Missouri House commerce committee hears arguments to shorten personal-injury statute of limitations from five to two years

Representative Matthew Overcast, sponsor of House Bill 68, told the House Committee on Commerce that the bill would reduce the statute of limitations for many personal-injury claims from five years to two.

"When I would counsel businesses about coming into states, one of the first things we would talk about is their liability exposure," Rep. Matthew Overcast said. "By implementing a two-year statute of limitations, it incentivizes individuals to bring their claims earlier."

Why it matters: Supporters argued shortening the filing window would make Missouri more attractive to businesses, reduce insurance reserves and lower costs for employers and hospitals. Opponents, including long-practicing personal-injury lawyers and consumer advocates, said a two-year limit would cut off valid claims that are not discoverable for years — for example certain medical-malpractice, environmental contamination or childhood-abuse cases — and would imperil injured Missourians' ability to seek redress.

What supporters said: Dana Fries, CEO of Health Care Services Group, which provides self-insurance to nonprofit hospitals around Missouri, told the committee that the longer statute in Missouri raises the cost of insurance compared with neighboring states. "The statute dates back to 1939," Fries said. "Actuaries look at this statute and the exposure increases the cost of insurance for hospitals throughout the state." Insurance industry witnesses and trade groups including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Missouri and the Missouri Insurance Coalition also urged the committee to consider reducing the window, citing cost and competitiveness arguments.

What opponents said: Springfield personal-injury attorney Randy Alberhasky testified in opposition, saying the change "cuts off the Seventh Amendment rights of the injured to recover for their damages." Alberhasky described cases that were discovered months or years after treatment and said many victims need more than two years before they pursue claims. He left a letter with the committee from a plaintiff who missed a claim after a delayed cancer diagnosis.

Legal and procedural points raised: Witnesses debated exceptions such as the "capable of ascertainment" or discovery rule, which can toll the limitations period in cases where injury is not reasonably discoverable. Several witnesses said exceptions exist in the law (including references in testimony to Missouri statutory tolling provisions), but disagreed about how broadly courts would apply them if the statute is shortened.

Committee next steps: The committee completed public testimony and did not take an immediate vote on HB 68 at the hearing. Supporters requested changes to the initiative language on paid leave and other details; opponents urged the committee to preserve the five-year period.

Ending: Lawmakers and witnesses acknowledged competing goals: lowering litigation costs and insurance premiums versus protecting the rights of injured people who may not learn about their injuries until years later. The committee will weigh those trade-offs as it considers amendments and whether to move HB 68 forward.