Senate debates offer‑of‑judgment changes to shift costs; bill advanced

Senate Bill 453, which would clarify procedures for offers of judgment and permit shifting of litigation costs when an unaccepted offer exceeds the judgment, drew an extended floor exchange on March 10, 2025.

Senator Howard, the bill sponsor, told the Senate the measure cleans up conflicting statutory sections about how offers of judgment are delivered, when they can be rejected, and how costs may be shifted to the offeree if the final judgment is less than or equal to the unaccepted offer. “This is a tort reform measure that we’re trying to get in, hope for, court efficiencies with this as well,” Howard said.

Questioners pressed several practical and policy concerns. Senator Goodwin asked why the language should create a financial penalty for plaintiffs who exercise their right to go to trial. “Why would the language then punish that plaintiff, just because they did choose to go to trial?” Goodwin asked. Howard replied that many courts and systems already use cost‑shifting mechanisms and that the bill is intended to incentivize reasonable settlement offers and reduce trial‑related expense.

Senator Brooks warned the change could add leverage to one party and potentially intimidate individuals who file contingency‑fee claims. She asked whether the mechanism could deter access to courts for plaintiffs with limited means. Howard acknowledged some of those concerns and described the measure as part of a broader reform effort; he said the provision primarily follows prior statutory language that applied to defendants.

The bill was advanced for third reading on the floor. The transcript of the session includes extensive back‑and‑forth about how offers would be made, whether judges or juries would ultimately determine judgment amounts, and how insurance companies might be affected; sponsors said more work could be done as the bill proceeds to the other chamber.