Latest news with #HouseBill34
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Mostly insurance-friendly bills advance in Louisiana Legislature's debate over auto coverage rates
The Interstate 10 bridge spans the Mississippi River in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Photo: Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) Insurance companies handily gained an advantage Monday in the Louisiana Legislature's debate over how to bring down the state's exorbitant auto coverage rates. Lawmakers worked well into the evening to approve a long list of bills that target personal injury lawsuits, which they said is the primary cause of high premiums. House Bill 34, sponsored by Rep. Brian Glorioso, R-Slidell, passed the House of Representatives in a 68-26 vote and now heads to the Senate for consideration. It would allow any party in a lawsuit that stems from an auto accident to introduce evidence related to medical expenses. Current law prevents juries from seeing what accident victims actually pay for medical treatment and only allows access to what a doctor billed. In many instances, however, medical providers don't actually receive the full amounts that they bill. Sometimes, Glorioso said, lawyers work with doctors who will inflate their medical billings just to get an increased payout for the plaintiff. Also, health insurers often do not pay doctors the full amounts they bill. Glorioso's bill would limit a plaintiff's recovery of medical expenses to 'reasonable' amounts, which would be left for a judge or jury to decide. The vote on the bill fell mostly along party lines with two defections from each side. Democrats Pat Moore of Monroe and Steven Jackson of Shreveport voted in favor of the proposal. Republicans Jeremy LaCombe of Livonia, an attorney, and Joe Stagni of Kenner opposed it. During floor debate, several Democrats pointed to similar tort reform bills from years prior that failed to reduce Louisiana's auto insurance rates, which remain among the highest in the country. Rep. Sylvia Taylor, D-LaPlace asked Glorioso whether he could say for certain that his bill would lower premiums — a question heard frequently from Democrats as Republicans have presented their insurance bills. Glorioso, who's a lawyer, rejected the premise of the argument. 'If that is the standard by which we're going to pass insurance bills, we may as well go home,' Glorioso said, implying that such guarantees would be impossible to make. House Bill 435, by Rep. Peter Egan, R-Covington, passed in a 62-23 vote and drew some of the more colorful debate of the evening — even though it's unlikely to have much of an impact on auto insurance rates. It puts a ceiling on the amount a person can be awarded in a lawsuit, capping general damages at $5 million even in the case of wrongful death. When the bill came up for a hearing last week in the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure, lawmakers pointed out that it won't directly lower rates because $5 million is already the maximum payout on commercial auto policies in Louisiana. Insurance companies currently don't pay any more than that regardless of how much a jury awards a plaintiff. Nevertheless, Egan has said his bill would stem what he believes is a culture of litigiousness in Louisiana if people understand they can no longer receive huge jury awards. Rep. Edmond Jordan, D-Baton Rouge, an attorney, questioned how Republicans can claim to be 'pro-life' if they would support a bill that effectively establishes a $5 million maximum value on a person's life. 'This cap is the opposite of pro-life,' Jordan said. 'If you were truly pro-life, you would not succumb and agree with the premise that we should be putting [value] caps on people's lives.' Rep. Raymond Crews, R-Bossier City, argued Louisiana residents are overwhelmingly complaining of excessive litigation and asking lawmakers to fix the tort system in an effort to lower rates. House Bill 439, by Rep. Troy Hebert, R-Lafayette, passed in a 57-30 vote with LaCombe and Stagni joining Democrats in opposition. The bill aims to limit contingency fees, the money a lawyer makes off a percentage of the lawsuit winnings, to 10% on the first $15,000 in damages. Settlements with insurers for most minor accidents fall under this ceiling. For any damages beyond $15,000, Hebert's bill would not limit lawyer payments. House Bill 431, by Rep. Emily Chenevert, R-Baton Rouge, passed in a 66-26 vote along strict party lines. The bill would limit the ability for people to recover damages for injuries sustained in accidents for which they are mostly at fault. Her bill would change Louisiana's comparative fault statute, which assigns a percentage of blame to each party in an accident and allows for the recovery of damages in proportion with those percentages. Under current law, a person partly at fault in an accident would be liable for their share of the damages and can recover the remaining amount found to be the fault of the other party. Chenevert's bill would change that to prohibit recovery of any amount by a party who's 51% or more at fault. House Bill 450, by Rep. Michael Melerine, R-Shreveport, would end the Housley presumption, a standard of evidence explained in a 1991 Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that applies to auto accidents, medical malpractice and other injury lawsuits. In a nutshell, the Housley presumption says courts should assume a plaintiff's injuries resulted from the accident in question if they were in good health beforehand. Lawmakers have tried repeatedly to revoke the presumption, only to see their attempts fail or vetoed. This year is expected to be different as Gov. Jeff Landry recently signaled support for the measure from Melerine, whose law firm handles insurance defense and other litigation. House Bill 436, by Rep. Gabe Firment, R-Pollock, passed in a 69-17 vote. It would prohibit 'unauthorized aliens' — defined in the measure as individuals illegally in the United States under federal immigration law — from receiving general damages stemming from auto accidents. General damages include compensation for pain and suffering, but the proposal would still allow recovery for 'special damages,' such as medical expenses and property damage. Firment, an insurance adjuster, said the purpose of his bill is to help address the state's auto insurance crisis while discouraging illegal immigration. House Bill 443, by Rep. Chance Henry, R-Crowley, passed in a 70-22 vote. It would require plaintiffs to notify defendants of an intent to file a lawsuit within 10 days of retaining a lawyer. Currently, plaintiffs' lawyers can gather evidence and prepare for a lawsuit for almost two full years before a defendant is even aware a suit is coming. Henry, an insurance agency owner, said his bill would give a defendant the same amount of time to prepare for a claim as a plaintiff. House Bill 291, sponsored by Rep. Jay Gallé, R-Mandeville, won the most bipartisan support of the insurance bills, passing the chamber in a 90-5 vote. It would extend the filing deadline, called a 'prescriptive period,' for wrongful death lawsuits from one year to two, aligning Louisiana with the deadline in most other states. Proponents of the bill have argued that a shorter prescriptive period attracts more tenuous lawsuits by essentially forcing people to quickly file claims so as to not lose their litigation rights. The proposal also complements a similar measure lawmakers approved last year to extend the deadline for filing personal injury claims. A measure that did not target litigation, House Bill 496, also gathered bipartisan support in a 86-3 vote. It would give policyholders a pass protecting them from any rate increases tied to a lapse in auto coverage. The bill would prohibit insurers from penalizing policyholders for a single instance of nonpayment during a five-year period. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana lawmakers dissect personal injury laws as attorney-legislators protest
Getty Images House lawmakers advanced six bills targeting personal injury lawsuits Tuesday in the opening salvo of the Louisiana Legislature's ongoing debate over high insurance rates. 'I guess we can say this is opening day, and here's your first pitch,' Rep. Jay Gallé, R-Mandeville, said to the House Civil Law Committee while presenting one of six so-called tort reform bills the committee considered Tuesday. Out of the six bills, one of the most hotly contested would limit the ability for people to recover damages for injuries sustained in accidents for which they are mostly at fault. House Bill 431 sponsored by Rep. Emily Chenevert, R-Baton Rouge, cleared the committee in an 11-4 vote along party lines. Her bill would change Louisiana's comparative fault statute, which assigns a percentage of blame to each party in an accident and allows for the recovery of damages in proportion with those percentages. The statute often arises in cases that involve multiple negligent acts by multiple people, some more to blame than others. In theory, someone partly at fault for an accident can potentially recover some of the awarded damages. Chenevert's bill would change that to prohibit any amount of recovery by a party who's 51% or more at fault. 'You should not be able to collect if the accident is mostly your fault,' Chenevert said. 'I would say that's common sense. Should we reward negligence?' But Rep. Chad Brown, D-Plaquemine, pointed out that the bill only modifies comparative fault on the plaintiff's side and not the defendant's. As a result, a defendant would still be protected by the liability proportions. 'There's a double standard here that the plaintiff is going to get zeroes if he's 51% at fault, and the defendant is only gonna pay 51% if he's 51% at fault,' said Brown, who is an attorney. '… The plaintiff is more imperiled than the defendant.' Chenevert said 34 other states have a version of the law. The committee similarly advanced House Bill 34, sponsored by Rep. Brian Glorioso, R-Slidell, in a 11-3 vote. His measure would change state law to allow any party to introduce evidence related to medical expenses. Currently, the law prevents juries from seeing what accident victims actually pay for medical treatment and only allows them to see what a doctor billed. In many instances, however, medical providers don't actually receive the full amounts that they bill. At other times, Glorioso said, some lawyers work with doctors who inflate their medical billings just to get an increased payout. Glorioso's bill would limit a claimant's recovery of medical expenses to 'reasonable' amounts, which would be left for a judge or jury to decide. 'Let's let the jury see all of the evidence,' he said. 'Let's not blindfold them and just let them see one side.' Brown countered, saying defendants get to hide details from jurors, such as whether insurance coverage is available for injuries a victim claims. He said he supports leveling the playing field between plaintiffs and insurance companies. The committee saw Republicans prevail in another vote on House Bill 443, sponsored by Rep. Chance Henry, R-Crowley. His bill would require plaintiffs to notify defendants of an intent to file a lawsuit within 10 days of retaining a lawyer. Currently, plaintiffs' lawyers can gather evidence and prepare for a lawsuit for almost two full years before a defendant is even aware a suit is coming. Henry said his bill would give a defendant the same amount of time to prepare for a claim as a plaintiff.. Democrats on the committee said if plaintiffs will be required to provide such a notice, then defendants should at least be required to respond to that notice with similar information – such as contact information for the insurance company's lawyer and claims adjuster. Rep. Ed Larvadain, D-Alexandria, said many of the insurance companies he deals with in his law practice won't return calls or even provide email addresses for anyone at the company. Rep. Nick Muscarello, R-Hammond, questioned how the requirement would even be enforced and encouraged Henry to work with the concerned lawmakers on potential amendments before the bill is debated on the House floor. Henry said he would. House Bill 434, sponsored by Rep. Jason DeWitt, R-Alexandria, advanced to the floor in an 11-2 vote but saw no debate. The proposal would limit bodily injury claims by plaintiffs who did not carry auto insurance at the time of the accident. It also would forbid uninsured plaintiffs' recovery on the first $100,000 worth of damages. Other bills the committee advanced include House Bill 450, sponsored by Rep. Michael Melerine, R-Shreveport, and House Bill 291, sponsored by Gallé. Melerine's bill would end the Housley presumption, a standard of evidence explained in a 1991 Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that applies to auto accidents, medical malpractice and other injury lawsuits. In a nutshell, the Housley presumption says courts should assume a plaintiff's injuries resulted from the accident in question if they were in good health beforehand. Lawmakers have tried repeatedly to revoke Housley, but those attempts either failed or were vetoed in previous years. This year is expected to be different as Gov. Jeff Landry recently signaled support for the measure. Gallé's bill would extend the filing deadline, called a 'prescriptive period,' for wrongful death lawsuits from one year to two, aligning Louisiana with the deadline found in most other states. Proponents of the bill have argued that a shorter prescriptive period attracts more frivolous lawsuits by essentially forcing people to quickly file claims so as to not lose their litigation rights. The proposal also complements a similar measure lawmakers approved last year to extend the deadline for filing personal injury claims. The committee quickly advanced both bills without objection. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top Republican TN lawmaker seeks to make Antioch shooter records public
Some juvenile court and mental health records of deceased school shooters in Tennessee could become public under a new proposal from a top Republican lawmaker. Following the deadly shooting at Antioch High School, a lawmaker is seeking to unseal juvenile records of court proceedings, mental health issues, and interactions with the Department of Children's Services if a minor commits a school shooting. House Majority Leader William Lamberth, R-Portland, is proposing legislation to require the release of juvenile court, mental health and DCS records, if a minor commits a homicide on school grounds and subsequently dies. A homicide conviction would not be required to make the records public. The legislation is a direct response to the Antioch High School shooting, during which 17-year-old Solomon Henderson opened fire in the school's cafeteria, killing 16-year-old student Josselin Corea Escalante, and injuring another student. 'The shooter at Antioch – who was a student at Antioch – killed a sweet young lady who should be alive today with a bright future,' Lamberth told reporters. 'That young man was in the criminal justice system. We do not know publicly exactly what his records are, but we know that there's a history there.' Two months before the shooting, Henderson allegedly threatened another student with a box cutter, and his case was set to go to Davidson County Juvenile Court, WKRN first reported. The other student's family ultimately decided not to press charges. State law currently requires juvenile law enforcement and court records to remain confidential to protect the future of youth offenders. But Lamberth said allowing them to be public in this narrow situation could help identify issues and circumstances that led to the attack ― and inform prevention strategies. 'I want those records public,' Lamberth said. 'I think you and everyone else should know exactly what that young man's history is: exactly what involvement he had with law enforcement, the juvenile justice system, DCS – any involvement – so we can … ask the tough questions on how on earth that young man was in that school with a gun to kill that young lady, and all the warning signs were missed.' Lamberth's amendment to House Bill 34 will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. A companion bill passed the Senate without the provision regarding school shooter records on Monday night. Should the item pass the House, the Senate would need to concur with the change, or work out a compromise in a conference committee. Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, who sponsored the Senate bill, did not respond to a request for comment. 'This child went into a school and killed another child and shot at several others, and I believe that you and every other person in Tennessee has a right to know their history,' Lamberth said. 'He is now deceased, but you have a right to know so that we can prevent the next atrocity from happening.' Vivian Jones covers state government and politics for The Tennessean. Reach her at vjones@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Antioch school shooting: TN lawmakers seek to make records public
Yahoo
10-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ohio Democrats propose bill to gradually increase minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2030
Stock photo from Getty Images. Ohio lawmakers are once again trying to increase the state's minimum wage to $15 per hour. State Reps. Dontavius Jarrells, D-Columbus, and Ismail Mohamed, D-Columbus, recently introduced House Bill 34, which would increase the minimum wage by a dollar per hour each year for workers until reaching $15 per hour in 2030. The bill is in the Ohio House Labor and Commerce Committee. Ohio's minimum wage went up to $10.70 per hour for non-tipped employees on Jan. 1. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. 'At $10.45 per hour, Ohio's minimum wage is not enough for working families to stay afloat,' Jarrells said in a statement. 'No one should have to work multiple jobs just to survive. Raising wages means strengthening families, stabilizing communities, and growing our economy.' Under H.B. 34, the state's minimum wage would increase to $11 per hour on Jan. 1, 2026, $12 per hour in 2027, $13 per hour in 2028, $14 per hour in 2029 and $15 per hour in 2030. The bill also raises the tipped minimum wage by $0.50 per year for five years. The director of Commerce would then adjust the state's wage on Sept. 30 of every year, starting in 2030, and the new wage would take effect on Jan. 1, according to the bill. Ohioans passed a constitutional amendment in 2006 that has increased the state minimum wage every year based on the consumer price index. One Fair Wage, a national organization, tried unsuccessfully to get minimum wage on the Ohio ballot last fall. The organization failed to submit the necessary signatures to the Ohio Secretary of State to get their initiative on the ballot, which would have increased minimum wage up to $15 per hour in 2026. Increasing Ohio's minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2026 would have aided nearly 1 million Ohioans — about a fifth of Ohio's workforce, according to Policy Matters Ohio. Upping Ohio's minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2025 would have saved 4,000 lives and created a $25 billion benefit to the state economy by 2036, according to the Scioto Analysis. One Fair Wage said they plan on trying to get on Ohio's ballot again, but 'can't disclose more at this point,' the organization said in an email. One Fair Wage encountered lots of opposition from the Ohio Restaurant & Hospitality Alliance who said restaurant operators would have to raise their menu prices by about 20-30% if the minimum wage jumped to $15 per hour. There were a couple of bills related to increasing Ohio's minimum wage during the last General Assembly, but neither of them made it out of committee. Two democrat state senators — Kent Smith and Hearcel Craig — introduced a bill that would have gradually raised the state's minimum wage one dollar each year until it was up to $15 an hour in 2027. In an effort to stop the constitutional amendment, Republican state Sen. Bill Blessing put forth a bill that would have increased the wage to $15 by 2028. Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
