Nevada, Texas focused on truck liability
Injury liability reform that would benefit the Texas trucking industry is progressing through the statehouse. The issue has been highlighted as a priority for a fix by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.
Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, and Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, are behind legislation in their respective statehouse chambers to put plaintiffs and defendants on even footing. The Senate bill is SB39, and the House bill is HB4688.
“Senate Bill 39 seeks to make commercial motor vehicle lawsuits more consistent and uniform by repealing those exceptions to the admission rule that were amended onto HB19,” Birdwell explained during Senate floor discussion on the bill. “The removal of the exceptions would appropriately codify the admission rule.”
In an effort to fix the problem, Senate lawmakers voted 21-10 to advance SB39, which would remove from statute the admission rule exceptions.
Fixing existing law
The problem legislators are looking to address stems from a 2021 law, formerly HB19, that was intended to reduce lawsuit abuse against truck drivers and motor carriers but that never materialized.
The four-year-old rule requires a court to dismiss a lawsuit against a truck operator if the injury or death of another person was caused while the operator was carrying out his or her duties “within the scope of employment.”
For cases that go to trial, a bifurcated process was established. The term is used to describe a trial split into two phases. The initial phase focuses solely on the incident under the state’s negligence standard.
Trials that make it to the second phase can take into consideration the company’s past. Allowable evidence during this phase could include an employer’s failure to comply with an applicable local, state or federal regulation or standard.
The issue being addressed this year by state lawmakers resulted from an amendment that was included in the 2021 law.
The change incorporated exceptions to the admission rule that allowed plaintiff’s attorneys to introduce into the first phase of a bifurcated commercial vehicle collision trial evidence where trucking companies knowingly hired a negligent driver.
Legislators have since found the exception in statute actually ended up blocking the 2021 law’s framework from being used in trial.
OOIDA backs the bill
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association supports the action to help protect truck drivers from nuclear verdicts and to restore common sense and fairness to the state’s legal system.
The Association issued a Call to Action to Texas members encouraging them to contact their state lawmakers to support the legislation. The communication states that the legislation would allow only evidence related to proving who is at fault for a crash to be admitted during the trial’s first phase, rather than information that has no basis in determining the facts of a case.
“In recent years, nuclear verdicts against the trucking industry have exceeded tens of millions of dollars. These verdicts drive up costs across the board for the industry and encourage trial lawyers to further target small-business truckers,” OOIDA said.
SB39 has moved to the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee. HB4688 has advanced from a House committee and awaits possible consideration on the chamber floor.
Nevada
The Nevada Senate voted to narrowly approve a bad bill that would soon double the minimum liability insurance requirement for Nevada truckers.
State law requires $750,000 minimum liability insurance for affected truck drivers.
The Senate voted 11-10 to advance to the Assembly a bill that would increase the liability insurance minimum for Nevada-based truck drivers to $1 million the first of the year. Additional increases to $1.25 million and $1.5 million would occur in January 2028 and January 2030.
Trucking groups sharp in criticism
During a recent Senate committee hearing, Nevada Trucking Association President Paul Enos told lawmakers SB180 is a bad bill.
In prepared remarks, Enos said that while the intent may be to enhance financial responsibility, “the data and practical implications reveal this measure to be an arbitrary and burdensome overreach that will harm Nevada’s small businesses and trucking industry without clear justification.”
He said a better option would be to leave any changes in liability requirements for commercial vehicles up to Congress.
OOIDA also voiced staunch opposition to SB180. In a recent Call to Action to Nevada members, OOIDA said any increase in minimum insurance requirements is wholly unnecessary, would do nothing to improve highway safety, would needlessly jeopardize countless blue-collar jobs and would destroy additional small and family-owned businesses.
Trucking groups aren’t the only ones to communicate concern about the bill. The American Property Casualty Insurance Association also opposes it.
Statehouse opposition
Sen. Ira Hansen, R-Sparks, led opposition to the bill in the Senate. He cited the excessive insurance amount that insurance companies do not cover and the competitive disadvantage it would create for Nevada-based trucking companies.
“In practice, SB180 would require truckers to get two separate policies to get to $1.5 million,” Hansen said during recent discussion on the bill.
He pointed out in committee and on the Senate floor that the federal government requires half that amount – $750,000.
“We’re forcing Nevada companies to pay insurance none of their competitors are required to pay,” Hansen said. “To force this kind of coverage on Nevada-based companies is wrong. It’s unfair. Let’s protect Nevada businesses.”
In the end, the bill passed by one vote. SB180 has since moved to the Assembly Growth and Infrastructure Committee.
OOIDA President Todd Spencer said what the bill amounts to is very straightforward.
“This is nothing but bad news. It is certainly bad news for truckers in Nevada and elsewhere,” Spencer said. “We need to redouble our effort in the Assembly to make sure lawmakers know this is ill-advised.”
At press time, the bill had not been scheduled for Assembly committee consideration. LL