free from the systemic imbalances that have long plagued the DOAH process. The case now moves toward a final determination on the constitutionality of § 627.351(6)(ll), which could have lasting implications for how property insurance disputes are resolved in Florida.

As someone who has been following these arbitration tactics, this decision is a long-overdue acknowledgment that efficiency cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights. Policyholders purchase insurance for security, not to be funneled into a forum where the odds are stacked against them and for the government-run insurer of last resort. Even a state-created insurer like Citizens cannot sidestep constitutional guarantees.

Thought For The Day

“The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws. It prohibits them from enacting laws that are unjust.”
—Justice Thurgood Marshall

¹ Alvarez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 25-CA-006626 (Fla. Cir. Ct. [Hillsborough] Aug. 1, 2025).