SB 211 creates a new Utah evidentiary rule for civil tort cases involving damages, generally barring the admission of collateral source evidence. In practice, the bill says that juries and courts may not hear evidence that a plaintiff’s medical bills or other injury-related costs were paid, reduced, waived, written off, or otherwise satisfied by a third party, negotiated rate, or public program such as Medicare or Medicaid. It also excludes evidence of the existence or amount of collateral sources, health care provider liens, subrogation rights, and whether the plaintiff personally paid or remains obligated to pay medical expenses.
The bill applies to tort actions for damages, but it does not apply to malpractice actions against health care providers under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act. It further prohibits defendants from reducing, limiting, or denying settlement offers or claim valuations based on amounts actually paid for medical care, including discounted or written-off amounts. If requested, the court must instruct the jury not to consider or speculate about collateral sources, liens, or the plaintiff’s personal financial obligations for treatment. The bill takes effect May 6, 2026.
SB 211 enacts Section 78B-5-621 in the Utah Code and changes what evidence is admissible in civil tort litigation. It limits the use of collateral source information in trial and settlement valuation, affecting plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, and health care providers involved in personal injury cases. The bill also creates a specific carve-out for medical malpractice actions, leaving existing malpractice rules intact while broadly expanding protections in other tort cases.
The available voting history suggests the bill received generally favorable treatment in committee and on the floor, though not unanimous support. It advanced out of Senate committee on strong votes and passed second reading with a clear majority, indicating broad support for the bill’s core policy of keeping collateral source evidence out of tort trials. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote pattern suggests the measure was viewed positively overall.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on evidence that defendants may want to use to show the actual economic impact of an injury, especially evidence of discounted medical bills, write-offs, and public-program adjustments. Opponents may argue that excluding this information can affect fairness in damages calculations and settlement negotiations, while supporters likely view the bill as preventing juries from being influenced by insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payments. Another possible area of debate is the treatment of health care provider liens and subrogation rights, since the bill shields those matters from disclosure during the action.