HB3313 amends Section 2-1003 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure to limit discovery in a narrow category of motor-vehicle personal injury cases. If a plaintiff seeks damages that are equal to or less than the minimum liability insurance coverage required under the Illinois Vehicle Code, the plaintiff would not be allowed to take discovery from the defendant. In those cases, the bill instead requires both sides to exchange the documents they intend to use at trial.
The bill applies to actions commenced on or pending after its effective date, so it would affect both new lawsuits and some existing cases. Its practical effect would be to streamline lower-value auto injury litigation by reducing pretrial discovery costs and limiting the scope of information gathering in cases where claimed damages do not exceed the minimum insurance threshold. It would not eliminate the lawsuit itself, but it would change how those cases are prepared and litigated.
Impact
HB3313 would modify Illinois civil procedure by creating a discovery restriction in personal injury actions against motor vehicle operators when the damages sought do not exceed the state’s minimum auto liability insurance requirement. It would also impose a reciprocal trial-document disclosure requirement in those cases. The bill would affect plaintiffs, defendants, and attorneys handling lower-value automobile injury claims, and it would likely reduce discovery practice in a subset of auto cases.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes are available, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears aimed at efficiency and cost reduction in civil litigation, which may appeal to tort-reform advocates and defendants. At the same time, the discovery limitation could be viewed as restricting plaintiffs’ ability to investigate claims, suggesting potential concern from plaintiff-side attorneys and consumer advocates.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether limiting discovery in low-value motor vehicle injury cases promotes efficiency or unfairly disadvantages injured plaintiffs. Supporters would likely argue that discovery is unnecessary when claimed damages are at or below minimum insurance limits and that the bill reduces litigation costs and delays. Opponents would likely argue that even smaller claims may require discovery to prove liability, causation, or damages, and that the bill could make it harder for plaintiffs to build their cases. No specific stakeholder positions are recorded in the available materials.
Relating to the amount and allocation of the annual constitutional appropriation to certain agencies and institutions of higher education and to the permissible uses of that money.