Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves temporary caps on judgments against governments after court ruling, 47-20
Summary
The Utah House passed first substitute Senate Bill 225 on March 4, 2003, a stopgap measure that imposes monetary caps on judgments against governmental entities and sunsets in early 2004. Supporters said caps protect small communities’ ability to obtain insurance; opponents said the limits may undercompensate seriously injured claimants.
The Utah House of Representatives on March 4, 2003 passed first substitute Senate Bill 225, a stopgap measure that sets temporary caps on judgments against government entities, by a 47-20 vote. Sponsor Representative Burkhardt said the measure responds to an August 2002 Utah Supreme Court decision and is intended to protect local governments and taxpayers while a more comprehensive solution is developed during the interim.
The bill sets numerical limits on recoverable judgments in most tort cases: $532,500 for a single injured person and $213,000 for property-damage occurrences, with the cap increasing proportionally for multi-plaintiff judgments. The bill sunsets in February 2004 and directs parties to study broader, longer-term reforms in the interim. "If this doesn't pass, then they could be liable for, whatever the worth of the town or the community is," Representative Burkhardt said during floor debate, urging passage so small jurisdictions can continue to obtain insurance.
Opponents raised fairness concerns and cited scenarios in which catastrophic injuries or very high-value homes would exceed the caps. Representative Hansen said she feared the caps "really do not justly compensate for those people that may be unduly harmed" and worried about claimants whose real damages would exceed the limits. Supporters pointed to mechanisms that could address extraordinary cases: the bill allows the Board of Examiners to authorize awards above the caps in exceptional circumstances and explicitly preserves certain constitutional just-compensation claims.
Proponents also stressed insurance-market impacts. Backers said that, without statutory caps, some smaller communities were unable to secure liability coverage, exposing them to the risk of ruinous verdicts and possible tax increases to cover judgments. Several members said the caps are deliberately temporary and would be revisited during the interim.
The House placed intent language on the journal explaining the Legislature’s finding that the caps are a temporary, measured step to provide relief to injured persons while maintaining public fiscal stability and encouraging a more comprehensive statutory solution.
First substitute Senate Bill 225 passed the House and will be returned to the Senate for further action. Floor debate and the vote were taken in the House on March 4, 2003.
