Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Liability Risk Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables bill that would require legislative approval for large state liability payouts
Summary
Senate Bill 182 would have capped risk‑management coverage at statutory Tort Claims limits and required agencies to seek legislative appropriation for amounts exceeding those caps. After robust debate over separation of powers, transparency and budget exposure, the committee voted to table the bill.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday took up Senate Bill 182, a proposal to require state agencies to seek legislative appropriation when settlements or judgments against the state exceed specified liability thresholds.
Sponsor Senator Woods framed the measure as accountability and transparency: the state’s self‑insurance fund at the General Services Department has paid large settlements in recent years, and outstanding liabilities total in the hundreds of millions of dollars, he said. The bill (as amended in committee) would tie the risk‑management division’s payment or indemnity obligations to existing Tort Claims Act caps and require agencies to obtain legislative appropriation for amounts above those thresholds.
Michaela Fisher, deputy director of program evaluation at the Legislative Finance Committee, told senators the LFC’s review of the state’s risk‑management fund found rising settlement and judgment costs and noted that other states limit coverage to their Tort Claims Act caps and make agencies seek legislative funding for excess civil‑rights judgments.
Opponents, including attorneys who represent plaintiffs in civil‑rights and child‑welfare cases, warned that conditioning payment on an appropriation could undermine settlements and increase litigation costs. Kelly Stout Sanchez, representing child‑welfare plaintiffs, said the most serious claims often involve children who were harmed or killed in foster placements; she said that requiring an appropriation for large civil‑rights settlements would reduce certainty and could create incentives to prolong litigation.
Other senators raised constitutional concerns. One lawmaker argued the bill risked an impermissible intrusion on the judiciary by allowing the legislature to effectively block satisfaction of a judicial judgment if an appropriation were not made; another said the bill could cripple agencies required to pay a court‑ordered judgment but lacking the funds to satisfy it.
Senator Woods and the LFC stressed the bill was not an attempt to avoid payment but to ensure legislators and the public see the scope of the state’s exposure and to require agencies to explain failures that produce repeat expensive claims.
After discussion, a senator moved to table SB 182. The motion passed without recorded objection and the bill was tabled.
Ending: Committee members said they wanted more work and legal review of separation‑of‑powers implications and the practical effect on settlements before the Legislature would consider a statutory change to how the state funds large judgments and civil‑rights claims.
