Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Business groups and health providers back ban on counsel suggesting non‑economic damages; trial lawyers push back
Summary
Proponents including business, hospital and insurance groups told the Judiciary Committee that banning counsel from suggesting dollar amounts for non-economic damages would curb 'anchoring' and rising jury awards; opponents, including trial lawyers, argued the bill would silence counsel and increase juror guesswork. The committee held a full hearing but took no final vote recorded in the transcript.
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony for and against Senate Bill 413, a measure that would prohibit lawyers from suggesting specific dollar amounts, ranges, formulas, or unrelated reference values to a jury when arguing non-economic damages such as pain and suffering.
Proponents — led by business, hospital and insurance representatives — said the practice known as 'anchoring' improperly skews juror awards. Jennifer Artman, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon appearing for the American Tort Reform Association, described anchoring as "a very psychologically powerful baseline that trial attorneys will present to juries" and argued that the tactic leads to social inflation and 'nuclear verdicts.' Representatives from the University of Kansas Health System, the Kansas Medical Society and CAMCO, among others, said that limiting anchoring protects insurance market stability and patient access to care.
Tucker Poling of CAMCO and other proponents cited experimental studies showing that juror awards can shift dramatically when attorneys provide an anchor: Poling summarized one mock-trial study in which the average non-economic award rose from roughly $470,000 to about $2,000,000 when an attorney introduced a $5 million anchor.
Opponents argued the change would do more harm than good. Jeffrey Wilson, testifying for opponents, said that naming a number gives a "ceiling" the defense can contest and that banning numbers would force jurors into guessing without a frame of reference; he said the bill would "ban that conversation" and could reduce settlements and increase litigation.
Committee members pressed both sides. Senator Clays asked opponents what guidance jurors would use if counsel were barred from offering anchors; opponents said party advocates still present evidentiary case-specific testimony but that counsel use tailored valuation arguments as part of representation. Senator Corson asked whether Kansas specifically was suffering from a local problem; proponents pointed to national trends and insurance-market signals and warned that other states that removed certain constraints experienced market consequences.
No committee vote on SB 413 is recorded in the transcript; the hearing was closed with the record of written testimony from multiple organizations on both sides. The committee announced it would reconvene later in the day for a different bill.
