Alabama Senate Bill SB293

Alabama 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/4/24
• Refer: 4/4/24

Caption

Tort Reform, to regulate litigation financing agreements, vicarious liability of employers, proof of medical care expenses, and attorney advertising

Impact

In broadening the scope of liability for employers, SB293 mandates that if an employer admits during a civil suit that an employee was acting within their job's scope during an incident, their legal exposure may shift to vicarious liability only. This present limit on liability is intended to reduce excessive claims against employers as well as to create clarity in the responsibilities of employers when it comes to employee actions. The bill also sets a cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury cases, which can significantly affect the outcomes of future litigation by limiting the amount recoverable for non-pecuniary damages such as pain and suffering.

Summary

Senate Bill 293 seeks to impose regulations on various aspects of civil litigation, particularly focusing on litigation financing agreements. The bill aims to require that these agreements be disclosed to courts and opposing parties, with specific caps on what litigation financiers can charge. Additionally, it emphasizes that an attorney may not control the direction of a lawsuit should they be involved in such financing, ensuring that clients retain authority over their legal actions. This provision is intended to promote transparency and fairness in legal proceedings involving financing.

Contention

The proposed limitations on noneconomic damages and the scrutiny of expert testimony in civil litigation have generated debate among legislators and stakeholders. Proponents argue that these measures will help alleviate burdens on courts and result in fairer, more predictable outcomes for businesses and individuals alike. On the opposing side, critics assert that such limitations will infringe on the rights of plaintiffs, particularly those suffering from serious injuries who may be disproportionately affected by these caps. There is also concern regarding the implications for access to justice for lower-income individuals who may already struggle with litigation costs.