AN ACT relating to participants in the legal system.
SB195 is a broad civil-liability and litigation-procedure bill that makes changes across several areas of Kentucky law. It revises rules on seat belt and child-restraint evidence in civil cases; tightens and clarifies insurer unfair-claims-settlement standards; bars certain insurance-related evidence and discovery in medical-malpractice cases; and modifies timber-cutting penalties, consumer protection suits, highway-construction liability, medical-malpractice pre-suit notice, certificate-of-merit requirements, fault allocation, personal-injury notice, and medical-record copying charges. The bill also adds protections for contractors working on public roads and bridges by creating presumptions and limiting liability in certain circumstances, and it updates risk-retention-group insurance enforcement provisions.
The bill amends or creates provisions in KRS Chapters 189, 304, 364, 367, 411, 413, 422, and 304. It generally makes it harder to use seat-belt nonuse as evidence in civil actions, imposes pre-suit notice requirements for consumer, personal-injury, and medical-malpractice claims, and adds procedural hurdles such as certificates of merit and detailed pleading requirements. It also limits discovery and admissibility of certain insurance and liability-coverage information in health-care cases, restricts third-party insurer bad-faith actions, narrows contractor exposure for public-road projects, and changes how medical records may be obtained and charged for. Overall, the bill shifts several tort and claims rules toward more defendant protections and more structured pre-litigation procedures for claimants and their counsel.
The voting history suggests the bill was ultimately enacted despite meaningful opposition. It passed the Senate 31-5, later survived a House veto override by a 66-25 vote, and then passed the Senate again 29-8, indicating substantial legislative support but not unanimity. The lack of committee transcript material limits direct insight into debate, but the final votes show the measure was broadly favored by majorities in both chambers while drawing consistent minority resistance.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s tort-reform features: the new notice requirements, certificate-of-merit rules, limits on evidence and discovery in medical-malpractice cases, restrictions on third-party claims against insurers, and the contractor liability protections for highway projects. Supporters likely viewed these provisions as reducing frivolous litigation, clarifying liability, and protecting public and private entities from expansive claims. Opponents likely objected that the bill raises barriers for injured plaintiffs, limits access to evidence, and narrows remedies in consumer, medical, and roadway-injury cases. The House veto-override vote also suggests the bill remained politically divisive even after passage.