The passage of HB 1086 would result in an alteration to the existing laws governing the statute of limitations in New Hampshire. It allows individuals who have been wronged but who did not have the opportunity to act due to the intentional concealment of the cause by another party to have an extended timeframe to file lawsuits. This adjustment could lead to an increase in the number of lawsuits filed, as individuals may discover long-hidden grievances and be empowered to pursue legal action.
Summary
House Bill 1086, introduced in the New Hampshire legislature, addresses the issue of concealed causes of action in the context of personal injury lawsuits. The bill stipulates that if a cause of action is purposely concealed from the party entitled to bring the action, the time period during which the cause is concealed will not count against the statute of limitations for commencing the action. This legislative change aims to provide a greater opportunity for individuals to seek legal recourse in instances where they may not have been aware of their cause of action due to deliberate concealment by another party.
Sentiment
Overall sentiment regarding HB 1086 appears to be mixed. Supporters argue that the bill is essential in promoting justice for individuals whose rights have been obstructed by the concealment of wrongdoing. However, critics express concern that the bill could lead to an influx of litigation, placing additional burdens on the judicial system and potentially incentivizing opportunistic lawsuits. This raises questions about the balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining judicial efficiency.
Contention
Debate around HB 1086 includes concerns about the potential for abuse by plaintiffs who may leverage the extended statute of limitations in ways that could overwhelm the court system. Opponents argue that while transparency in legal processes is critical, there must also be limits to prevent the judicial system from being bogged down with cases stemming from actions that occurred long ago. As such, the bill highlights a conflict between the necessity of legal recourse and the pragmatics of judicial resource management.