Tennessee House Bill HB0493

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 24; Title 25; Title 26; Title 27; Title 28; Title 29; Title 30; Title 31; Title 32; Title 34; Title 35 and Title 36, relative to civil justice.

Summary

HB0493 makes a narrow change to Tennessee’s civil justice statutes by extending a filing or notice period in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 34-1-108(a) from 60 days to 90 days. The bill does not create a new program or category of claims; instead, it adjusts an existing deadline within the state’s civil law framework. Because the bill amends Title 34 and references multiple civil justice titles in its caption, its practical effect is limited to procedural timing rather than substantive rights. The measure would give affected parties an additional 30 days to act under the statute, which could affect claimants, defendants, attorneys, and courts depending on how Section 34-1-108(a) is applied in practice. The available record shows no committee debate, no recorded votes, and no stated opposition or support, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from discussion history. Based on the bill’s straightforward and technical nature, it appears to be a low-profile procedural adjustment rather than a controversial policy change. There are no identified points of contention in the provided materials. If any disagreement were to arise, it would likely center on whether extending the deadline from 60 to 90 days improves fairness and access to the courts or instead delays resolution and increases uncertainty for parties subject to the statute.

Impact

HB0493 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Section 34-1-108(a) by changing a 60-day deadline to 90 days, thereby altering the timing requirements under Tennessee civil justice law. The bill affects procedural rights and obligations for parties governed by that statute, including litigants and legal practitioners, but does not otherwise revise the underlying substantive law.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no documented public sentiment in the available materials. The bill appears to be a technical civil procedure change with no recorded controversy, suggesting a neutral or routine legislative posture based on the limited record.

Contention

No specific contention is reflected in the provided bill history because there were no committee discussions or votes included. Any potential debate would likely focus on the policy tradeoff between giving parties more time to comply with the statute and preserving prompt resolution of civil matters.