Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liquefied Petroleum Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debate centers on liability protections for liquefied petroleum gas sellers; amendment attempts fail
Summary
Senate Bill 21, which would create a rebuttable presumption/affirmative defense for suppliers, installers and transporters of liquefied petroleum gas, drew extended floor debate on Jan. 20, 2005. Senators voiced concerns that the presumption could impede plaintiffs’ recovery and shift insurance costs; amendment attempts to limit or remove parts of the language were defeated and the bill advanced to a third‑reading vote.
Senate Bill 21, presented Jan. 20, 2005, would provide an affirmative defense — framed on the floor as a rebuttable presumption — to civil liability for persons who sell, supply, install, handle or transport liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Sponsor Senator Eastman said the measure responds to sharply rising liability insurance costs that have reduced the number of insurers willing to provide coverage to small propane dealers (presentation and rationale: SEG 921–933).
Senator Hilliard moved to strike the paragraph creating the rebuttable presumption (lines 36–40), arguing it would unduly burden plaintiffs and could enable suppliers to avoid accountability if key evidence or personnel were unavailable. Hilliard said the presumption “creates undue burdens” and could leave injured parties without a viable recovery where an installing employee cannot be located (SEG 1013–1024). He described a scenario where the only person who knew the installation details left employment and plaintiffs could struggle to establish negligence.
Senator Eastman replied that the presumption is rebuttable and that a supplier would still carry the burden to prove it had acted properly; he noted the bill was heard in committee multiple times, drafted with input from a judge (Judge Kaye Cornaby), and had unanimous committee approval (SEG 1031–1040; SEG 1122–1131). Other senators highlighted the bill’s policy aim: to keep small propane dealers solvent and insured so they can continue serving rural customers who rely on propane for cooking and heating.
Floor amendments: two principal amendments were debated on the record. - Motion to delete lines 36–40 (the rebuttable‑presumption paragraph). Senator Hilliard moved this amendment; the chair called the voice vote, a division was requested, and the chair ruled that the motion failed after the recorded standing division (SEG 1261–1280; SEG 1165–1180). The motion did not succeed and the presumption language remained. - Motion to strike the phrase “and the necessary equipment and appliances” (line 37) so the protection would apply only to suppliers of LPG (not to installations or appliances). Senator Hilliard argued the broader phrase could sweep in installers and equipment sellers in ways that exceeded the bill’s original intent. Sponsors and supporters countered that many propane dealers still sell and install appliances in rural areas and that excluding appliances could leave those small businesses exposed and raise insurance costs (SEG 1199–1222; SEG 1238–1266). That amendment also failed on the floor.
Final floor disposition and next steps: after debate and the series of amendment votes, the Senate voted to read SB 21 for the third time; the recorded roll on the floor showed the bill would be read for third reading after receiving 18 yes votes and 7 nay votes in the recorded tally reported on the floor (SEG 1480–1481). The bill will return to the Senate for third‑reading final passage.
Why it matters: supporters framed SB 21 as an insurance‑market stabilizer for small LPG dealers, preserving service in rural areas. Opponents warned it could create an evidentiary barrier for injured parties and shift insurance and recovery costs to property and casualty markets or individual claimants.
Representative quotes on the record: - Senator Hilliard: “I would move to strike paragraph 2 ... because I think to create a presumption, creates undue burdens.” (floor motion explaining his amendment) (SEG 1013–1016). - Senator Eastman: “The rebuttable presumption ... is rebuttable. If they cannot produce [proof] ... I don't see any way that they could have themselves excused from the court proceedings.” (defense of the provision) (SEG 1035–1043).
Next procedural step: SB 21 has been ordered read for third time and will return to the Senate calendar for final passage consideration. Coverage follow‑up should track any changes adopted before final passage and any committee or legal opinions referenced in future floor action.
