Latest news with #TexansforLawsuitReform
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top Texas donor slams Speaker Burrows, House members after legislative setbacks
The Houston Chronicle is part of an initiative with ProPublica and The Texas Tribune to report on how power is wielded in Texas. Leaders for Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the biggest donor in Texas politics, say they have a simple strategy when trying to persuade state lawmakers: 'We never make enemies,' President Lee Parsley said in late April. 'We only make friends.' But now that the Texas legislative session has concluded without lawmakers passing any of the group's three high priority bills, TLR is taking a decidedly different tact. In a blistering letter to members, Parsley called out by name the lawmakers he said stifled TLR's agenda and all but promised to take them on in primary campaigns next March. He laid much of the blame on House Speaker Dustin Burrows' shoulders. [Houston megadonor Dick Weekley and his group Texans for Lawsuit Reform are losing in the Legislature after 30 years of wins] The group's political action committee 'must redouble our efforts to elect strong, ethical, legislators who value a civil justice system that has integrity,' Parsley wrote in his letter to the group's members last week. Its signature priority, Senate Bill 30 – an effort to rein in medical costs in personal injury lawsuits – died after the House and Senate passed vastly different versions of the bill and could not reconcile the differences. 'I think it's fair to say we may look at backing some primary challengers,' Parsley said. 'We'll take a good look at what happened toward the end of session and decide how to engage politically, but the people who did not support TLR's bill fully are certainly people who will be a focus for us.' The legislative strikeout on these civil justice bills marks a low point for TLR, which won massive rewrites of the Texas civil justice code in the 1990s and early 2000s, spending millions to elect like-minded lawmakers and lobby them to pass the legislation. At its height, the group – led by Houston's most prolific political donor, the homebuilder Richard Weekley – was largely seen as synonymous with the Texas Republican Party, positioning itself as the political voice of the state's business community. The group's political action committee remains the top political spender in the state, spending $21.2 million on legislative races in 2024. The tone of its letter suggests the group could be on a warpath in the March primary elections. Instead of protecting incumbents, TLR could begin targeting members who bucked the group's wishes. 'It did feel a little strange because TLR has basically gotten everything they wanted for a long time now, and the one time it seems like they didn't, it feels like they're throwing a tantrum about it,' said Andrew Cates, a Democratic legislative lawyer and former lobbyist in Austin. 'Everybody else would have been licking their wounds and hanging back and trying to make nice.' TLR's letter alleged Burrows placed skeptical lawmakers on the key committees charged with shepherding SB30. It also called out state Rep. Marc LaHood, R-San Antonio, the main holdout on the House committee that forced significant revisions to the legislation; and state Rep. Mitch Little, R-Lewisville, who helped win passage of an amendment that TLR said made the bill 'ineffective.' It named more than a dozen other Republican members as well, several of whom defeated TLR-backed candidates in last year's GOP primaries. Cates said the group's criticism of Burrows was notable, since lobbying groups rarely take those kinds of disputes public. Burrows has been endorsed by President Donald Trump for another term, and speakers have broad power to block legislation in future sessions. 'The political capital is going to be really wasted if you come at him and miss,' Cates said. When asked if TLR would support a primary candidate against the speaker, Parsley paused and said, 'Not ready to comment on that.' Other lawmakers responded to the accusations with barbs of their own. 'Simply put, TLR lies,' LaHood wrote in a response on X. Little said in an interview, 'Obviously, they were upset with the outcome and looking for people to blame or attack, but I'll just say on my part, I forgive them and I'm not offended by any of it. I understand that their policy agenda failed.' Burrows' office did not respond to requests for comment. But Little said TLR's claim that Burrows led the effort to tank the legislation is 'not true in any way.' This year, TLR pushed three bills: SB30, which advanced the farthest but was significantly watered down as the session wore on; SB39, which dealt with civil liability for trucking companies; and SB779, which would crack down on 'public nuisance' lawsuits that cities and counties sometimes file against companies on behalf of the public. SB30 started off ambitious. The original draft, passed quickly by the Senate, would have required appellate courts to reduce or review large jury verdicts, capped medical costs by tying them to what Medicare pays out for services and combined several different lines of action for plaintiffs into one newly defined category of 'mental anguish.' One by one, each of those measures were cut. Still, even the watered-down version of SB30 did not have enough votes to get out of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence, said state Rep. Joe Moody, one of five Democrats on the 11-member committee. The bill looked like it would languish in the committee without a vote. In its letter, TLR blamed Burrows for the committee rosters, saying his selections made it more difficult to pass the legislation. But Moody said it was Burrows who revived the bill, wanting to ensure that at least some portion of TLR's agenda made it to the House floor. On May 20, Burrows urged the committee members to renew discussions on SB30 and come up with a version that they could agree on, Moody recalled. What resulted was a 12-hour negotiation that Little was also asked to join, though he was not a member of the committee. The outcome of that meeting was a stripped-down bill that mainly would do one thing: require judges to automatically admit certain benchmarks to establish reasonable medical charges. The bill passed through the committee, with Moody and LaHood in support. TLR's letter also blasted LaHood's performance on the committee, saying it was concerned from the start that he 'was not philosophically aligned with the business community, and we were right.' It accused LaHood of fleeing the committee meeting to avoid having to vote on TLR's other two bills, meaning 'both bills would die in committee.' 'I did not 'flee' the JCJN committee room after SB30 was voted out,' LaHood wrote in response, saying his opposition to those bills was clear. 'As the Chairman knew, I left to lay out a bill in another committee. Afterward, I returned, and we continued to vote out more bills… I do not run from a fight or a tough vote.' LaHood said he was 'appalled by the breadth of what TLR was attempting to codify into law,' and he said 'TLR's ham-fisted attempt to shirk responsibility for their poorly drafted, poorly conceived bills' impugned his character along with Burrows, Little and the entire House chamber. State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, who chaired the committee, put out a statement clarifying the committee meeting. He said he knew LaHood's position, which meant the bills did not have the votes to pass, and decided to shelf the bills. 'That was my decision and my decision alone,' Leach said. Committee records back up that account. They show that LaHood temporarily left the meeting and that, in his absence, two other bills failed because they did not get a majority vote, but after LaHood returned, Leach called them up for a vote again – and both passed. The other lawmaker to draw TLR's ire was Little. After the revised version of SB30 advanced to the House floor, TLR suffered one final defeat. Moody and Little were concerned about making evidence automatically admissible, since that requirement is rare in Texas law. On the floor, they introduced an amendment that would allow judges to exercise some discretion about whether to admit the evidence. For example, they would be able to consider whether the evidence was relevant to their specific case. TLR described it as a 'gutting amendment.' The group accused Little of reversing course after negotiating the bill that passed the committee. The bill 'would be killed by' Little, Parsley wrote. Moody and Little both said that was not true; they had made it clear the issue was not totally resolved during those negotiations, both lawmakers said. Little said he supported the change out of 'loyalty to the law and the application of the rules of evidence.' The House passed the amendment on a razor thin margin, 72-70, gutting the bill in TLR's eyes. Little said the vote showed that the House probably did not have the votes to pass the bill without the amendment. 'There was still one chance to save the bill,' Parsley wrote, referring to the conference committee charged with reconciling differences in the House and Senate versions. But Burrows put Little on the committee as the swing vote, ensuring the amendment would remain, he said. The House lawmakers refused to cut the amendment, and the bill died. Two days after lawmakers adjourned, TLR sent out its strongly worded letter. If TLR decides to go after the 17 GOP lawmakers who supported the amendment, it could open a new rift among House Republicans. That cohort is coming off a grueling 2024 primary season fought over issues like Gov. Greg Abbott's school voucher plan and Attorney General Ken Paxton's impeachment. TLR invested $14 million in the primary cycle last year, but it was on the losing side of many of those campaigns, spending roughly $6 million to back incumbents in races they lost. Among the large freshman bloc that swept into office in those campaigns, 10 cast votes against TLR by backing Moody's amendment. Those candidates had already defeated TLR's money in one primary and may have been less beholden to them than those in the past. LaHood and Little were among them. TLR gave $320,000 to Little's opponent, Kronda Thimesch, and $99,500 to former state Rep. Steve Allison, who lost to LaHood. The political action committee, however, gave money to LaHood for his general election campaign. The group's single biggest beneficiary during the primary campaign was Jeff Bauknight, doling out nearly $1 million to back his campaign for a house seat in Victoria. He lost to state Rep. AJ Louderback, R-Victoria – who voted for Moody's amendment. State Reps. Andy Hopper, Shelley Luther, Brent Money, Mike Olcott, Katrina Pierson and Wes Virdell all were namechecked in TLR's letter of what it called a 'bad session.' Each beat TLR-backed candidates in their primary campaigns last year. Others listed by TLR included veteran members who TLR has supported in the past. TLR's losses last primary season may portend trouble in trying to target members who opposed them this year. But the group still has a massive war chest of $26.8 million, according to campaign finance records. It usually reports raising about $6 million after a legislative session wraps up. It will have to disclose how much more money it has raised this year in July. 'We understand the realities of Texas politics. I think that what we're doing is the right thing.' Parsley said. 'If the litigation environment remains the same for a long period of time, they will all realize that we were right about this all along, and they will wish they'd paid more attention to us.' Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas House bill intends to make it harder for victims with major injuries to receive compensation
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways The Brief A proposed Texas law would make it more challenging for victims with catastrophic injuries to receive damages related to things like pain and suffering, and mental anguish. The bill is proposed by Representative Greg Bonnen, a Republican from Galveston. There was emotional testimony in the state capital today as victim after victim told lawmakers about how pain and suffering is real, and the state should not add to the difficulty of getting that form of compensation. AUSTIN, Texas - A proposed Texas law would make it more challenging for victims with catastrophic injuries to receive damages related to things like pain and suffering, and mental anguish. The bill is proposed by Representative Greg Bonnen, a Republican from Galveston. Texans for lawsuit reform testified in favor of the bill, but there was emotional testimony in the state capital today as victim after victim told lawmakers about how pain and suffering is real, and the state should not add to the difficulty of getting that form of compensation. What they're saying In favor of HB 4806 Bonnen, who is also a doctor, argues the bill is a necessary reform. "The bill has changed substantially since first introduced," said Bonnen. "It will allow providers to be able to take care of people who have been injured and not dragged into the litigation process." The other side Dick Trabulsi is co-founder and Chairman of Texans for Lawsuit Reform and does not support the fact that loved ones would be unable to receive full compensation. "It would make no sense for the entire business community, and it is the entire business community that supports it, to propose legislation where any of our loved ones would not be able to access the courts, and receive full compensation," said Trabulsi. Roberta Gallaread's late husband Roberta Gallaread told state lawmakers that House Bill 4806 would devastate people who face disfiguring injuries like her husband did in 2022. Their apartment caught fire after property managers ignored reports of gas leaks. Gallaread was able to reach a settlement in her case because the company knew a jury would likely award damages for pain and suffering and mental anguish. But under the proposed bill it would become more challenging for attorneys to make a case for non-economic damage. "Reports of gas leaks were ignored. That negligence led to the devastating fire that left Alonzo's body 53% burned. He spent 106 days in Parkland Hospital's burn unit. This fire changed his life forever," said Gallaread. "He lived with emotional scars but, unfortunately, Alonzo passed away Feb 20, 2025." Brianna Blake's emotional testimony in sign language Brianna Blake from Midland gave an emotional testimony using sign language. Blake's mother, Jennifer Blake, translated that she was in a crash with an 18-wheeler when she was 12 years old in 2013. "Doctors told my mom I would always be vegetative and never wake up. I woke up," said Brianna Blake. Jennifer Blake asked what many who oppose the bill were wondering. "I hear them complain about the rising costs of insurance, but if they did not put profit above safety, leading to these injuries and deaths, wouldn't their costs be lower?" Jessica Sprague's daughter Jessica Sprague from Houston testified that her two-year-old son, Colton, was killed at 16 months old when a truck driver with drugs in his system ran a stop sign and T-boned their car. "Colton passed at 2:02 PM. When we said goodbye, we couldn't hold him because an autopsy had to be performed." Her husband, Jason Sprague, spoke about the tragic circumstances of their son. "If the company that killed Colton wanted lower insurance premiums they should not have hired a drug user to drive their truck." What's next Ware Wendell with Texas Watch says the committee made the unusual move to cut off testimony from victims. The committee will reconvene to hear invited testimony this evening. The Source Information in this article was provided by the 89th Texas Legislature.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas tort reform proposal could curb pricey verdicts in personal injury cases. Here's why
Texas Republican lawmakers are pushing to overhaul how juries award damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases, generating a flurry of spending on advertisements for and against the proposal by business and legal groups. Senate Bill 30, by Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, aims to restrain a 'rise in substantial verdicts' by limiting the medical costs that plaintiffs can claim to 300% of Medicare reimbursement rates and raising the standard of evidence for noneconomic damages for mental anguish and physical pain and suffering. The tort reform bill would address 'a fundamental unfairness in civil trials over torts' and 'an unstable legal environment that is driving up costs for Texas families and businesses,' Schwertner, an orthopedic surgeon, told his colleagues on the Senate floor. The Senate passed the measure by a 20-11 party-line vote Wednesday evening, advancing the bill to the House. Introduced soon after the state's new business courts began operating, SB 30 is part of a broader effort by Republican state leaders to make Texas more attractive to corporations by limiting avenues for costly litigation against businesses. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the three-term Republican who presides over the Senate, has designated the bill a priority alongside SB 31, which would make it harder for shareholders to sue publicly-traded companies, and SB 39, which would change how and when trucking companies can be held liable for accidents involving their drivers. All three bills are supported by Texans for Lawsuit Reform, an influential political action committee that received $1 million from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk in October. Musk moved both companies' headquarters to the Austin area last year. More: Will a Texas bill shield trucking companies from crash lawsuits? It depends on who you ask Supporters of SB 30, such as the Lone Star Economic Alliance, say the bill will " bring balance back to the courtroom, protect small businesses, and reduce inflated costs that ultimately burden all Texans.' But the legislation has generated significant controversy, as was shown during seven hours of public testimony at a Senate State Affairs committee hearing and two hours of debate on the Senate floor. Democratic lawmakers and civil plaintiff attorneys say the bill would let defendants escape proportional punishment for wrongs they commit, particularly in sexual assault cases. Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, argued that SB 30 would decrease potential awards low enough to keep lawyers from taking some cases. 'Your constituents, from Brownsville down to El Paso, are going to have to face the reality that they're not going to have access to the courthouse because lawyers are not going to do it,' Gutierrez said on the floor. 'They're not going to go through the expense of having to fund these things if these damages are going to be done in such a way that their clients are not going to be made whole in a real way.' The Texas Trial Lawyers Association, a major donor to both Democrats as well as Republicans, is at the forefront of opposition to the measure. The organization's president, Jack Walker, told the American-Statesman that he believes the bill is a 'money grab' for insurance companies. 'The more severely injured or damaged a victim is, the more this bill prohibits their recovery,' Walker said in a phone interview. Consumer watchdog group Texas Watch also testified in opposition to the bill. Schwertner's proposal limits the medical costs that plaintiffs can claim to 300% of the 2025 Medicare reimbursement rate with an adjustment for inflation. The provision is meant to prevent lawyers from 'colluding with providers who overdiagnose, overbill and overtreat' victims to come up with inflated medical charges, the bill's author said. It would also require lawyers to disclose their relationship to doctors involved in treatment in certain cases. Opponents of the bill pointed out that doctors sometimes refuse to treat accident victims who can't pay for their costs upfront. Gutierrez — an attorney who founded a legal firm with offices in Austin, San Antonio and McAllen — said that in personal injury cases he has occasionally represented, 'I'd send (victims) to the one doctor that I knew that would sign a letter of protection and not take any money, because these people didn't have any money, they didn't have insurance,' he said. Noneconomic damages are also a point of contention in the proposed legislation. Currently, juries can look at each of six different categories, including disfigurement, loss of companionship and loss of enjoyment, to determine noneconomic damages. SB 30 would combine those six into two — past and future 'mental or emotional pain and anguish' and 'physical pain and suffering' — and raise the standards of proof for each. Past and future reputation damage is also included in the law. Plaintiffs would need to prove their injuries through medical records to back up claims of suffering, or, in the case of sexual assault victims, show they made a 'prior consistent statement' or have documents proving their injuries. Schwertner added the additional language regarding sexual assault victims in a floor amendment after Sens. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, and Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, raised concerns during the committee hearing. Walker, the Texas Trial Lawyers Association president, argues that the added language isn't enough to ensure fair compensation in such cases, in which decades may have passed between the assault and the litigation and thus medical evidence is difficult to obtain. 'In cases of grooming, most of the time, there is no consistent statement because the groomer requires silence,' Walker said. 'The victim, during childhood, often doesn't realize what is happening to them.' Several pro-business interest groups are advocating for the bill, including Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a political action committee that is a top donor to Texas Republicans and contributed $25 million to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the 2024 elections. Additionally, the Lone Star Economic Alliance and a national business group, Protecting American Consumers Together, each announced six-figure and seven-figure ad buys, respectively, this month. 'Informed juries are better juries,' reads a billboard sponsored by the Lone Star Economic Alliance. Countering that, a new and little-known group called Citizens for Integrity and Accountability ran a television ad opposing SB 30 on Fox News, Brad Johnson of The Texan reported April 3. The ad says the bill 'limits damages that victims can get from Chinese corporations, drug companies and priests found guilty of child molestation.' During floor debate, Schwertner and Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, rejected claims that the bill would prevent Chinese-owned companies from facing accountability in the U.S. A major concern of the bill's supporters are so-called 'nuclear verdicts,' which happen when juries award damages of more than $10 million in a single personal injury or death case. In his intent statement for SB 30, Schwertner wrote that 'lack of clear guidance' in the law 'makes juries susceptible to being misled by arbitrary figures or comparisons to unrelated cases that distort their perception of fair compensation.' To address this, the bill directs that noneconomic damages are 'prohibited from being used to penalize or punish a defendant, make an example to others, or serve a social good,' as distinct from punitive damages. Opponents of the bill argue that it would limit their ability to force defendants to fix their behavior, whether through a major lawsuit or the threat of one. 'We can say, 'You have got to make policy changes, or this is what you're facing,'' Dallas-based attorney Charla Aldous said in the March 31 Senate hearing. 'Then, after we get a nuclear verdict, we can use that verdict to effectuate the policy changes.' Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Angleton, is carrying SB 30's companion, House Bill 4806, in the lower chamber. Bonnen is a close ally of House Speaker Dustin Burrows and chairs of the House Appropriations Committee. Like Schwertner, he is also a physician. The bill has not yet been referred to a House committee. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas tort reform bill generates controversy, spending war
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Will a Texas bill shield trucking companies from crash lawsuits? It depends on who you ask
A Buda educator who was injured last year when a concrete pump truck crashed into a school bus is among more than two dozen survivors and family members who are opposing a bill that could change how and when commercial vehicle companies are liable for such collisions. 'I closed my eyes, and I held my daughter really tight,' Victoria Limon, a special education aide and mother at Tom Green Elementary, told members of the Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday as she recalled the school bus crash in which she was injured and which also killed a 5-year-old child and a 33-year-old doctoral student. 'If the trucking company had only done its due diligence and known to do a background check and known that its driver was on drugs that day,' Limon added. Critics of Senate Bill 39, including the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the consumer watchdog group Texas Watch, argue that the legislation would allow trucking companies to avoid liability by hiding behind their drivers. But proponents, including the trucking industry and the influential group Texans for Lawsuit Reform, say the bill protects trucking companies from frivolous and costly lawsuits that have risen dramatically in recent years. The bill repeals an amendment to a 2021 law that was intended to be a compromise among trial lawyers, victims and the trucking industry on civil lawsuits. House Bill 19 allowed trucking companies to request civil lawsuits filed against them to be split into two parts. In the first, a jury rules on the negligence of the driver and the company, and decides on compensatory damages, which are meant to cover the plaintiff's medical and psychological costs. In the second part, the jury rules on punitive damages, which are meant to punish a company if it is found to have recklessly or intentionally cut corners. The compromise amendment allowed plaintiffs' lawyers to present evidence to juries about a driver's condition — like being drunk or ineligible to drive — as proof of a company's negligence. But the trucking industry has argued that if companies are paying compensatory damages based on their drivers' missteps, their own safety records should not be introduced until the second part of the trial. 'We have companies that are pulled into these lawsuits where they were not at fault, but it doesn't matter,' Texas Trucking Association President John Esparza told the American-Statesman. The bill's author, Sen. Brian Birdwell, a Granbury Republican, did not respond to a request for comment. Former state Rep. Eddie Lucio III, the sponsor of the bill amendment that SB 39 would repeal, has said he supports the new legislation. Now a paid lobbyist for Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Lucio said in his Wednesday testimony that he believes his past legislation had an adverse effect on small-business owners, largely by contributing to crippling insurance rates. Insurance rates have increased by 73% for commercial vehicles since 2017, a rate very similar to the increase for all vehicles during that same span, according to a Texas Department of Insurance 2024 report. The trial lawyers association has rejected the claim that civil suits are the cause for the state's insurance rate inflation, attributing the blame to climate change, rising vehicle costs and malpractice within the insurance industry itself. 'We are on decade three or four of tort reform in Texas,' Texas Trial Lawyers Association president Jack Walker said. 'Never ever do we see insurance rates go down.' Instead, Walker argues that the bill would let trucking companies escape financial liability for any misdeeds by removing possibly damning evidence until the second phase of the trial, thus centering the question of responsibility on drivers. 'It would let the bad trucking companies escape liability almost completely,' Walker said. After the school bus crash, Limon and other parents filed multiple civil lawsuits against the company that owned the concrete pump truck that an investigation found caused the accident, accusing it of negligence. The truck driver, 42-year-old Jerry Hernandez, is facing a negligent homicide charge. At the time of the crash, Hernandez had a suspended driver's license due to a failed drug test. He told investigators that he had smoked marijuana and done 'a small amount' of cocaine the night before the crash. All cases remain pending. Scott Hendler, the attorney representing Limon, said SB 39 would hinder a crash victim's ability to hold trucking companies fully accountable in court by allowing the omission of crucial evidence that demonstrates how the company operates. 'There are more bad actors than just the drivers,' he said. 'All the bad actors that contribute should be on the verdict form and assigned some amount of responsibility.' If the bill doesn't limit a victim from going after a negligent company, 'then that language should be in the bill,' Hendler said. Mark Macias, the attorney for Hernandez's employer, did not respond to a request for comment. Justin Fohn, the attorney for Hernandez, declined to comment. The debate over the bill also comes a month after a semi-truck crashed into merging traffic on Interstate 35 in North Austin, killing five people and sparking several lawsuits against the driver and the trucking company he worked for. A preliminary report released Thursday by the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the crash occurred because the driver failed to slow down. "All aspects of the crash remain under investigation while the NTSB determines the probable cause, with the intent of issuing safety recommendations to prevent similar events,' the report said. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas Senate Bill 39 could change how truck crash lawsuits work
