Kansas committee hears bill to include contracted child-placement agencies in Tort Claims Act

The House Committee on Judiciary heard House Bill 25-21, a measure that would add child placement agencies contracting with the Secretary for Children and Families to the definition of “state” under the Kansas Tort Claims Act.

Jason Thompson of the Reviser's Office told the committee the amendment would amend KSA 75-6102 and place such agencies within the Act’s waiver-of-immunity framework, including existing damages limits and discretionary-function exceptions. Thompson said officials should confirm the drafting matches legislative intent about whether liability would attach only for duties performed under contract.

Supporters representing private providers and insurance advisers said the change is intended to restore insurability for agencies that place and supervise foster children. Patrick Murphy of the Miller Group said the insurance market for child-placement work has ‘‘become the wild west’’ and argued HB 25-21 would make liability ‘‘defined and predictable’’ so carriers will write policies. ‘‘Agencies are not asking for immunity. They’re asking for insurability,’’ Murphy said.

CEOs of provider organizations described steep premium increases that have strained nonprofit budgets. Linda Boss of KVC Kansas said her organization has seen liability costs rise by more than $1 million over nine years, and Amy Harmon, CEO of CALM Foster Care, said her agency faced a roughly 136% premium increase in a single year. Crystal Hedrick of the Children’s Alliance cited examples — Wichita Children’s Home at 112% and Cornerstones of Care at 131% — and said providers risk pulling back services if costs remain unstable.

Opponents, represented by attorney Richard Budden for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, warned the bill would effectively extend sovereign-like protections to private providers, limit damages with the Tort Claims Act cap, and could run afoul of constitutional guarantees that injured persons have a remedy. ‘‘If these companies are immune, if there is a damages cap, then that gets shifted over to Medicaid most likely or the state tax dollars paying for that care in the future,’’ Budden said. He added, ‘‘This bill is not constitutional,’’ citing the Kansas Bill of Rights and recent case law concerns about caps and remedies.

Committee members questioned both the scale of premium increases and whether particular litigation trends — rather than market or bond-market effects — are the primary drivers. Proponents acknowledged many cases settle out of court, limiting published precedents, and said precisely quantifying future savings is difficult.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 25-21 with the bill’s proponents and opponents having provided written testimony; no immediate committee action on the bill was recorded at the hearing.