Sponsor and consumer attorney defend Public Nuisance Reform Act in committee hearing
Loading...
Summary
Representative Ben Keithley presented HB 2,777 to narrow public-nuisance claims and tighten pleading and causation standards; Kate Sawyer of Fusion Law and industry coalitions supported the measure, arguing it preserves legitimate claims while preventing litigation targeting lawful, regulated products.
Representative Ben Keithley, sponsor of House Bill 2,777, told the House Judiciary Committee the measure would modernize Missouri’s public-nuisance law to ensure it addresses shared public harms while preventing "abuse" that targets lawful products through litigation rather than legislation.
"This legislation modernizes and clarifies Missouri's public nuisance laws to ensure that they address general public harms while preventing abuse," Keithley said, explaining the bill would tighten causation requirements, limit who may bring suit, and preserve local-government authority for wholly local nuisances.
Kate Sawyer, an attorney with Fusion Law, testified in support on behalf of the Alliance for Consumers Action Fund. She said the bill keeps public-nuisance claims available for "proper use while not being used as an ideological weapon." Sawyer cited examples from around the country — including litigation tied to guns, opioids and plastic bottles — to explain the sponsor's concern that some suits seek policy changes in court rather than through elected bodies.
Other witnesses in favor included representatives of the Missouri Civil Justice Reform Coalition and the Missouri Insurance Coalition, who told the committee the legislature is the proper venue to clarify when nuisance lawsuits are appropriate. No witnesses in opposition were recorded in the hearing.
Committee members asked for examples and clarifications; witnesses pointed to litigation elsewhere and urged the committee that the bill would narrow fringe or novel uses of nuisance law without removing remedies that address illegal conduct or genuine public harms.
The public hearing concluded with proponents offering to work with lawmakers on specific drafting questions raised during Q&A.
