An Act Concerning A Defendant's Ability To Recover Litigation Costs When An Offer Of Compromise Is Rejected By A Plaintiff.
If enacted, this bill could have significant implications for the conduct of civil litigation in the state. By allowing defendants to recoup litigation costs in situations where they have made reasonable compromise offers that are rejected, it may encourage more out-of-court settlements. This shift could lead to a decrease in the number of cases that proceed to trial, potentially minimizing the burden on the court system and expediting dispute resolution for all parties involved.
House Bill 6225 proposes an amendment to subsection (b) of section 52-195 of the general statutes which would allow defendants in civil actions to recover certain litigation costs when a plaintiff rejects an advantageous offer of compromise. The intent behind this legislation is to encourage settlements between parties in civil lawsuits, aiming to reduce unnecessary legal expenses and court congestion. By providing a financial incentive for plaintiffs to consider compromise offers seriously, the bill seeks to enhance the efficiency of the judicial process.
However, there are potential points of contention surrounding HB 6225. Critics may argue that such a provision could disadvantage plaintiffs, particularly in cases where a plaintiff's decision to reject an offer is driven by legitimate concerns about the offer's adequacy. Additionally, there may be worries that this bill could deter reasonable negotiations, as plaintiffs might fear incurring unrecoverable costs if they do not accept a compromise offer deemed 'advantageous' post-factum. Notably, the effectiveness of this bill in promoting settlement will depend on clearly defining what constitutes an advantageous offer and the conditions under which costs can be recovered.