Josh Hurlbert — Chairman Josh Hurlbert is introduced and addressed as the committee chair, then he opens the discussion by asking about the timing and scope of immunity—specifically whether it applies before construction begins and what happens after project completion.
Josh Hurlbert — The member addressed the chair while being recognized to ask a question, with the chair acknowledging the next questioner.
Josh Hurlbert — The witness responds to Representative Hurlbert by discussing how jurors might view construction-zone safety and contractor signage, and then the chair thanks the witness and closes the questioning.
Josh Hurlbert — Josh Hurlbert is addressed as Mr. Chair twice during the same broader exchange, with brief acknowledgments of thanks marking the close of testimony and the surrounding proceedings.
Josh Hurlbert — A brief exchange in which a member thanks the chair, and Chair Josh Hurlbert responds by asking members to keep questions short so the meeting can stay on schedule for pre-scheduled events.
Danny Busick — The vice chair was called during the roll call.
Eric Woods — Named in the roll call.
Eric Woods — Representative Eric Woods asked about how often contractors are sued or named in these kinds of cases, whether similar immunity provisions exist elsewhere, and then followed up to better understand the bill’s language on limiting contractor liability. He specifically questioned the post-completion immunity clause, the scope of the provision in lines 38 through 40, and how it applies in the context of transportation torts.
Phil Amato — Marked present in the roll call.
Phil Amato — Representative Amato was recognized and then repeatedly pressed the point that the bill appears intended to provide immunity to contractors before they begin work, arguing that a contractor who has merely been awarded a contract but has not yet stepped onto the project should not be dragged into litigation. He questioned how liability could attach before any work is performed, cited the bill’s language about acting within the scope of a government contract, and argued that dismissal is the remedy if there is no negligence or duty, though he noted the burden and attorney fees involved in getting a case thrown out. He also suggested the sponsor and witness should clarify the bill’s language if needed, while emphasizing that the discussion was focused on negligence and pre-work immunity.
Mitch Boggs — Named in the roll call.
Mitch Boggs — Representative Boggs asks about the cap and notes that plaintiffs often target the cap amount.
Bob Bromley — Named in the roll call.
Bob Bromley — Bob Bromley says he is confused after reading the short bill and asks what he is missing, indicating he expects to hear clarification from witnesses.
Bob Bromley — Representative Bromley questioned how broadly the bill applies to work under a construction contract, asking whether it covers all work during the project, not just pre-construction activities such as signage or other related tasks. He then stated his reading that the bill would extend state-like immunity to private contractors and limit recovery to the $500,000 cap. He followed up by asking whether contractors would still remain liable during the work phase for issues such as barriers or shoulders, noting that the answer may depend on the specific facts.
Bob Bromley — Representative Bromley asks whether the witness is an EPC contractor and references the I-70 project.
Michael Burton — Named in the roll call.
Michael Burton — Michael Burton questioned whether a similar bill had been filed last year and pressed why the current proposal had been narrowed from a broader version to focus mainly on MoDOT. He expressed concern that removing other covered entities and limiting the bill to contractors tied to MoDOT made the legislation too narrow, especially in light of projects like the I-70 expansion.
Michael Burton — Representative Burton questioned the need for the bill and argued that it should not be read as protecting non-negligent actors. He discussed tort elements such as duty and breach, the circumstances under which contractors can be named in a lawsuit, and criticized the statutory $500,000 cap as unfair and inflationary. He also noted that gross negligence cases should be treated differently, referenced a St. Louis case as an example, and urged the body to revisit the statutory limits.
Michael Burton — Asked a question/inquired and thanked Tanya for her testimony.
Michael Burton — Representative Burton questions whether the proposed cap could make it difficult for injured people to find attorneys, potentially causing some to forgo filing lawsuits because the expected recovery would be too low to justify legal representation. The discussion centers on whether the cap would deter claims by making cases unattractive to attorneys.
Michael Burton — Representative Michael Burton thanked Michael Brown for testifying and then continued by emphasizing that Brown’s situation has been ongoing for more than four years and criticizing MoDOT for not taking care of him.
Steve Butz — Named in the roll call.
Steve Butz — The chair recognizes Representative Butz, who then begins his questioning of the witness, focusing on the examples presented and expressing concern about the first example.
Steve Butz — Steve Butz focused on the central issue of when sovereign immunity applies and how that affects a contractor’s exposure to litigation. He noted the insurer’s duty to defend even if the contractor is ultimately not liable, and raised concern about being tied up in litigation, asking whether a contractor would be named before work began.
Steve Butz — The chair addresses Representative Butz as the next questioner.
Steve Butz — The speaker addresses Representative Butz and complains that the testimony is off-topic.
Steve Butz — The speaker again addresses Representative Butz while criticizing the testimony as off-topic.
Steve Butz — The speaker jokes about Representative Butz being the other insurance nerd in the room and then asks him a question about Indiana.
Steve Butz — Referenced as 'Mr. Butts' in the discussion about immunity and the $500,000 cap.
Steve Butz — Referenced as having previously discussed the $500,000 amount.
Steve Butz — The speaker says they would like to speak with him after the hearing.
Carolyn Caton — Likely the member referred to as "Caden" in the roll call; marked present.
Carolyn Caton — Jared Hankinson says the exchange involving Representative Caiton added clarity.
Darin Chappell — Darin Chappell is first noted present during roll call, then immediately asks for clarification on the bill, specifically whether sovereign immunity begins at the notice to proceed and how the timing works.
Darin Chappell — Representative Burton is invited to ask a question and then questions the witness about the bill, including whether the witness has fully reviewed it and when immunity begins. The discussion continues with a response indicating that Burton’s reading of the bill appears correct.
Scott Cupps — Scott Cupps is mentioned in the roll call, appearing twice in close succession as the same member reference.
Steve Jordan — Steve Jordan was marked present during the roll call.
Steve Jordan — Representative Steve Jordan questioned how the proposed bill would affect contractor liability, asking whether contractors would remain liable once work begins, whether they could still be sued for negligence, and whether the bill would limit damages through a sovereign immunity cap for private contractors.
Steve Jordan — Was called on to inquire.
Steve Jordan — Jared Hankinson says the exchange involving Representative Jordan added clarity.
Don Mayhew — Named in the roll call.
Louis Riggs — Named in the roll call.
Brenda Shields — Named in the roll call.
Brenda Shields — Brenda Shields repeatedly sought clarification on how the bill’s liability and immunity provisions would apply to contractors. She asked whether contractors are protected from liability before work begins, whether negligence during construction would still create liability, and whether a contractor could still be sued after completion if faulty work later caused an accident. After receiving clarification, she thanked the witness for helping her understand the law.
Kem Smith — Likely the member speaking when saying "I'm here."
Kem Smith — He asks whether liability currently begins when the contractor is awarded the project.
Kem Smith — Asks whether a narrower immunity definition would improve the bill.
Cameron Parker — Introduced himself and identified his district.
several witnesses — The presenter says additional witnesses will testify, including online testimony.