On Tuesday, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee passed out two proposals that attempt to reduce personal injury protection (PIP) auto insurance fraud. The first bill passed by the committee was S.B. 1930 by Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, which, among other provisions, expands the use of long-form crash reports for vehicle crashes, provides 90 days for insurers to investigate potentially fraudulent claims prior to payment, conditions a recovery of PIP benefits upon a physical or mental examination of the injured person, requires an assignee of PIP benefits to submit to an examination under oath, and authorizes the offering of a premium discount to a policyholder who selects a preferred provider network for PIP benefits. Opponents of the proposal focused their attention on the examination-under-oath provision, arguing that the provision will impair the delivery of health care by subjecting providers to hours of examinations by insurers. Other members commented that they were concerned that the proposal did not address insurers that habitually under-reimburse providers. Proponents argued that the proposal was necessary to address a significant increase of suspicious (or alleged staged accident) PIP claims throughout Florida. S.B. 1930 next goes to the Criminal Justice Committee. The second bill passed by the committee was S.B. 1694 by Sen. Garrett Richter, which, among other provisions, caps the amount of attorneys' fees that may be recovered in an action to recover PIP benefits, requires examinations under oath as a condition precedent to a recovery of PIP benefits, and authorizes an auto insurer to require arbitration of PIP claims. An amendment supported by the bill sponsor was adopted that removed all of the provisions in the bill, except for the cap on attorneys' fees. As amended, the bill caps attorneys' fees based on the recovery amount, which cap ranges from three times the disputed amount to up to 15 times the disputed amount. Opponents criticized the amended bill, arguing that the caps were too low, while proponents argued that the very reason for the creation of the no-fault system was to prevent lawsuits. The bill next goes to the Judiciary Committee.