Tennessee Senate Bill SB2412

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Engrossed: 4/13/26
• Enrolled: 4/20/26
• Passed: 5/5/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 18; Title 29, Chapter 39 and Title 63, Chapter 6, Part 11, relative to civil actions.

Summary

SB2412 is a narrow civil-justice measure that does not itself change the current cap on noneconomic damages or catastrophic loss/injury compensation. Instead, it directs the Administrative Office of the Courts to study the issue and submit a report by January 1, 2027 on whether those compensation limits should be increased, and if so, to recommend how. The report must be delivered to the chairs of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House committee with jurisdiction over civil matters. In practical terms, the bill creates a formal legislative review process for Tennessee’s existing damages-limit framework in civil actions. It is aimed at gathering data and policy recommendations for future consideration, rather than immediately amending the statutes governing civil liability, damages, or court procedure. The bill takes effect upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill’s direct legal effect is procedural: it requires the state court system’s administrative office to produce a report for the General Assembly, but it does not by itself alter Tennessee Code provisions on civil actions, damages caps, or compensation limits. Its impact is to place the issue of noneconomic damages and catastrophic injury compensation on a formal review timeline, potentially setting up future legislation that could revise those limits.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, though not unanimously. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 7-2, then cleared floor consideration 26-6 on third consideration and later passed regular calendar passage 73-20. That pattern indicates broad bipartisan acceptance of the idea of studying the issue, with a smaller group of members opposing or withholding support.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be whether the state should revisit and potentially raise limits on noneconomic damages and catastrophic-loss compensation. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a reasonable information-gathering step before making any policy change, while opponents may have been concerned that the report could be a precursor to increasing liability exposure, higher insurance costs, or broader tort reform changes. Because the bill only requires a report, disagreement seems to center more on the policy direction implied by the study than on the reporting requirement itself.