CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Dodson, Judge.
April 20, 2018
ROBERTS, J.
The defendants/appellants, Department of Financial Services
and Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis (collectively “the
Department”), appeal an order from the Second Judicial Circuit
Court, in and for Leon County, declaring sections
624.23(1)(b)7.
and (2), Florida Statutes (2016), unconstitutional. The
Department argues that under the two-pronged test in Article I,
section 24(c) of the Florida Constitution and Halifax Hospital
Medical Center v. News-Journal Corp.,
724 So. 2d 567, 569 (Fla.
1999), section
624.23 is constitutional. We agree that the statute
is constitutional and reverse the order on appeal.
Factual Background
Section
624.23 creates a public records exemption for certain
information held by the Department under the Florida Insurance
Code....
...spreadsheets including the names of policyholders, their address,
phone number, email address, type of insurance, reason for
contacting the Department, and insurance company information.
In April 2016, the Department determined it was incorrectly
interpreting section
624.23, which it concluded created a public
records exemption for this type of personal identifying
information.
Section
624.23(2) provides,
Personal financial and health information held by the
department or office relating to a consumer's complaint
or inquiry regarding a matter or activity regulated under
the Florida Insurance Code . . . are confidential and
exempt from s.
119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State
Constitution[.]
1 Section
624.23 also exempts information regulated by
section
440.191, Florida Statutes (2016), which is not relevant to
the issues in this appeal.
2
“Personal health and financial information” is defined to include
“[t]he existence, identification, nature or value of a consumer’s [2]
interest in any insurance policy, annuity contract, or trust.” §
624.23(1)(b)7., Fla. Stat. (2016). The Department asserted that
information identifying a specific consumer in connection with an
insurance policy was confidential and exempt under sections
624.23(1)(b)7. and (2). Thereafter, it declined to produce personal
identifying information to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs each filed suit, the cases were consolidated, and
all parties moved for summary judgment on the Department’s
interpretation of section
624.23. Before summary judgment was
entered, the Department conceded that it had initially applied
section
624.23 in an overly broad manner and agreed to provide
consumer names and addresses where requests for mediation or
neutral evaluation came from an insurance company, but still
refused to release the information when the request to participat...
...Nonetheless, the court concluded that the broad language as it
currently existed was within the power of the Legislature and the
constitutionality of the statute had not been raised.
The plaintiffs did not appeal the order on summary judgment.
Instead, they moved to declare section 624.23 unconstitutional in
violation of Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution and
Halifax. The trial court ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs,
declaring sections 624.23(1)(b)7....
...e statute
2 “Consumer” is defined to include “[a] prospective purchaser,
purchaser, or beneficiary of, or applicant for, any product or service
regulated under the Florida Insurance Code, and a family member
or dependent of a consumer.” § 624.23(1)(a)1., Fla....
...y
the public necessity justifying the exemption and shall be no
broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the
law.” Art. I, § 24(c), Fla. Const. This “exacting constitutional
standard” is the two-pronged test we must apply to section 624.23.
Halifax, 724 So....
...regulated entity which is the subject of the inquiry or complaint.”
In 2007, the Legislature amended the exemption to its current
version 3 wherein the language allowing for the disclosure of names
and addresses was removed. The 2007 public necessity statement
for section 624.23 stated the exemption was a public necessity in
order to protect an individual’s “sensitive financial and health
information” and limiting disclosure of personal financial
information, to which an individual had an expectation of...
...by exposing them to potential harassment, intimidation, and
harm). In order to be constitutional under Article I, section 24(c),
the Legislature had to articulate a specific purpose justifying the
exemption. The Legislature did just that; therefore, section 624.23
satisfies the first prong for constitutionality.
6
Overbreadth
The second prong of inquiry is whether the exemption is
overbroad....
...The plain language of the exemption clearly defines “personal
financial and health information” to include seven subsets,
including “[t]he existence, identification, nature, or value of a
consumer's interest in any insurance policy, annuity contract, or
trust.” § 624.23(1)(b)7., Fla....
...Our inquiry is not
whether the Legislature has taken all steps necessary to protect
this type of information anywhere it may exist. Nor can we
speculate about any unspoken justification for the law. Rather, we
have been asked to review the trial court’s determination that
sections 624.23(1)(b)7. and (2) are unconstitutional. We find that
section 624.23 satisfies the two-pronged test for constitutionality
under Article I, section 24(c) and Halifax and reverse the order on
appeal.
REVERSED.
KELSEY and M.K....
