Transcript Highlights:

• A bill like this that gets passed without any caps on non-economic damages, something that's just going
• on non-economic damages, in fact, there should be caps on non-economic damages for all tort bills, but
• , even though most states have some sort of cap on non-economic damages in the United States.
• One proven solution is equity in non-economic damages through caps.
• A couple of our peer states, Texas and California, have caps on non-economic damages.

Summary: The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee considered one bill, HB 603, which would repeal section 768.21(8), the Florida medical negligence wrongful death exception often referred to by supporters as the “Free Kill” law. The sponsor argued the current statute unfairly bars certain families—especially adult children or parents of unmarried adults without minor children—from recovering non-economic damages when a loved one dies from medical negligence, while such damages are available in other wrongful death cases. Supporters, including family members, AARP, and some legal advocates, testified that the law is discriminatory and denies equal access to justice for grieving families and vulnerable adults. Opponents, including physicians, hospital and insurer representatives, and business groups, argued that repeal would increase malpractice exposure, raise premiums, worsen access to care, and accelerate physician retirements or departures from Florida. Several urged that if the bill moves forward, it should be paired with caps on non-economic damages to balance the impact on the health care system. Supporters countered that negligence must still be proven, that the law creates unequal treatment, and that existing tort reforms have not lowered premiums. The sponsor closed by rejecting claims that the bill is “jackpot justice” and emphasizing that families deserve court access and accountability. After debate, the committee voted on HB 603 and passed it 16-2. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Parsley, as you thought I might, about the non-economic damage caps. This is a cap bill.
• First of all, we've talked about the cap on damages.
• That is a cap, okay? The second part is it... It does cap medical damages because what Mr.
• Now, as we've talked about, the medical damages issue is something we can discuss, but the damage cap
• I didn't say it was a cap on Medicare. It is a cap on the medical damages.

Bills: SB30, SB517, SB1313, SB1314, SB1316, SB1541, SB1698, SB1845, SB1860, SB2420, SB2429, SB 30

Keywords: gambling, criminal offenses, penalties, defense, electronic devices, tobacco advertising, youth protection, public health, criminal offense, retailer regulation, e-cigarettes, nicotine products, health, public safety, regulation, advertising restrictions, health and safety, elections, election audit, county elections

Transcript Highlights:

• She noted that Indiana has medical malpractice caps and punitive damage caps.
• and punitive damage caps.
• What Colorado does is cap punitive damage awards at one times the non-economic damage provision, except
• So with that... ...outside of these definitions will not have caps for punitive damages.
• It provides for a cap on punitive damages for physicians.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Wisconsin's similar cap is $25.
• And the two-month cap is pretty strong.
• We did not put a cap on the application deposit.
• and what that cap ought to be?
• Those are already capped in... Utility account set-up fees. Those are already capped in code.

Keywords: Virginia Housing Commission - Fees in Residential Rental Agreements Workgroup, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Many of them were talking about the caps on damages, which is not true in the bill, so those stories
• That's a cap on future damages. But where—what are the words on the paper that say that?
• So I didn't ever say there was a cap on non-violence. ...economic damages.
• It doesn't cap damages.
• As elements of damages, it is worse than a cap.

Bills: HB4806

Keywords: civil action, damages, health care services, noneconomic damages, negligence, legal standards, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• First, this bill's whole purpose is to cap damages. in jury trials.
• And yet there are those who say that this bill does not cap any damages and would not set any medical
• If you want to cap non-economic damages, we did it in 2003.
• That bill in 2003 also said if you want to... cap any other damages other than doctors' med-mal, you
• damages, and so they've come up with this other scheme to try to wiggle around... and cap damages in

Bills: SB 30, SB 517, SB 1313, SB 1314, SB 1316, SB 1541, SB 1698, SB 1845, SB 1860, SB 2420, SB 2429

Keywords: gambling, criminal offenses, penalties, defense, electronic devices, tobacco advertising, youth protection, public health, criminal offense, retailer regulation, e-cigarettes, nicotine products, health, public safety, regulation, advertising restrictions, health and safety, elections, election audit, county elections

Summary: The Senate Committee on State Affairs convened to discuss several critical pieces of legislation including SB30 and SB38. Senator Betancourt introduced a committee substitute for SB38 which underwent a smooth adoption process, moving it favorably toward the Senate. The meeting featured a mix of invited testimonies where both proponents and opponents took the floor. One notable highlight included a testimony from Melissa Casey, who criticized the current legal state as prone to fraud and detrimental to both insurers and the public at large, contending that it inflated insurance costs across the board. The discussions delved deeply into the implications of the bills on judicial processes and potential insurance ramifications, with spirited debates surrounding issues of non-economic damages and jury rights. The atmosphere remained engaged as committee members heard varied perspectives on the bills, showcasing a robust democratic process. The meeting underscored the importance of public testimony in shaping legislation, ensuring that multiple voices were considered as the committee pressed on towards making decisions that affect the legal landscape of Texas.

Transcript Highlights:

• It does not cap the amount of damages a person can recover in a lawsuit.
• Many of them were talking about there's caps on damages, which is not true in the bill.
• Uh, you can't get it after that's a cap on future damages.
• So I didn't ever say there was a cap on non-economic damages.
• It doesn't cap damages.

Transcript Highlights:

• cap for compensating statutory damages.
• Punitive damage caps. I made this point with one of the hosts that had me on the radio show.
• If we cap fees, if we cap damages, we're still going to have the injuries.
• They're protected by no punitive damages, and they're protected by caps on fees.
• There are no punitive damages, and there's a cap of $400,000 per person.

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't have any caps on the damages.
• And last year, if you recall, the first iteration of the bill not only had the caps on the damages, but
• I would encourage not passing this bill as written, but maybe consider some capping on non-economic damages
• In previous committees, I've heard several lobbyists refer to the caps on medical malpractice damages
• And the last is that there's like half of all the other states have no caps on damages.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and considered several health-related bills. SB 398, by Senator Burgess, would create a statewide Alzheimer’s and dementia awareness campaign through the Department of Elder Affairs, focused on early detection, brain health, risk reduction, clinical trial access, and community resources. Supporters said Florida has a large and growing Alzheimer’s population and that the campaign would help families and vulnerable communities; the bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote. The committee also adopted an amendment to SB 714, by Senator Burton, which would create non-opioid advanced directives and add liability protections for providers in medical emergencies involving opioids. Supporters framed it as a patient-choice measure, while opponents argued it was vague and could interfere with appropriate pain treatment; the amended bill was then reported favorably. The committee also approved CS/SB 756, which removes the current age-eight diagnosis requirement for autism-related insurance coverage and extends coverage beyond age 18 for those diagnosed with autism. Senator Burton said the bill would help families whose children are diagnosed later or whose needs continue into adulthood. There was brief discussion about existing lifetime benefit caps, but the sponsor said the bill did not change those limits. The committee then took up SB 734, a proposal by Senator Yarbrough to repeal Florida’s wrongful death exception that bars certain parents and adult children from recovering non-economic damages in medical negligence cases. The sponsor and supporters described the current law as discriminatory and unjust, especially for families of older adults and disabled individuals, while opponents warned it would raise malpractice costs, increase premiums, and worsen provider shortages. The bill drew extensive public testimony from both grieving family members and health care/insurance representatives, and members debated whether caps or other safeguards should be added. No final action on SB 734 is reflected in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we talk about caps on non-economic damages, we're talking about caps on pain and suffering damages
• If it's $50 million or $100 million, they would recover every penny of those economic damages with caps
• And that's what we can change by putting caps on damages, non-economic damages in order to pass this
• If you decide to pass this bill, please, please at least consider putting caps on non-economic damages
• One proven solution that has been discussed today is equity in non-economic damages through caps.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met to consider HB 6003, a bill to repeal Florida’s “free kill” law that limits certain survivors’ ability to recover non-economic damages in medical negligence wrongful death cases. The sponsor, Rep. Trabulsy, said the bill would restore access to the courts for a small class of families and noted the measure passed both chambers last year before being vetoed by the governor. She and supporters framed the bill as a fairness and constitutional issue, while opponents argued repeal would increase malpractice exposure, insurance costs, and pressure on physician access, especially in high-risk specialties and rural areas. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters included family members who described deaths they said were caused by medical negligence and who argued the current law denies accountability and equal treatment based on marital status or whether a decedent had minor children. Opponents included the Florida Hospital Association, Florida Medical Association, Florida Chamber, U.S. Chamber, Florida Insurance Council, and other health care and business groups, who warned that repeal could worsen already high malpractice premiums, contribute to physician shortages, and destabilize access to care. Several speakers on both sides discussed possible caps on non-economic damages as a compromise, though the bill itself was presented as a clean repealer with no amendments. During debate, several members spoke in support, emphasizing equal access to the courts and rejecting the idea that the law should treat some families differently from others. Opponents of the bill argued that the current system helps preserve market stability and that liability concerns, not the free kill law, are driving provider departures. After closing remarks from the sponsor, the committee voted 15 yeas and 1 nay to report HB 6003 favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:28.639> and fires up to 1 billion in Damages and fires up to 1 billion in Damages and
• Their priority is the aggregate cap.
• An aggregate cap, but this billion dollars has nothing to do with the aggregate cap, so the aggregate
• <00:25:33.399> is having a fund with an aggregate cap is having a fund with an aggregate cap
• and qualified damages qualified damages and qualified damages is<01:29:54.880> is<01:29:54.960

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on HB 982 HD1, a wildfire-related measure aimed at creating a wildfire recovery fund and a financing structure to address future catastrophic wildfire liability. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Division of Consumer Advocacy, and the Public Utilities Commission submitted comments and were available for questions. Supporters included IBW Local 1260, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Clearway Energy Group, Hawaiian Electric, Par Hawaii, and others, while Charter Communications and the Hawaii Association for Justice opposed or raised concerns. Life of the Land supported the bill but urged changes to the definition of a catastrophic wildfire and noted concerns about prudency review language. IBW Local 1260 asked to restore language from the original draft, and Charter warned the bill could impair existing contract and indemnity rights unless amended. A major focus of the hearing was Hawaiian Electric’s position on the HD1 version. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the original bill but objected to the HD1 requirement for an additional $500 million shareholder contribution, arguing it was not feasible and could delay or prevent the fund from operating. The company said the bill would help protect customers and improve credit ratings by creating a dedicated revenue stream and a bankruptcy-remote financing structure, which it said would lower borrowing costs over time. Members questioned how the $1 billion securitization amount was chosen, whether credit rating agencies had indicated it was sufficient, and how the bill would work in bankruptcy; Hawaiian Electric said the amount was a balance among interests, not based on a specific agency directive, and that it would follow up on bankruptcy questions. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about liability caps, the new claims process, and unclear language on damages above the fund’s limits. The Hawaii Association for Justice argued the bill limits victims’ remedies and gives too much authority to the new entity without clear guardrails. Committee members also pressed Hawaiian Electric on comparisons to California, the feasibility of the shareholder contribution, and whether alternative capital-raising or divestiture options had been considered. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; testimony and questioning continued with follow-up information requested from Hawaiian Electric and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• The SB 254 report proposes eliminating punitive damages and capping non-economic damages.
• I mean, we live in a country where punitive damages are an essential part of the justice system, capping
• , quote, basically capping all damages for death and suffering and pain and suffering.
• And there's a number of states that have adopted caps on non-economic damages.
• I think Utah has a cap of $100,000 or $150,000 per person on non-economic damages.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Eliminating the outdated low caps on compensatory damages in sexual harassment cases ensures victims
• The current outdated caps on compensatory damages and punitive damages do very little, if anything, to
• Another thing I want to point out is that that cap of $50,000 is for both emotional distress, damage
• Another thing I want to point out is that that cap of $50,000 is for both emotional distress, damage
• The current damages caps under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code are the same as under federal law,

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on a broad agenda of workforce, labor, and workers’ compensation bills. HB 4676 would require political subdivision workers’ compensation networks to follow the same notice, access, and complaint rules as certified TDI networks; supporters said public employees and first responders deserve equal access to care, while municipal risk pool representatives opposed added regulation and said existing 504 networks already perform well. HB 4479 would create a rural workforce development grant program at TWC to support college-and-career readiness and local workforce alignment, and HB 3844 would define “opportunity youth” in state law to improve data, coordination, and access to services for disconnected young Texans; both drew strong support from rural, education, and chamber witnesses. HB 5545 would clarify federal tax treatment for wage-replacement benefits in non-subscriber injury benefit plans, with proponents calling it a win for employers and injured workers. HB 5118 would direct TWC and DIR to study AI and automated employment decision tools in hiring, including bias and oversight concerns. HB 1667 would move existing PTSD workers’ compensation language into a broader Labor Code chapter so more first responders, including state and campus officers, could qualify for benefits; supporters called it a technical fix to extend coverage more evenly across agencies. The committee also heard several first-responder and workers’ compensation bills. HB 2369 would speed up claims handling for injured first responders by allowing a single medical evaluation, giving carriers 60 days to accept or deny a claim, and letting workers seek treatment while disputes proceed; law enforcement supporters said it would help injured officers return to work faster, while opponents warned it would revive extent-of-injury waiver problems and increase litigation. HB 4483 would reclassify certain workers’ compensation maintenance taxes as surcharges to reduce retaliatory taxes imposed by other states on Texas-domiciled carriers, and HB 875, as revised by committee substitute, would create a small-project exception to municipal workers’ compensation and bonding requirements for certain low-value construction contracts in small cities; both were presented as cost-saving measures for Texas employers and local governments. HB 4415 would extend anti-retaliation protections for workers’ compensation claimants from first responders to all public employees and expressly waive sovereign immunity for those claims, with supporters describing it as closing a loophole that leaves public workers without the same remedy available in the private sector. The committee also took testimony on HB 5400, which would expand remedies for sexual harassment victims by removing the requirement to first file an administrative charge, extending the filing deadline from 300 days to two years, clarifying retaliation, and eliminating current damages caps. Supporters, including employment lawyers and a parent of a victim, said the current deadlines and caps prevent many survivors from obtaining counsel or full relief, especially younger workers and those in small workplaces or franchises. Across the agenda, witnesses repeatedly emphasized access to care, fair treatment for injured workers, rural workforce development, and stronger protections for vulnerable employees. After each bill was laid out and testimony heard, the chair generally closed the public hearing and left the bill pending; no final votes were taken, and the subcommittee adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• The SB 254 report proposes eliminating punitive damages and capping non-economic damages.
• I mean, we live in a country where punitive damages are an essential part of the justice system, capping
• , quote, basically capping all damages for death and suffering and pain and suffering.
• And there's a number of states that have adopted caps on non-economic damages.
• I think Utah has a cap of $100,000 or $150,000 per person on non-economic damages.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and possible reforms to California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the high and growing wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh tradeoffs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The chair emphasized that the SB 254 report is an inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations, and that the Legislature’s role is to evaluate the options publicly. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described severe ongoing displacement, housing insecurity, delayed compensation, and frustration with what they characterized as opaque and unfair compensation structures. They argued for greater transparency, clearer accountability for utilities, stronger oversight of wildfire mitigation spending, and incentives tied to safety performance. They also urged faster survivor payments, but only if they are full, fair, and not financed by shifting more costs to taxpayers or ratepayers. Committee members asked about gaps in the SB 254 report, the meaning of “full” compensation, and how a fast-pay facility might work. The second panel included the California Earthquake Authority, RAND, PG&E, LADWP, Consumer Attorneys of California, and the Public Advocates Office. Tom Welsh of CEA explained the report’s process and the current wildfire fund structure, including that utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims, and prudency reviews can require reimbursement to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon outlined how roughly $38 billion has been paid to survivors, insurers, and public entities since 2017, and noted substantial litigation costs and cost-shifting among stakeholders. Utility representatives supported reforms that preserve financial stability and reduce risk, while consumer and public-interest advocates opposed shifting more costs to ratepayers and stressed accountability, audits, and safety-linked recovery. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• LAST YEAR'S WILL HAD A FULL REPEAL BUT HAD CAPS ON DAMAGES BOTH FOR PRACTITIONERS AND FACILITIES.
• AND SO, WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY IS A CLEAN REPEAL IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY CAPS ON DAMAGES.
• ARE THEY CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE FOR ECONOMIC DAMAGES?
• IN PREVIOUS COMMITTEES I HAVE HEARD SEVERAL LOBBYISTS REFER TO THE CAPS ON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DAMAGES
• AND THEN LAST, THERE IS LIKE HALF OF ALL THE OTHER STATES THAT HAVE NO CAPS ON DAMAGES.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• cap of 1976, is just frankly wrong.
• can ever have to pay is the cap, they will never pay the cap.
• So the reality is there is a cap within a cap in a system that already has a cap too low.
• non-economic damages or they don't cap damages at all.
• And in fact, Virginia is in the very small minority They don't cap damages at all.

Keywords: House Committee Room C, General Assembly Building, 976, house, all

Bills: SB372, SB1224, SB1232, SB1264, SB1330, SB1381, SB1441, SB1450, SB1589, SB1618, SB1936, SB1980, SB2011, SB2030

Keywords: SB372, firearms, gun rights, lawful carry, concealed carry, open carry, handgun license, Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, weapons policy, gun law, school safety, private school, public school, college campus, university campus, technology center, courthouse, government buildings, municipal buildings, county courthouse

Transcript Highlights:

• I just started at 50% and put a cap at $50,000, but I mean, I even have questions today.
• They're capped at $550, but that's up to the PUC to enforce that in each individual case.
• Metric side, we don't have a designated cap.
• And this body has reacted over time to out-of-control costs with different caps here and there, whether
• that's litigation caps, economic damage caps in different areas, and it has resulted...

Bills: SB483, SB522, SB783, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1762, SB1856, SB1877, SB1977

Keywords: utility, proprietary information, customer data, data protection, electric service, customer information, emergency communication, electric utility, privacy, certification, public accountants, interstate licensing, accounting, regulatory amendment, energy efficiency, construction regulations, building codes, Texas, sustainability, cost-effectiveness

Transcript Highlights:

• Button suffered severe mental injuries and brain damage.
• The bill increases the sovereign immunity financial caps for damages against state and local government
• , the sovereign immunity caps.
• One of the concerns is the number of the cap..."
• So you can't come at me and say, well, you know, the cap, the cap, the cap, and we can only, if the person

Summary: The subcommittee first heard HB 6507, a claims bill for Marcus Button, who suffered severe permanent injuries in a 2006 school bus crash. Representative Andrade explained that a jury awarded Button more than $2 million in 2009, but only a small amount was paid under sovereign immunity limits. He said Pasco County later reached a settlement with Button, but believed it lacked legal authority to pay without legislative approval. The bill would give the county that authority. There was no opposition testimony, and the bill passed unanimously, 18-0. The committee then took up HB 301, which would substantially revise Florida’s sovereign immunity framework. Representative McFarland said the bill would raise liability caps for state and local governments from $200,000/$300,000 to $1 million/$3 million, with a later increase in 2030, align statutes of limitations with private suits, allow governments to settle above the caps without a claims bill, and prevent insurance policies from conditioning payment on legislative approval. She framed the bill as a way to reduce the need for the claims bill process and provide faster redress to injured people. Testimony on HB 301 was sharply divided. Local governments, school districts, counties, cities, hospital groups, and insurance representatives opposed the bill, arguing the higher caps would sharply increase insurance and taxpayer costs, especially for small or fiscally constrained entities, and that the claims bill process and special masters provide useful review and leverage. Supporters, including the Florida Justice Association and several members, argued the current system is too slow and political, leaves seriously injured people waiting years for compensation, and should be modernized to better hold government accountable. No vote was taken on HB 301 in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it also caps the damages.
• , these damage... ...caps haven't changed since 1985, I believe.
• So the legislature has capped and put a CPI on medical malpractice damages.
• A maximum cap, no CPI, no non-economic damage, recoverable maximum cap for everything.
• But yeah, we're not capping the damages.

Keywords: 1184, house, all