Assembly panel extends protections allowing pain-and-suffering claims to survive a plaintiff’s death

Sen. Bill Laird led a hearing on Senate Bill 29 before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on the status of California law that lets survivors pursue pain-and-suffering damages after a plaintiff dies. The committee voted to refer the bill to the Appropriations Committee.

Supporters said SB 29 restores justice for victims whose lawsuits otherwise would “die with them.” Laird told the committee the law enacted in 2021 that allowed survival claims temporarily included a sunset; SB 29 would extend that protection and require better data collection about filings and settlements. "This just ensures that victims who endure intense pain and suffering are not...denied their justice because they didn't live long enough to realize it," Laird said.

The bill attracted multiple witnesses offering first‑hand testimony. Amy Martel, a plaintiffs' medical‑malpractice attorney, said statutes of limitations limit how long a particular claim can be brought — one year for malpractice and two years for general personal injury — but SB 29 would preserve the survival cause of action for new claims while the law remains in effect. Erica Cole described her mother's experience after hospital care she says was negligent; Cole said her mother suffered and later died and that SB 29 would provide accountability and recognition of that suffering.

Labor and construction groups that represent workers with long‑latency illnesses, including the State Building and Construction Trades Council, the Teamsters and unions representing asbestos workers, spoke in strong support. Jeremy Smith of the Building Trades described asbestos, silica and related diseases as often fatal and said survivors and families deserve access to pain‑and‑suffering claims even when death occurs before litigation concludes.

Opponents included representatives of business and health‑care interests. Chris McCauley of the Civil Justice Association of California and Pedro Toledo, CEO of Petaluma Health Center, told the committee they worry the extension could raise awards and insurance costs for small businesses, nonprofit clinics and community health centers. Several medical associations and hospital groups — the California Medical Association, the California Hospital Association and others — registered opposition or “oppose unless amended.” Those opponents urged excluding medical malpractice from SB 29 or adding safeguards and data requirements, arguing clinics and clinics that serve low‑income patients could see insurance cost pressures.

Committee members pressed both sides on data. Laird said the Judicial Council has recorded four reported cases using the new survival claim standard since the 2021 law took effect, but that settlements (which are not always publicly reported or allocated among damage categories) are not consistently compiled. Opponents and members asked for mandatory reporting or other mechanisms to track settlements and insurance rate impacts; author and witnesses said collecting settlement data is difficult because settlement agreements often include confidentiality terms and do not allocate amounts among survival, wrongful‑death and economic damages.

Several Assembly members said they would support a limited, time‑bound extension to allow the legislature to compile and review more complete data: Assemblymember Pacheco, Assemblymember Stephanie and others expressed support for a four‑year extension with stronger reporting requirements. Laird accepted that the amendment package in the bill requires reporting to the Judicial Council and said he would continue negotiations on how to secure settlement data while respecting parties' confidentiality concerns.

The committee voted to refer SB 29 to the Appropriations Committee. The committee record shows the motion passed on a roll call and SB 29 will next be considered in Appropriations.

The hearing transcript records both the personal testimony of an affected family and technical explanations from lawyers and insurers. It also records repeated requests from members for clearer, mandated settlement reporting so a later legislative decision can be evidence‑based.