Lawmakers take another crack at tort reform after Oklahoma Supreme Court rebuke

Yahoo

24-03-2025

Sen. Brent Howard, R-Altus, listens to a question during the Oklahoma Senate session on Monda. (Photo by Janelle Stecklein/Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma senators on Monday pressed forward with another attempt to cap how much plaintiffs can claim for pain and suffering despite concerns that the state's high court has already found a similar effort unconstitutional.
Senate Bill 1065 seeks to limit the noneconomic damages that a plaintiff can be awarded at $500,000. Noneconomic damages are those that are not easily quantifiable for injured Oklahomans, including pain and suffering, emotional distress and the costs associated with loss of life enjoyment.
Sen. Brent Howard, R-Altus, said his measure is part of a broader effort to look at tort reform statewide and give guidance to the courts so it can be 'applied more equally across the board.'
The state does not currently have a cap for noneconomic damages. The Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2019 struck down a law that capped the amount awarded at $350,000. The court found that the 2011 law limiting noneconomic damages is unconstitutional because it treats those who are injured differently from those who die.
Howard said he's optimistic that the Oklahoma Supreme Court will look more favorably on this latest effort in part because the makeup of the Court is different and three of the justices still serving found the 2011 law constitutional except for one provision.
Eight states, including Colorado and California, have similar laws capping damages, and 26 have caps on medical malpractice claims, he said.
Howard's bill includes exceptions for gross negligence, willful disregard for others and intentional malice. It also does not cap economic damages like quantifiable medical expenses, lost wages and property damage.
He said capping the damages eliminates 'potential, unlimited (financial) exposure' for defendants who are sued.
But Sen. Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City, who voted against the bill, said it raises questions about what a life is worth.
'We say that a life has no cost, no way that we can talk about what it's worth,' she said. 'But here we're talking about near death. We're talking about potentially permanent disability, and we're talking about potentially reckless business practices or reckless decisionmaking. This change would limit justice for Oklahoma families.'
Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City, who also voted against the legislation, said one of her constituents, a 6-year-old girl, was mauled by a 100-pound Rottweiler. The girl survived, but nearly all of her damages fall into the noneconomic category because she will have major scarring across her face for the rest of her life, she said.
'If there was a cap on noneconomic damages like this one being pursued now, it would have been difficult for any attorney to accept her as a client or litigate a case on her behalf due to how the cap would have imposed a low limit on how much a jury can award, regardless of the violent attack she suffered and all of the permanent side effects it will have on her,' she said.
Hicks said keeping such lawsuits from being filed is the true goal of such caps.
'Why would any legislators support a cap on valid and warranted damages for the benefit of such a landlord and an insurance company that never offered a fair amount to resolve the client's case?' she said.
The bill passed 37-8, along party lines. It heads to the House for consideration.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE