Modifies provisions relating to the collateral source rule
This bill is significant as it alters the traditional understanding of the collateral source rule, which previously allowed evidence of third-party payments (like insurance) to be admitted in court. By instituting strict guidelines on what constitutes admissible evidence, the bill aims to streamline trials and potentially limit the recovery amounts for plaintiffs by preventing them from double-dipping claims against defendants after receiving payments from other sources. Moreover, plaintiffs would only be able to present evidence relating to the actual costs of medical care that are reasonable, necessary, and a proximate result of the negligence of any party involved.
House Bill 69 modifies the provisions related to the collateral source rule, particularly in cases involving personal injury, bodily injury, and death. The bill seeks to repeal the existing Section 490.715 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri and replace it with a new section that delineates the admissibility of evidence regarding collateral sources in court cases. Specifically, it emphasizes that payments made by defendants or their insurers are not to be considered recoverable special damages during trial if they have already satisfied part of a plaintiff's claim.
Key points of contention arise from concerns that this bill could disadvantage plaintiffs in personal injury cases. Opponents argue that by limiting the evidence admissible in court, the bill restricts a plaintiff's rightful recovery based on the full extent of their damages, effectively prioritizing the interests of defendants and insurers over those of injured parties. Furthermore, there is concern that these legislative changes could encourage defendants to minimize their payments to avoid liability, knowing that any medical costs incurred after initial payments may not be as rigorously pursued in court. The overall implications suggest a shift in the balance of power in litigation involving personal injury claims.