House Bill 10-67 hearing: sponsor seeks limited extension of sovereign immunity to contractors; trial attorneys urge caution

Representative Cameron Parker told the Commerce Committee that House Bill 10-67 would extend sovereign-tort immunity to private contractors performing work under state contracts but that she planned to file an amendment to narrow the proposal to a limited set of participants and timeframes.

“Now as this is written, it's very broad and I plan to file an amendment to limit this not only, timeframe, but the participants that will be granted this sovereign immunity,” Parker said. She described contractor concerns that insurance costs rise when contractors who have done nothing on a project are nevertheless added to lawsuits related to highway or road incidents tied to state projects.

Industry witnesses testified in support. Dale Williams of the Missouri Asphalt Pavement Association and other contractors described examples they said showed contractors being drawn into multimillion-dollar payouts where the contractor followed MoDOT or other agency plans; Williams recounted cases in which contractors defending claims incurred long legal expenses and sometimes multimillion-dollar payouts despite arguing they had no operational responsibility for the accident. Witnesses said broad litigation risk raises insurance costs and can discourage participation in public projects.

Opposition testimony from Mark Parrish, an attorney and board member of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, described the bill’s existing language as “breathtakingly broad.” Parrish said the bill as drafted could provide immunity to private contractors for a wide range of negligent conduct outside the current statutory exceptions and urged the committee and sponsor to narrow the language and to preserve victims’ recovery when serious harm occurs. Parrish cited examples — including food-service or medical-contract situations — where he said broad immunity could leave injured people without full recovery.

Representative questions focused on how sovereign immunity and existing statutory exceptions work, and on the sponsor’s planned amendment to narrow the bill. Representative Sites and Representative Miller asked whether the proposed language already contained statutory exceptions for negligent operation of motor vehicles and dangerous conditions of land; Parker and other committee members confirmed the bill incorporates those exceptions and that the sponsor intends to further limit application by amendment.

No committee vote on HB 10-67 is recorded on the transcript; the committee heard multiple industry witnesses in support and a single opposition witness representing trial attorneys.