House Bill 137, titled the Gabe Torres Act, expands eligibility under North Carolina’s Public Safety Employees’ Death Benefits Act. The bill amends the definition of “official duties” so that covered public safety employees are treated as performing official duties not only while on duty, but also while en route to duty or training, returning from duty or training, responding to calls, or returning from calls for assistance. The stated purpose is to honor Raleigh police officer Gabe Torres, who was killed while on his way to work after the October 13, 2022 violence.
The bill also appropriates $300,000 in recurring General Fund support to the Department of State Treasurer for each year of the 2025-2027 biennium to pay benefits under the death benefits program. It applies prospectively to covered deaths occurring on or after the date it becomes law, unless otherwise provided. In practical terms, the measure broadens the circumstances under which surviving beneficiaries of eligible public safety employees may receive death benefits and creates an ongoing state funding commitment for those benefits.
HB137 would amend G.S. 143-166.2, the definitions section of the Public Safety Employees’ Death Benefits Act, to expand the scope of “official duties” for covered employees. This change would likely increase the number of death benefit claims that qualify under the statute, particularly for deaths occurring while an employee is commuting to or from work or training, or while responding to emergency calls. The bill also adds a recurring appropriation to the Department of State Treasurer, affecting state budget obligations and the administration of death benefits for public safety personnel and their beneficiaries.
The available context suggests generally supportive sentiment toward the bill, as reflected in its memorial framing and its advancement through referral without recorded opposition in the provided materials. The bill is presented as a tribute to Officer Gabe Torres and as a benefit expansion for public safety families, which typically draws favorable consideration. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the supplied materials.
The main potential point of contention is fiscal: the bill creates a recurring appropriation from the General Fund, which may raise budget concerns about ongoing costs and the scope of state liability under the death benefits program. A second possible issue is policy scope, because the bill expands eligibility beyond traditional on-duty deaths to include commuting and related travel, which could be viewed as a meaningful broadening of benefits. No specific objections or named opponents appear in the provided transcripts or vote history.