DIGEST
The digest printed below was prepared by House Legislative Services. It constitutes no part of the
legislative instrument. The keyword, one-liner, abstract, and digest do not constitute part of the law
or proof or indicia of legislative intent. [R.S. 1:13(B) and 24:177(E)]
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REP ORT DIGEST
HB 57 2020 First Extraordinary Session Schexnayder
Keyword and oneliner of the instrument as it left the House
CIVIL/ACTIONS: Enacts the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2020 (Item #40)
Report rejects Senate amendments that would have:
1. Limited the recovery of medical expenses.
2. Limited the admissibility of the existence of insurance coverage, except in certain
circumstances.
Report amends the bill to:
1. Require that in a tort action where the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and is less
than $50,000, a party requesting a jury trial shall provide a cash deposit in the amount of
$5,000.
2. Limit the admissibility of the existence of insurance coverage, except in certain
circumstances.
3. Limit the recovery of medical expenses.
4. Make technical changes.
Digest of the bill as proposed by the Conference Committee
Proposed law creates the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2020.
Jury Trials
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 1732) authorizes a jury trial when the amount in controversy exceeds
$50,000. Proposed law reduces the threshold for a jury trial to $10,000.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 4873) provides that where a principal demand is commenced in a parish or
city court in which the defendant would otherwise be entitled to trial by jury, the defendant may
obtain a jury trial by transferring the action to the district court in the manner provided by present
law.
Proposed law retains present law and provides that if a party fails to file a motion to transfer within
the delays provided by present law, the matter shall not be transferred.
Proposed law further provides that a jury trial shall not be available for non-tort suits originally filed
in parish or city court when the amount in controversy does not exceed the parish or city court's
jurisdictional limit.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 1733) provides that a party may obtain a trial by jury by filing a pleading
demanding a trial by jury and a bond in the amount and within the time set by the court pursuant to
present law.
Proposed law retains present law and provides that in a tort action where a petitioner stipulates or
otherwise judicially admits that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, but is less than $50,000,
a party requesting a jury trial shall provide a cash deposit in the amount of $5,000.
Proposed law further provides that when the case is set for trial, the court may provide for a
supplemental bond or cash deposit in accordance with present law.
Evidence of Liability Insurance
Present law (C.E. Art. 411) provides that although a policy of insurance may be admissible, the
amount of coverage under the policy shall not be communicated to the jury unless the amount of
coverage is a disputed issue which the jury will decide.
Proposed law retains present law and provides that the existence of insurance coverage shall not be
communicated to the jury, unless any of the following apply:
(1) A factual dispute related to an issue of coverage is an issue which the jury will decide.
(2) The existence of insurance coverage would be admissible to attack the credibility of a
witness pursuant to present law (C.E. Art. 607) which provides for attacking and supporting
a witness' credibility.
(3) The cause of action is brought against the insurer alone in the limited circumstances provided
by present law direct action statute and bad faith insurance.
Proposed law provides that the identity of the insurer shall not be communicated to the jury unless
the identity of the insurer would be admissible to attack the credibility of a witness pursuant to present law.
Proposed law provides that in all cases brought against an insurer, at the opening and closing of the
trial, the court shall read instructions to the jury that there is insurance coverage for the damages
claimed by the plaintiff.
Recoverable Past Medical Expenses (Collateral Source)
Proposed law provides for definitions:
(1) "Health insurance issuer" means any health insurance coverage through a policy or certificate
of insurance subject to regulation of insurance under state law, a health maintenance
organization, an employer-sponsored health plan, the office of group benefits, or an
equivalent federal or state health plan.
(2) "Medical provider" means any healthcare provider, hospital, ambulance service, or their heirs
or assignees.
(3) "Cost sharing" means copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, and any other amounts which
have been paid or are owed by the plaintiff to the medical provider.
(4) "Contracted medical provider" means any in-network medical provider that has entered into
a contract or agreement directly with a health insurance issuer or with a health insurance
issuer through a network of providers for the provision of covered healthcare services at a
pre-negotiated rate, or any medical provider that has billed and received payment for covered
healthcare services from Medicare when the provider is a participating provider in those
programs.
(5) "Cost of procurement" means the costs paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff to procure the
benefit paid by a health insurance issuer or Medicare and the costs of procurement of the
award of medical expenses, including but not limited to contracted attorney fees and health
insurance premiums paid.
Proposed law provides that in cases where a claimant's medical expenses have been paid, in whole
or in part, by a health insurance issuer or Medicare to a medical provider, the claimant's recovery of
medical expenses is limited to the amount actually paid to the medical provider by the health
insurance issuer or Medicare, and any applicable cost sharing amounts paid or owed by the claimant,
and not the amount billed.
Proposed law provides that the court shall award forty percent of the difference between the amount
billed and the amount actually paid to the contracted medical provider by a health insurance issuer
or Medicare in consideration of the plaintiff’s cost of procurement provided that this amount shall
be excessive.
Proposed law provides that in cases where a claimant's medical expenses have been paid, in whole
or in part, by Medicaid to a medical provider, the claimant's recovery of medical expenses paid by Medicaid is limited to the amount actually paid to the medical provider by Medicaid, and any
applicable cost sharing amounts paid or owed by the claimant, and not the amount billed.
Proposed law provides that the recovery of any other past medical expenses shall be limited to
amounts paid to a medical provider by or on behalf of the plaintiff, and amounts remaining owed to
a medical provider, including medical expenses secured by a contractual or statutory privilege, lien,
or guarantee.
Proposed law provides that in cases where a plaintiff's medical expenses are paid pursuant to the La.
Workers' Compensation Law (LWC), a plaintiff's recovery of medical expenses is limited to the
amount paid under the medical payments fee schedule of the LWC.
Proposed law provides that in a jury trial, only after a jury verdict is rendered may the court receive
evidence related to the limitations of recoverable past medical expenses paid by a health insurance
issuer or Medicare. The jury shall be informed only of the amount billed by a medical provider for
medical treatment. Whether any person, health insurance issuer or Medicare has paid or has agreed
to pay, in whole or in part, any of a claimant's medical expenses, shall not be disclosed to the jury.
In trial to the court alone, the court may consider such evidence.
Proposed law does not apply in medical malpractice claims or in claims brought pursuant to the
Governmental Claims Act.
Evidence of Failure to Wear a Safety Belt
Present law (R.S. 32:295.1(E)) provides that the failure to wear a safety belt in violation of present
law shall not be admitted to mitigate damages in any action to recover damages arising out of the
ownership, common maintenance, or operation of motor vehicle, and the failure to wear a safety belt
in violation of present law shall not be considered evidence of comparative negligence.
Proposed law repeals present law.
Effective Date
Proposed law provides that the provisions of proposed law shall become effective on Jan. 1, 2021,
and shall have prospective application only and shall not apply to a cause of action arising or action
pending prior to Jan. 1, 2021.
(Amends C.C.P. Arts. 1732, 1733(A), and 4873(1) and C.E. Art. 411; Adds R.S. 9:2800.27; Repeals
R.S. 32:295.1(E))