House committee bill would ease liquor-liability mandate, add DUI penalties and mitigation program

Representative Jordan, sponsor of House Bill 3497, outlined a package of insurance and criminal‑law changes on the House floor Thursday that he said is intended to relieve rising liquor‑liability premiums while addressing drunk‑driving harms.

"Back in 2017, act 45 was signed into law, and what that did was mandate that any establishment selling alcohol for on premise consumption was required to have liquor liability ... with at least $1,000,000 of coverage," Jordan said as he described the bill’s dual goals of premium relief and public safety reforms.

The bill would create a mitigation program that lets licensees reduce the required coverage below the $1,000,000 mandate if they adopt specified risk‑reduction measures. Under the committee amendment the House adopted, an establishment that stops selling alcohol earlier at night or requires employee server training can reduce the coverage requirement in set steps; an establishment may combine mitigation credits but must always carry at least $250,000 in coverage. Nonprofit or single‑event permit holders would be eligible for a lower $500,000 requirement under the amendment.

Jordan said the measure also requires insurers to offer mitigation‑based discounts and directed the Department of Insurance to publish an annual report on liquor‑liability rate trends and premium increases.

The bill removes a longstanding carve‑out that excluded alcohol‑related claims from the state’s comparative‑negligence rules, which Jordan said would make each party responsible for its proportion of fault in civil lawsuits linked to alcohol. "Under our current laws ... there is a carve out for conduct involving the use, sale, possession of alcohol. The committee amendment removes that carve out to allow lawsuits involving alcohol to fall under the state's comparative negligence law," he said.

The measure also includes criminal‑law changes the sponsor said are aimed at reducing DUI incidents and related claims. The committee amendment increases some license‑suspension periods for high‑BAC offenders and raises penalties for offenses causing collisions. Jordan described a proposed new second‑degree felony for a drunken driver who "approximately causes moderate bodily injury" with a fine range of $2,500 to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years, and he outlined stepped increases in suspension periods for repeat offenders and for high BAC readings.

Members pressed for clarifications. Representative Hart asked what would happen if a business reduced its coverage to the mitigation floor and a jury later found the defendant’s conduct to be "willful, wanton, or reckless." "If they're down to $250 and a jury determines that they're willful, wanton under section f, what happens? Does it reform back to $1,000,000?" Hart asked. Jordan replied the coverage as elected through the mitigation process would be the coverage on the policy and that courts could still address reformation in appropriate cases.

Several members representing restaurants and bars warned about unintended consequences from new requirements. "I'm a restaurant owner. I own a cigar lounge. My insurance rates are through the roof," Representative Kale Martin said, describing premium increases he said occurred without any underlying claim. He and others objected to a provision that would require program providers (entities that would offer server‑training or mitigation courses) to pay an authorization fee to the state; those members said the fee could be passed on to small businesses and customers.

Representative Magnuson pressed the sponsors to justify new mandatory language in the bill and said the onus is on proponents to show why a fee should be imposed. "The onus is not on me to prove. The onus is on the people who are trying to pass this into law to prove why you need that law and why you need the language," Magnuson said.

On the floor the House adopted the judiciary committee's amendment that reworked mitigation, training timing (employees must complete required server training within 60 days of employment if the business elects the credit), and coverage floors. Two member amendments were later brought up on the floor; one was tabled on a roll‑call vote of 107 to 1. Another amendment was tabled without a recorded tally at the time it was taken up. Members also voted earlier on a procedural motion to waive printing of the bill's text on the floor; that waiver passed 109 to 0.

After debate and the votes on amendments, the House advanced HB 3497 through second reading on the floor and the sponsor requested and received unanimous consent to place the bill for third reading.

Why it matters: The bill attempts to balance two pressures lawmakers described — businesses facing sharply higher liquor‑liability premiums and public safety concerns about alcohol‑related crashes. The mitigation framework and insurer‑reporting requirement are designed to lower premiums by encouraging risk‑reduction steps and increasing market transparency; the DUI provisions tighten criminal penalties and license suspensions developers said will target repeat and high‑BAC offenders.

Next steps: The bill passed second reading and was set for third reading by unanimous consent on the House floor; if it receives third reading and final passage the measure would return to the Senate for concurrence or negotiation if amended on the floor.

Closing note: Sponsors repeatedly told colleagues the measure builds on work from previous sessions and that parts of the package were rooted in earlier legislation on liquor liability. The bill remained subject to further floor amendments before final enactment.