Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability and negligence, saying essentially in
• This is a pretty strict protection in that there cannot be a transfer of duties.
• This is a pretty strict<01:41:06.960> uh<01:41:07.760> pretty<01:41:08.080> strict
• c><01:41:09.199> uh<01:41:09.520> protection<01:41:10.080> in strict uh pretty strict
• uh protection in strict uh pretty strict uh protection in that<01:41:11.440> um<01:41:12.719>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:35:43.599> side<00:35:43.760> of bit more of a you know liability side of bit more
• That to us serves a better deterrent effect than having strict laws because if you just carry it out,
• That to us serves a better deterrent effect than having strict laws because if you just carry it out,
• That to us serves a better deterrent effect than having strict laws because if you just carry it out,
• That to us serves a better deterrent effect than having strict laws because if you just carry it out,

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Transportation heard several vehicle and traffic safety measures. HB 2347, which would require the director of transportation to adopt rules allowing mobile vehicle safety inspections, drew support from DOT and individual testifiers who said it would add convenience and efficiency for passenger vehicle owners. Committee members questioned how home or driveway inspections would handle safety standards such as headlight checks and whether added convenience would come with higher costs; DOT also said it would follow up on inspection fees and audit procedures. HB 182, which would exempt motorcycles and passenger cars from safety inspections, received opposition from DOT, the Hawaii Police Department, and the City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services, with Grassroot Institute in support. HB 2022, which would equalize county and state annual vehicle registration fees, was opposed by the Hawaii Transportation Association because it would raise costs that would likely be passed on to consumers. The committee also took testimony on HB 1708, which would make operating a vehicle under the influence at a high intoxication level a class C felony and add probation requirements. Prosecutors, police, DOT, and the Honolulu customer services department supported the bill, while the Public Defender’s Office opposed it, arguing that it would increase court workload, require more defense resources, and create collateral consequences, including possible immigration impacts. Several witnesses and members discussed a proposed HD1 that would change the bill to a graduated penalty structure, making a first offense a misdemeanor and a second offense a felony, while also addressing deferred pleas and DUI deferrals. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the bill’s intent but warned that Oahu lacks a reliable electronic or telephonic warrant system, which could lead to more refusals and additional court impacts. HB 2086, which would amend negligent injury in the first degree to include injuries negligently inflicted by intoxicated drivers, received support from DOT, county prosecutors, police, and the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office. Honolulu’s prosecutor supported the bill but recommended against the attached HD1, saying the current drafting better preserves negligent injury as a lesser included offense and avoids blending it with a separate statutory scheme. HB 2154, which would create a framework for intelligent speed assist technology and require a report to the legislature, was supported by DOT, county police, Smart Start LLC, AAA Hawaii, and others, with the Alliance for Automobile Innovation offering comments and proposed amendments. A testifier described the bill as a way to prevent repeat speeding by limiting vehicles from accelerating beyond the speed limit. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Expanding criminal liability for law-abiding citizens engaged in historically lawful conduct does not
• criminal liability for Expanding criminal liability for law-abiding<00:19:36.880> citizens<00
• that for centuries we've allowed people to make their own firearms and not have to adhere to the strict
• firearms and not have to adhere<00:21:16.080> to<00:21:16.240> the<00:21:16.480> strict
• regulation and and adhere to the strict regulation and and put<00:21:18.159> a<00:21:18.320><

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 3407, authored by Chair Pinto, which would restore Minnesota’s prior serial-number requirement for firearms after a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision narrowed the existing law, while also creating a method to serialize firearms that do not already have serial numbers. Supporters said the bill is needed to close a loophole involving ghost guns and to aid investigations, background checks, and trafficking enforcement. Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, and former ATF official Mariana Mitchum testified in favor, citing increases in unserialized gun recoveries, the difficulty of tracing such weapons, and examples of crimes where serial numbers helped identify traffickers. Opponents argued the bill conflates different categories of firearms and could burden lawful gun owners. Mariah Day of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Anna Ley of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Brian Gosh of the NRA said privately made firearms are distinct from illegally altered guns, warned about vague definitions and possible First Amendment issues, and said the bill could criminalize lawful conduct or create confusion for owners who modify firearms. They urged a no vote. Representative Bliss offered a DE1 amendment to replace the bill’s serialization approach with increased penalties for people who use guns in crimes. Chair Pinto and others opposed it, saying it would remove the bill’s public-safety benefits and likely create a fiscal impact. The committee took a roll call and rejected the DE1 amendment, 8-9. Afterward, members discussed the bill further, including questions about the difference between unserialized guns and guns with removed serial numbers and comments both supporting and criticizing the proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's called a statute of repose, which is very strict.
• That data shows where there are physician shortages, despite very strict caps, and where there aren't
• For example, Texas has very strict caps, and it's very hard to find physicians there.
• You're going to have a legal inconsistency where it says you're immune from all liability, but you're
• not immune from all liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll add on top of that potential civil liability... ...concerned about our abortion laws.
• Adoption and liability notice.
• That's Senate Bill 724 related to property owner liability.
• The bill imposes strict liability even for healthy trees. We're talking about healthy trees here.
• Strict liability already exists when it comes to animals that humans have difficulty controlling.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 1272 on guardianship, which would limit a guardian’s ability to isolate an adult ward from family and require notice to family or other named persons about major events such as a ward’s death or medical relocation. Senator Jones said the bill was intended to curb abuse by bad actors while not affecting good-faith guardians. Fortuna Smuggler and Phyllis Smith spoke in support, describing the need for family notification and closure. The bill passed unanimously, 8-0, and was reported favorably. The committee then considered CS/SB 1284 on wrongful death for an unborn child. Senator Graal explained that the bill would expand Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow parents to recover economic and non-economic damages for the death of an unborn child. An amendment was adopted to define “unborn child” as a member of the species Homo sapiens carried in the womb and to state that the act does not authorize a wrongful death action against the mother or a health care provider acting within the applicable standard of care. The amendment drew questions about abortion, medical emergencies, and whether fathers could sue; the sponsor said the bill was not intended to create claims against mothers or lawful medical care. Public testimony was sharply divided, with supporters arguing it gives families parity and accountability, and opponents warning it could be used to target abortion care, increase malpractice pressure, and worsen physician shortages. The committee approved the bill as amended by a 6-4 vote. Finally, the committee heard a strike-all amendment to SB 1288 on parental rights. The amendment would strengthen parental consent requirements for minors’ medical care, with exceptions for emergencies, court orders, certain legal categories of minors, and other existing statutory exceptions. It also would require parental consent for treatment related to STD screening, give parents more control over school or health surveys, and address use of biofeedback devices. Supporters said the measure restores parents’ authority and protects children from inappropriate questioning or treatment, while opponents argued it could block needed care for minors in unsafe homes, reduce access to STI treatment and mental health services, and create unintended consequences. The amendment was adopted, and the committee continued hearing testimony on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was very strict on owner occupancy.
• Uh was very strict on owner occupancy.
• that the rule shall include strict that the rule shall include strict enforcement<00:26:43.279><
• And there's might have this liability."
• strict import um bans on exotic animals. strict import um bans on exotic animals.

Bills: HB1604, HB1713, HB1722, HB2270, HB2401, HB2515, HB1979, HB1593, HB1743, HB2122, HB1756, HB1837, HB1729

Keywords: agriculture, housing, workforce, land use, zoning, public-private partnerships, tax credit, school impact fees, impact fee exemption, school facilities authority, residential development, housing shortage, affordable housing, infill housing, land dedication, fee in lieu, school construction, developer exactions, fair share contributions, education contribution agreement

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1604, which would create an agricultural workforce housing group within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to address shortages of farmworker housing. The department said it supported the bill’s intent but emphasized that the group’s early work should focus on gathering data and surveying farm operators to assess actual demand, to avoid “mission creep.” Testimony from the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Housing Hawaii’s Future, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce was in support, with one witness suggesting a housing advocacy nonprofit be added to the working group for balance. The committee then discussed HB 1713 on school impact fees, which would clarify exemptions for certain affordable housing projects and exempt new residential developments of fewer than 100 units. The Attorney General’s office said the bill should define “low to moderate income households” because that term is not defined in chapter 302A. HHFDC, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and others supported the measure, arguing it would reduce administrative burden and remove barriers to housing. Members questioned whether the bill should instead repeal the school impact fee entirely; supporters said they also favored full repeal but viewed this bill as a more feasible step. The School Facilities Authority also explained that about $28 million in school impact fees had been collected across four districts and none had yet been spent, and discussed how recent nexus requirements limit how the funds can be used. HB 1722, relating to residential condominiums, drew extensive testimony and questioning. HCDA supported the bill and explained that it amends the 99-year leasehold pilot program created by Act 97 of 2023 by reducing owner-occupancy restrictions from 100% of units to 60%, allowing some rental or subleasing flexibility for the owner-occupied units, and permitting up to 40% of units to be sold to qualified residents after being on the market for more than 60 days. HCDA said the original restrictions, combined with rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and competition from nearby projects, made the pilot project difficult to market and finance; it said the changes are needed to make the project feasible and competitive. Supporters including AP Hawaii, Kila LLC, and project representatives said the amendments would help make the demonstration project in Kakaʻako viable. Some members raised concerns that the changes could weaken long-term affordability and questioned why certain ownership language was being deleted if rentals would still be restricted. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It mentions only criminal liability towards officers. Okay. Right. Any further questions?
• It mentions only criminal liability towards officers. Okay. Right. Any further questions?
• It mentions only criminal liability towards officers. Okay. Right. Any further questions?
• It mentions only criminal liability towards officers. Okay. Right. Any further questions?
• So that section is being cited in testimony as far as a um liability to a department. far as a um liability

Bills: SF0101

Keywords: Second Amendment, firearm regulation, state legislation, public safety, civil penalties, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, under the strict scrutiny conditions that the court refers to, none of which apply in Florida.
• With respect to what you just said previously about that we haven't done the strict scrutiny to see if
• While it does not require direct proof of intent, it imposes liability—see?
• Require direct proof of intent, it imposes liability when the circumstances create a strong inference
• Strict scrutiny under the Constitution.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, under the strict scrutiny conditions that the court refers to, none of which apply in Florida.
• With respect to what you just said previously about that we haven't done the strict scrutiny to see if
• While it does not require direct proof of intent, it imposes liability, see?
• It imposes liability when the circumstances create a strong inference that intentional discrimination
• In those circumstances, liability may attach without requiring courts to engage in a difficult task of

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So essentially what strict liability does... in front of judges and juries. in front of judges and juries
• liability does what what strict liability does uh<03:04:26.479> this<03:04:26.720> would
• Um, and it said the strict liability piece.
• I have a big problem with the strict liability.
• uh<03:08:13.040> a than strict liability really is uh a than strict liability really is

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• patients that are operated on by optometrists do not have the same safeguards and have different liability
• construction of the statute supports the conclusion that the legislative intent The crime is one of strict
• liability.
• I want to re-look at that bill, but in my experience Of prosecuting, it's a strict liability bill because
• Sometimes, but it's strict liability. You just have to prove that the child is under the age of 18.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill simply states that we're going to increase liability coverage requirements for remediation
• whoever you want to say, are telling their employees not to try to stop these people as they leave for liability
• facility, what we're doing in this state for it to governmental tort and reform, we are placing the liability
• This piece of legislation places the liability on the inmate on the county responsible for placing the
• But liability seems to be our biggest problem. And I know so much of this is federal.

Bills: HB1322, HB2015, HB2933, HB2941, HB2959, HB2977, HB2981, HB3040, HB3055, HB3062, HB3087, HB3115, HB3134, HB3244, HB3297, HB3298, HB3299, HB3304, HB3319, HB3321, HB3322, HB3323, HB3345, HB3407, HB3471, HB3497, HB3500, HB3505, HB3544, HB3581, HB3648, HB3755, HB3764, HB3765, HB3767, HB3906, HB3974, HB3982, HB4104, HB4105, HB4106, HB4107, HB4108, HB4126, HB4130, HB4139, HB4144, HB4170, HB4202, HB4226, HB4227, HB4236, HB4260, HB4343

Keywords: domestic violence, offenders registry, public safety, law enforcement, victim protection, conviction records, landlord, tenant rights, rental agreement, housing safety, tenant protections, insurance regulation, homeowner claims, premium discounts, catastrophe mitigation, civil penalties, fentanyl, overdose, first responders, drug reporting

Transcript Highlights:

• This establishes strict liability for crimes against elders with respect to the vehicle weight. recommendation
• This establishes strict<01:25:44.440> liability<01:25:44.880> for<01:25:45.000> crimes
• <01:25:45.280> against strict liability for crimes against strict liability for crimes against
• Establishes<01:25:55.800> strict<01:25:56.040> liability<01:25:56.480> for<01:25
• :56.600> crimes Establishes strict liability for crimes Establishes strict liability for crimes

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the confirmation of Kursha Kauahi Kani Mililani Durrant to the District Court of the First Circuit, but announced it would not vote until April 2. The chair also noted a backup plan if Zoom failed. Testimony was limited to two minutes per speaker. The hearing focused on Durrant’s qualifications, judicial temperament, and readiness for the bench, with no opposition presented. Support came from the Office of the Public Defender, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, Native Hawaiian Bar Association, Hawaii State Bar Association, Hawaii Women’s Lawyers, and numerous individuals. Witnesses described Durrant as highly experienced in both criminal and civil practice, including district, family, circuit, appellate, ICA, and Supreme Court work. Several speakers emphasized her legal reasoning, mentorship, civility, cultural grounding, and ability to listen and treat litigants with dignity. Personal supporters also highlighted her public service, hula background, and character. Committee members questioned Durrant about how she would approach district court cases involving repeat offenders, mental illness, substance abuse, houselessness, and diversion. Durrant said she would follow the law, consider the full range of sentencing factors, and use available probation, diversion, and treatment options where appropriate. She said she would be committed to using legislative tools such as Act 26 and other diversion powers, and to looking beyond advocacy toward practical justice and reducing recidivism. She also said her clerkship with Judge Marsha Waldorf, including exposure to drug court and mental health court, shaped her approach to problem-solving on the bench.

Transcript Highlights:

• If they are so safe and effective, why are they protected from liability?
• Strict scrutiny applies to every infringement on religious freedom.
• One more thing, she never replied when she was asked about liability.
• One more thing, she never replied when she was asked about liability.
• And there's no liability for vaccine injuries.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Health held a hearing on several vaccination-related bills, including proposals to eliminate non-medical or religious exemptions for school immunizations (notably H. 2554 and S. 1557), a bill to require or improve reporting and administration of immunization data and exemptions (described as the Community Immunity Act, S. 1618), and H. 2431, which would prohibit COVID-19, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccine requirements. The committee also heard testimony on H. 2463, which would classify funeral directors as public health workers for vaccine-priority purposes during emergencies. The chair reviewed testimony rules and repeatedly asked speakers to keep comments orderly and brief so the committee could hear as many people as possible. No votes were taken during the hearing. Testimony on H. 2554 and S. 1557 was sharply divided. Pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, public health advocates, and groups such as the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, March of Dimes, Massachusetts Families for Vaccines, and several parents supported eliminating religious exemptions, arguing that vaccination protects medically vulnerable children and adults, improves herd immunity, and helps prevent outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and other diseases. They cited local school data showing pockets of lower coverage and incomplete reporting, and several speakers referenced outbreaks in other states and the need for stronger, more consistent reporting and exemption management. Opponents argued the bills would infringe on religious freedom and parental rights, force families to choose between faith and education, and unfairly target a small number of families; some also said Massachusetts already has high vaccination rates and that the real issue is incomplete data or the gap population rather than religious exemptions. H. 2431 drew testimony from supporters who said COVID-era mandates caused job losses, privacy concerns, and harm, and that the bill would prevent future requirements for COVID, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccines in schools, workplaces, and public settings. Supporters described personal experiences with alleged vaccine injury or mandate-related hardship. H. 2463 was supported by the Massachusetts Funeral Directors Association, which argued funeral directors work in infection-facing settings and should be eligible for vaccine priority during public health emergencies. The hearing featured extensive public testimony but no committee action beyond hearing the bills and taking questions from members.

Transcript Highlights:

• a<01:43:03.760> critical In response, we are introducing legislation that establishes strict
• liability for crimes against our kūpuna.
• establishes introducing legislation that establishes introducing legislation that establishes strict
• <01:43:25.119> liability<01:43:25.600> for<01:43:25.840> crimes<01:43:26.159>
• against<01:43:26.480> our strict liability for crimes against our strict liability for crimes

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Cox, methods of taking freshwater and saltwater fish, whether taking them in Hayden, strict
• liability, penalties, and definitions.
• liability, penalties, and definitions.
• “So there aren’t any judges that you’re aware of that give strict penalties?” “I’m sure there are.
• Those people will transfer over, and all of the assets, the debts, and the liabilities will transfer

Bills: HR115, HR116, HR117, HR118, HR112, HR113, HR114, HCR51, HCR52, SCR18, SCR20, SB14, SB76, SB118, SB142, SB156, SB170, SB197, SB234, SB258, SB287, SB288, SB313, SB315, SB393, SB396, SB426, SB427, HCR7, HB76, HB84, HB132, HB181, HB210, HB250, HB265, HB275, HB291, HB322, HB342, HB457, HB475, HB477, HB486, HB616, HB635, HB639, HB690, HB740, HB757, HB761, HB766, HB774, HB808, HB855, HB866, HB872, HB883, HB886, HB903, HB949, HB962, HB996, HB1003, HB1036, HB1054, HB1071, HB1076, HB1078, HB1113, HB1132, HB1146, HB1232, HB1233, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HCR6, HCR19, HCR10, HR74, HCR26, HCR35, HB98, HB108, HB131, HB151, HB161, HB288, HB294, HB305, HB310, HB320, HB336, HB380, HB392, HB403, HB420, HB459, HB476, HB540, HB615, HB631, HB637, HB648, HB665, HB682, HB789, HB813, HB815, HB835, HB870, HB905, HB915, HB933, HB938, HB987, HB1040, HB51, HB82, HB143, HB145, HB160, HB180, HB192, HB393, HB430, HB445, HB506, HB515, HB521, HB565, HB590, HB614, HB638, HB670, HB672, HB685, HB692, HB752, HB773, HB781, HB799, HB860, HB874, HB887, HB917, HB937, HB956, HB965, HB972, HB977, HB982, HB1006, HB1010, HB1044, HB1072, HB1088, HB1179, HB1200, HB81, HB400, HB154, HB410, HB463, HB827, HB868, HB952, HB953, HB140, HB750, HB911, HB52, HB961, HB399, HB401, HB901, HB9, HB58, HB193, HB284, HB570, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB733

Keywords: Kappa Alpha Psi, fraternity, Louisiana, commemoration, community engagement, recognition, state championship, basketball, sports achievement, school commendation, commendation, athletics, team sports, youth, community recognition, water utility, tax credit, excessive rates, residential service, subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• Contractors working on Missouri Department of Transportation projects are required to follow strict plans
• At that point, the liability was shifted to the contractor's insurance, even though the contractor had
• When our contractors have no liability limits and they can be sued for $5 million, $10 million, whatever
• I mean, we price our jobs accordingly, knowing that we have that kind of liability.
• board. ...from our perspective and from the contractors, they wanted liability across the board.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Contractors working on Missouri Department of Transportation projects are required to follow strict plans
• At that point, the liability was shifted to the contractor's insurance, even though the contractor had
• When our contractors have no liability limits, and they can be sued for, they can be sued.
• When our contractors have no liability limits, and they can be sued for, they can be sued.
• I mean, we price our jobs accordingly knowing that we have that kind of liability.

Summary: The Commerce Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 916, which would limit contractor liability on Missouri Department of Transportation projects when contractors are following approved plans and standards, and would also clarify that contractors are not required to indemnify the state as a condition of bidding or beginning work. Senator Berger and several supporters argued the bill would align responsibility with control, reduce unnecessary litigation, and lower insurance and project costs for contractors who are sued for conditions they did not create. They emphasized that the bill would not protect negligence, defective workmanship, or concealment, and the sponsor described examples of contractors being drawn into lawsuits before work began or after projects were complete. Supporters included representatives of construction firms, the Missouri Asphalt Payment Association, the AGC of Missouri, the Missouri Municipal League, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and engineering groups. Contractors described cases where they were sued over alleged design issues or incidents occurring after completion, saying they had no ability to change the design but still incurred legal and insurance costs. One municipal league witness also explained a separate provision clarifying that a public entity does not waive sovereign immunity merely by being named as an additional insured on a contractor’s policy. MoDOT’s deputy director testified for informational purposes, warning that removing indemnification could expose the state to more litigation during construction. After the committee established a quorum in executive session, a motion was made to vote Senate Bill 916 do pass. The committee approved the bill unanimously, 8-0, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Strict enforcement has been requested. So, sit at your seats; we may be here for a second.
• Raising enforcement and exposing Texas insurers to uncertain liabilities.
• Strict enforcement. Members need to vote from your desk. desk.
• The impact to the unfunded liability to the TRS program will be with the passage of this.
• Strict enforcement. ...has been requested, members vote from your desks.

Bills: HJR144, HJR218, HB40, HB 101, HB 112, HB146, HB168, HB214, HB413, HB1523, HB493, HB521, HB594, HB557, HB305, HB549, HB854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB842, HB3174, HB3311, HB2486, HB3196, HB824, HB 1039, HB2529, HB2713, HB4936, HB4995, HB4830, HB4864, HB5219, HB5263, HB5154, HB2674, HB5525, HB5623, HB2545, HB2587, HB2625, HB5520, HB5436, HB4926, HB1573, HB5165, HB4811, HB5081, HB4755, HB3179, HB4310, HB4611, HB2159, HB4626, HB3637, HB3153, HB3066, HB2786, HB2966, HB638, HB640, HB876, HB497, HB5539, HB4809, HB5308, HB4687, HB4070, HB4421, HB4412, HB3284, HB3369, HB3420, HB3449, HB4098, HB4281, HB4120, HB4504, HB4370, HB 1106, HB2370, HB2404, HB3863, HB2407, HB2253, HB2273, HB2040, HB1586, HB3788, HB3993, HB4690, HB4309, HB4696, HB2308, HB 1142, HB1533, HB1621, HB2242, HB2012, HB2193, HB2442, HB2464, HB2348, HB2313, HB2289, HB1942, HB2011, HB1629, HB2993, HB3592, HB3824, HB4076, HB4535, HB4623, HB4773, HB 1091, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HCR118, HB 1233, HB2239, HB2379, HB2863, HB3368, HB3787, HB3815, HB3898, HB4023, HB4285, HB4329, HB4331, HB4429, HB4646, HB4904, HB5200, HB5320, HB5651, HB5662, HB5668, HB5670, HB5672, HB5674, HB5676, HB5679, HB5688, HCR108

Keywords: regional mobility, transportation authority, local law, constitutional amendment, public projects, Texas energy fund, energy efficiency, retail electric customers, electric generating facilities, business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, Texas State Guard, task force, professionalization, state missions, critical infrastructure, science park district

Transcript Highlights:

• liability? liability?
• And I would propose another strict liability product is fireworks.
• And and I would propose<01:20:07.199> another<01:20:07.840> strict<01:20:08.480> liability
• <01:20:09.199> product propose another strict liability product propose another strict liability
• It's a the same kind of liability?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all