Lawmakers weigh altering Missouri’s pure comparative‑fault rule to 50% bar in long committee hearing
Loading...
Summary
Representative Dane Deal’s House Bill 27‑14 would change Missouri from pure comparative fault (plaintiff recovers reduced damages even if 99% at fault) to a modified rule that bars recovery when a plaintiff is 50% or more at fault. Supporters (insurers, trade groups, physicians, contractors) argued it would align Missouri with neighboring states and reduce costs; opponents (trial attorneys, consumer advocates) warned it could leave severely injured plaintiffs uncompensated.
Representative Dane Deal introduced House Bill 27‑14, which would adopt a modified comparative‑fault standard that bars a plaintiff from recovering if the plaintiff’s percentage of fault is 50% or greater. Deal said the change would align Missouri with neighboring states and reduce liability exposure for businesses.
The hearing produced extensive, often technical debate. Supporters including the Missouri Insurance Coalition, Missouri Chamber, Associated Industries of Missouri, the Missouri State Medical Association, NFIB and several construction and asphalt contractors testified that a modified rule would reduce the volume of expensive settlements and make it easier and cheaper for businesses and physicians to operate in the state. Dale Williams of the Missouri Asphalt Pavement Association described multi‑million‑dollar settlements contractors have faced and said a 50% rule would lower premiums and free funds for infrastructure improvements.
Opponents, including trial lawyers and plaintiff‑side counsel, said the proposal would be a major departure from Missouri’s current system of pure comparative fault, where damages are reduced by a plaintiff’s share of fault but not barred entirely. Wes Shumate and others argued the bill would often prevent recovery for seriously injured plaintiffs in close cases and could shift long‑term care costs to taxpayers. Matt Clement, an attorney in Jefferson City, warned that the bill would encourage more trials (not fewer settlements) because defendants might litigate to get a jury to apportion fault at or above the 50% bar.
Committee members repeatedly asked whether 50% or 51% should be used as the bar; witnesses said both modified standards exist in other states, with differing tradeoffs. Attorneys explained how juries assess percentage fault and how judges reduce awarded damages accordingly. Several members pressed for concrete data showing that neighboring states’ changes led to lasting premium declines and to understand consequences for catastrophic injury cases.
The committee recessed without a vote. Multiple supporters promised to provide specific case examples and data; opponents urged preserving pure comparative fault or adding narrow exceptions.