Last-ditch attempt at tort reform in Texas falls short as second bill fails
After seeing one other bill die in committee last week, the Texas Trucking Association had hopes that one other piece of legislation – SB30 in the Senate and its companion bill in the House, HB 4806 – might make it through the last few days of the biennial legislative session that ended Monday.
But the push came up short. While SB30 was passed by the full Senate, HB 4806 ended the session still on the agenda in the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee.The failure meant that the Texas Trucking Association (TTA) and other Texas groups went zero for two in tort reform efforts this session.
The original version of SB 30 would have made significant changes in the financial penalties that could be levied against a defendant in a lawsuit involving injury.
But in a report on the bill from the San Antonio Express News, the newspaper said the death of SB30/HB4806 'came after it already had been pared down to an unrecognizable version that only required disclosure of referrals between lawyers and health care providers. It also would have expanded the options for what evidence could be admitted to estimate damages.'
John Esparaza, the CEO of the TTA, issued his second statement in just a few days expressing his disappointment at the outcome of the legislative push.'While the outcome is a setback for all of us who are committed to protecting Texas businesses from abusive litigation practices, TXTA and our partners at the Lone Star Economic Alliance plan to continue to fight for a fair and balanced legal system in Texas,' he said. 'The fact is that fraud in our state continues to grow, enriching a handful of unethical plaintiff attorneys and complicit medical providers who exploit their own clients. As long as the legislature permits it, the miracle of the Texas economy will keep fading. The greatest irony? Highway safety declines as drivers and companies who built careers on making our highways safer leave the industry and are replaced by those unqualified to operate a big rig.'
Besides the Texas Trucking Association, another organization that had been deeply involved in the efforts at tort reform in the just-completed session was Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which is part of the Lone Star Economic Alliance mentioned by Esparaza.
It released a statement following the end of the session, lamenting the demise of both SB30 and SB39 a week earlier. SB30 dealt mostly with damages, while SB39 was more focused on various rules of the road in litigation.
The reforms in the bill, the organization said, 'would have been an essential step toward curbing the meritless lawsuits plaguing Texas businesses of all sizes, across all sectors, by preventing unjustified damage awards, and restoring fairness and transparency to the courtroom.'
Noting the similar path of both bill pairings – passed by the Senate, stuck in a House committee – the organization said 'disagreement on final language in the conference committee kept the bill from making it over the finish line.'
'We urge the Texas Legislature to prioritize this issue in the 90th Texas Legislative Session, and to put an end to the blatant fraud on the legal system which jeopardizes Texas's longstanding reputation as the best place in the nation to do business and create jobs,' TLR said in its prepared statement.
More articles by John Kingston
Georgia tort reform aims to change practices in judicial 'hell hole'A Lego approach helps prepare Manhattan Associates' TMS for tariff chaos
BMO's Q2 earnings show no improvement in credit conditions for trucking
The post Last-ditch attempt at tort reform in Texas falls short as second bill fails appeared first on FreightWaves.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Democrat Sherrod Brown to seek a return to US Senate in 2026 election, media reports say
By Richard Cowan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Democrat Sherrod Brown will attempt to win back his U.S. Senate seat in Ohio in next year's midterm elections, according to media reports, in a race that likely would pit him against Republican Senator John Husted as Democrats fight to win back control of the chamber. The media site reported that Brown will jump into the contest, citing unnamed Ohio labor leaders familiar with his thinking. Brown was not reachable for comment. Brown, 72, served for 18 years in the Senate before he lost to Republican Bernie Moreno last November in a 50.1%-46.5% vote. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and Ohio could become the site of one of a half-dozen most competitive races in next year's elections. Husted was appointed in January to temporarily fill the seat vacated by JD Vance when he became vice president. The winner of the November 2026 special election would serve the remainder of Vance's Senate term, ending in January 2029. Brown anchored his long congressional career as a dogged fighter for blue-collar workers in Ohio, which has suffered job losses as steel, automotive and other jobs moved abroad. Once a battlefield state, Ohio has leaned increasingly Republican over the past decade. Last November, Republican Donald Trump handily defeated Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris 55.2%-44% in Ohio, where he remains a potent political force. Both Brown and Husted would be favored to win their respective parties' primary races next year. After his defeat last November, Brown founded the Dignity of Work Institute, aimed at improving pay and benefits for working-class people.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Texas Republicans plan another special session to deliver Trump more GOP congressional seats
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republican leaders said Tuesday that they were prepared to end their stalemated special session and immediately begin another standoff with Democrats in the GOP's efforts to redraw congressional maps as directed by President Donald Trump. It's the latest indication that Trump's push to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections will become an extended standoff that promises to reach multiple statehouses controlled by both major parties. Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows confirmed the plans during a brief session Tuesday morning that marked another failure to meet the required attendance standards to conduct official business because dozens of Democrats have left the state to stymie the GOP's partisan gerrymandering attempts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Burrows said from the House floor that lawmakers will not attempt to reconvene again until Friday. If Democrats are still absent — and they have given no indication that they plan to return — the speaker said Republicans will end the current session and Gov. Greg Abbott will immediately call another. The governor, a Trump ally, confirmed his intentions in a statement. 'The Special Session #2 agenda will have the exact same agenda, with the potential to add more items critical to Texans,' Abbott wrote. 'There will be no reprieve for the derelict Democrats who fled the state and abandoned their duty to the people who elected them. I will continue to call special session after special session until we get this Texas first agenda passed.' Abbott called the current session with an extensive agenda that included disaster relief for floods that killed more than 130 people. Democrats balked when Abbott added Trump's redistricting idea to the agenda. Burrows on Tuesday did not mention redistricting but chided Democrats for not showing up for debate on the flood response package. The redistricting legislation would reshape the state's congressional districts in a design aimed at sending five more Republicans to Washington. The scheme is part of Trump's push to shore up Republicans' narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of his first presidency, when the 2018 midterms restored Democrats to a House majority that blocked his agenda and twice impeached him. Current maps nationally put Democrats within three seats of retaking the House majority — with only several dozen competitive districts across 435 total seats. Texas Republicans have issued civil warrants for the absent Democrats. Because they are out of state, those lawmakers are beyond the reach of Texas authorities. Burrows said Tuesday that absent Democrats would have to pay for all state government costs for law enforcement officials attempting to track them down. Burrows has said state troopers and others have run up 'six figures in overtime costs' trying to corral Democratic legislators.
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
We need more budget bipartisanship, not less
The director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, was recently quoted saying that 'the appropriations process has to be less bipartisan.' While it's easy to think this would lead to less of the frustrating gridlock that can overtake the budgetary process, Vought is both procedurally and substantively wrong: The answer is more bipartisanship. If this sounds naïve, consider the alternative. The first and most obvious issue is realism. Thanks to the Senate filibuster, 60 votes are required to invoke cloture and end debate before proceeding to a final vote on legislation. With only 53 Republicans in the Senate, it's easy for Democrats to grind things to a halt, and vice-versa under Democratic majorities. Unless Vought is implicitly calling for an end to the filibuster — an unlikely event, though Trump has argued for it in the past — expecting government funding bills to be passed without a large, messy bipartisan effort is fanciful thinking. Presumably, Vought wants to make it easier to pass spending cuts such as the recent $9 billion rescissions package. The recissions process is notably exempted from the filibuster, meaning only a simple majority is required to rescind money which was previously appropriated (most likely with some degree of bipartisan support). We shouldn't scoff at those savings, but any frustration on Vought's part is understandable. $9 billion doesn't correct our budget problem. But going after the rest of appropriations won't, either. Last year, we spent $1.81 trillion on discretionary spending — the portion of the budget subject to appropriations — while the entire budget deficit was $1.83 trillion. Instead, we must fix mandatory spending programs — such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — that are on autopilot outside of the appropriations process. But President Trump has repeatedly said these are off-limits. So, sure, we got $9 billion rescinded on a partisan basis. We also got $1.1 trillion in partisan spending cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a win for fiscal responsibility greatly overshadowed by $4.5 trillion in lost revenue. Indeed, as the act just illustrated, Vought's preferred partisan approach will fail to meaningfully fix our fiscal woes. That's because every large-scale partisan reform invites partisan opposition. For years, Democrats attacked Republicans over the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, deriding it as a giveaway to the rich. Republicans returned the favor in 2021 and 2022, relentlessly hammering Democrats for the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act, respectively. Now it's the Democrats' turn again with the 'big, beautiful, bill,',with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently stating that it would 'rip healthcare away … and steal food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans.' That's a strong statement about a bill that only cuts noninterest spending by about 1.5 percent over the decade. To be clear, holding politicians accountable for their voting record is essential. But this partisan cycle encourages politicians to accentuate policy differences — which are then used against incumbents during elections — rather than find areas of agreement. Taking away the filibuster or other processes that frustrate the party in power would turn political whiplash into even greater policy whiplash. Already, Republicans have repealed about $500 billion in IRA green tax credits to help finance the recently passed spending bill. For years, they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And it's especially apparent in the back-and-forth we see in regulations and executive orders, with recent administrations immediately seeking to undo the actions of its predecessor. That puts any one-party reforms, regardless of how essential, at risk of being reversed. Even after considering the political blowback and fickleness of partisan reforms, some may dismiss fiscal bipartisanship as unrealistic. After all, Democrats only care about the Green New Deal while Republicans just want to enrich their wealthy donors, or so we're told. Setting these and other tropes aside, there are multiple bipartisan groups in Congress calling for fiscal responsibility and addressing the national debt. Each member of these groups holds different views on how spending should be reduced or revenue increased, but there is clearly a willingness to have those debates. Embracing bipartisanship, rather than lamenting it as so many have done, would bring common ground to the forefront in a way that's been missing. And so, while some will blame a lack of willpower for our fiscal situation, I blame the partisan approach that's been failing lately. It forces politicians more often into choosing between what they believe is right or what gives them the best chance for reelection. Americans deserve better. Let's brush aside the political barriers preventing bipartisanship and work towards our common objectives once again.
