PRI Spreadsheet by xiaohuicaicai

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 455

									               1. Private and commercial automobile-
                                                           1r.
               liability-insurance losses / miles driven


       State
                             0.0000413388                  27




1. Alabama




                             0.0000776885                  49




2. Alaska




                             0.0000444027                  32




3. Arizona
                 0.0000372366   22




4. Arkansas




                 0.0000348617   17




5. California




                 0.0000464484   37




6. Colorado




                 0.0000485916   40




7. Connecticut
              0.0000603670   46




8. Delaware




              0.0000626493   47




9. Florida




              0.0000387199   24




10. Georgia




              0.0000411120   26




11. Hawaii
               0.0000417927   28




12. Idaho




               0.0000358853   20




13. Illinois




               0.0000298412   9




14. Indiana




               0.0000283711   6




15. Iowa
                0.0000445320   33




16. Kansas




                0.0000378028   23



17. Kentucky



                0.0000592666   45




18. Louisiana




                0.0000278199   3




19. Maine
                    0.0000463464   36



20. Maryland



                    0.0000460446   35




21. Massachusetts




                    0.0000465365   38




22. Michigan




                    0.0000315744   12




23. Minnesota
                  0.0000240254   1




24. Mississippi




                  0.0000307178   11




25. Missouri




                  0.0000474345   39




26. Montana




                  0.0000345105   15



27. Nebraska
                    0.0000894987   50




28. Nevada




                    0.0000338005   13




29. New Hampshire




                    0.0000695070   48




30. New Jersey




                    0.0000425249   30




31. New Mexico
                     0.0000424477   29




32. New York




                     0.0000348804   18


33. North Carolina


                     0.0000258397   2



34. North Dakota



                     0.0000287823   8




35. Ohio




                     0.0000300254   10




36. Oklahoma
                     0.0000536255   42




37. Oregon




                     0.0000505569   41




38. Pennsylvania




                     0.0000566518   43



39. Rhode Island



                     0.0000361632   21




40. South Carolina
                   0.0000345465   16




41. South Dakota




                   0.0000281663   5




42. Tennessee




                   0.0000401629   25




43. Texas
                    0.0000432850   31




44. Utah




                    0.0000285957   7


45. Vermont


                    0.0000338094   14



46. Virginia



                    0.0000576119   44




47. Washington




                    0.0000458341   34


48. West Virginia
                0.0000278632   4




49. Wisconsin




                0.0000357145   19




50. Wyoming
                                                                                                      General-liability insuran


2. Farmowners’ multiple-peril [liability portion]
                                                    2r.    3. Commercial general-liability multiple-peril
     insurance losses / number of farms
                                                          (liability portion) insurance losses / state GDP



                  78.43395349                       39                       0.00061933




                   2.25000000                       3                        0.00032086




                  94.32900000                       44                       0.00044311
20.73290323   13   0.00039394




86.94710526   40   0.00048430




76.20977199   37   0.00043023




7.95000000    5    0.00057009
21.36521739    14   0.00026340




49.96097561    24   0.00056421




103.95367347   48   0.00031357




 2.50363636    4    0.00060399
109.21320000   49   0.00049240




103.89281768   47   0.00046409




159.08949153   50   0.00058389




39.65383747    22   0.00037521
90.68343750   42   0.00032925




92.20607143   43   0.00040059




13.77537313   9    0.00031443




16.00985915   11   0.00039855
54.23250000   26   0.00037734




9.13278689    6    0.00047933




77.73792453   38   0.00033751




55.32900378   27   0.00048670
16.70785714   12   0.00033528




94.55828571   45   0.00057438




58.79786477   29   0.00084741




89.48193277   41   0.00031421
62.46000000   31   0.00076314




12.81176471   7    0.00045108




1.02857143    1    0.00075167




35.81485714   20   0.00021440
30.55371429   18   0.00080110




26.59500000   16   0.00026330




70.55643564   34   0.00027978




43.20354331   23   0.00027480




56.65987952   28   0.00030383
59.65648855   30   0.00058077




50.42628866   25   0.00066184




31.23529412   19   0.00064288




1.95000000    2    0.00053092
65.05303514    32   0.00042651




101.04475610   46   0.00033608




26.20800000    15   0.00020519
13.03509934   8    0.00042367




38.88571429   21   0.00055355




30.22692308   17   0.00023082




71.80676471   35   0.00045106




14.03066038   10   0.00096493
68.95065789   33   0.00044440




72.29670330   36   0.00045563
                                                                            Monetary Tort Losses
General-liability insurance loss ratios:



                      4. Other general-liability insurance losses /
          3r.                                                         4r.
                                     state GDP



          43                           0.00200379                     31




          12                           0.00181669                     27




          25                           0.00179390                     25
19   0.00200637   32




32   0.00209861   35




24   0.00185540   29




38   0.00178240   24
5    0.00213371   37




37   0.00216427   39




9    0.00185802   30




42   0.00140486   15
34   0.00117138   9




30   0.00332597   47




41   0.00154640   21




17   0.00164170   22
13   0.00131838   11




21   0.00137267   14




11   0.00240416   42




20   0.00074445   3
18   0.00140889   16




31   0.00219856   40




16   0.00185485   28




33   0.00094383   6
14   0.00136755   13




39   0.00285505   44




49   0.00211763   36




10   0.00180814   26
47   0.00335269   48




28   0.00228485   41




46   0.00303214   45




2    0.00055618   1
48   0.00314648   46




4    0.00093178   5




7    0.00072765   2




6    0.00154584   20




8    0.00144852   17
40   0.00118815   10




45   0.00208671   34




44   0.00393443   49




35   0.00097586   7
23   0.00151058   19




15   0.00132529   12




1    0.00174490   23
22   0.00146694   18




36   0.00687288   50




3    0.00109988   8




27   0.00202885   33




50   0.00252264   43
26   0.00216339   38




29   0.00077913   4
                     Monetary Tort Losses



5. Homeowners’ multiple-peril [liability
                                                   6. Medical-malpractice insurance losses /
portion] insurance losses / number of       5r.
                                                  projected personal health-care expenditures
       occupied housing units



              32.98493701                   45                    0.00134583




              20.48664944                   30                    0.00050907




              17.42466939                   16                    0.00463538
31.09912926   44   0.00258789




15.96514327   9    0.00118179




18.93199090   26   0.00317594




26.22409262   40   0.00594559
17.98031927   21   0.00649022




25.33753530   39   0.00291339




24.71165137   38   0.00140949




7.54562769    2    0.00194832
17.38507533   15   0.00146476




26.42639300   42   0.00443958




59.72079117   50   0.00068389




12.78002755   5    0.00187531
51.79526927   48   0.00100650




20.74404735   31   0.00231738




1.05660910    1    0.00088506




18.46614756   23   0.00347022
18.70382488   24   0.00290632




19.54643499   29   0.00264567




24.21957258   37   0.00070195




42.98210299   47   0.00184451
20.85239619   32   0.00076212




57.52990312   49   0.00150810




17.81307934   20   0.00452241




15.96734428   10   0.00132433
14.87549475   7    0.00067893




24.21101559   36   0.00243360




23.41741163   35   0.00726099




18.14657185   22   0.00149190
19.09499863   27   0.00882880




15.98367490   11   0.00190026




10.66773881   3    0.00188661




21.66523836   34   0.00186679




21.65736664   33   0.00033859
18.88336040   25   0.00210758




17.53306864   18   0.00281750




16.67951098   12   0.00445852




17.68477312   19   0.00147344
10.97418370   4    0.00239809




38.63509385   46   0.00450112




17.46475813   17   0.00093897
14.32819264   6    0.00245571




19.40789888   28   0.00014544




17.07337273   14   0.00182812




26.37592681   41   0.00262425




14.90383063   8    0.00148077
28.42256711   43   0.00138156




17.07118118   13   0.00424822
6r.   7. Product-liability insurance losses / state GDP   7r.




13                       0.00010240                       32




3                        -0.00003231                      7




46                       0.00019505                       44
33   0.00004780    20




11   0.00025164    46




39   0.00018886    43




47   -0.00007218   6
48   0.00002285   12




38   0.00013264   38




15   0.00004072   18




27   0.00018235   42
16   0.00010944   34




42   0.00002473   14




5    0.00005199   21




24   0.00003940   17
10   0.00005891    24




29   0.00009753    30




8    -0.00000329   9




40   0.00005590    23
37   0.00011689    35




35   -0.00001220   8




6    -0.00016157   2




22   0.00020135    45
7    0.00000134   10




20   0.00010549   33




45   0.00007957   28




12   0.00014062   40
4    0.00030604   49




31   0.00004259   19




49   0.00013627   39




19   0.00005974   25
50   0.00014663    41




26   0.00011917    36




25   -0.00007819   5




23   0.00002306    13




2    0.00012549    37
28   0.00027122    48




36   0.00003400    16




43   -0.00021332   1




17   0.00006076    26
30   0.00007513   27




44   0.00001084   11




9    0.00008616   29
32   0.00003394    15




1    -0.00012225   4




21   0.00010222    31




34   0.00030934    50




18   -0.00014981   3
14   0.00025307   47




41   0.00005291   22
                                                      9. Commercial self-insurance losses / state
8. Personal self-insurance losses / state GDP   8r.
                                                                        GDP



                 0.00028507                     40                    0.00469915




                 0.00018261                     2                     0.00344134




                 0.00027262                     37                    0.00444538
0.00028944   41   0.00450257




0.00020798   9    0.00424704




0.00024291   27   0.00446234




0.00024204   25   0.00469297
0.00019454   7    0.00399174




0.00044019   50   0.00518322




0.00023952   23   0.00408163




0.00023752   21   0.00473322
0.00023595   19   0.00463996




0.00018978   5    0.00552191




0.00023027   17   0.00377092




0.00018600   3    0.00443930
0.00024644   29   0.00392593




0.00029469   42   0.00417001




0.00029569   43   0.00408733




0.00027954   38   0.00461741
0.00027042   36   0.00410068




0.00026080   32   0.00463656




0.00029692   44   0.00382805




0.00023672   20   0.00394755
0.00033344   47   0.00493594




0.00024226   26   0.00490815




0.00029886   45   0.00601329




0.00023095   18   0.00437725
0.00026477   34   0.00453856




0.00024137   24   0.00450130




0.00025067   31   0.00557887




0.00024905   30   0.00348465
0.00020975   12   0.00573230




0.00020943   11   0.00329587




0.00019884   8    0.00478110




0.00021844   15   0.00401913




0.00028167   39   0.00423021
0.00024530   28   0.00403631




0.00026133   33   0.00480793




0.00032023   46   0.00496842




0.00033618   48   0.00347097
0.00019034   6    0.00454891




0.00022510   16   0.00411259




0.00021737   14   0.00346924
0.00021181   13   0.00371340




0.00026741   35   0.00807368




0.00020855   10   0.00325968




0.00023756   22   0.00389096




0.00035060   49   0.00527570
0.00018958   4   0.00399977




0.00017599   1   0.00391819
                                                                      Litigation Risks


      10. Number of jury-
       verdict awards in           11. Did the state have
9r.                         10r.                               11r.
        the 100 largest            ―judicial hellholes‖? [3]
          awards [11]


37             1            5.9                                 1




 3             0            1.0                                 1




27             1            5.9                                 1
30   0    1.0    Watch list (Miller County)        25.5




24   15   45.1   Watch list (Los Angeles County,   25.5
                 San Francisco); Dishonorable
                 mention (entire state)




28   1    5.9                                       1




36   1    5.9                                       1
14   3    15.7   Watch list (entire state)      25.5




44   12   40.2   Ranked no. 2 (South Florida)   50




18   0    1.0                                    1




38   0    1.0                                    1
35   0   1.0                                     1




46   9   30.4   Ranked no. 3, 4, and 5 (Cook     50
                County, Madison County, and St
                Clair County)




8    1   5.9                                     1




26   0   1.0                                     1
12   0   1.0                                   1




22   1   5.9                                   1




19   1   5.9   Watch list (Orleans Parish);   25.5
               Dishonorable mention
               (Louisiana Supreme Court)




33   0   1.0                                   1
20   1   5.9                                     1




34   2   10.8   Dishonorable mention            25.5
                (Massachusetts Supreme Court)




9    0   1.0                                     1




13   1   5.9                                     1
42   1   5.9                                1




41   2   10.8                               1




49   0   1.0                                1




25   0   1.0    Dishonorable mention       25.5
                (Nebraska Supreme Court)
31   0   1.0                                    1




29   0   1.0                                    1




47   4   20.6   Dishonorable mention (entire   25.5
                state)




6    0   1.0                                    1
48   10   35.3   1




2    0    1.0    1




39   0    1.0    1




16   1    5.9    1




23   0    1.0    1
17   1   5.9                                 1




40   8   25.5   Watch list (Philadelphia)   25.5




43   0   1.0    Dishonorable mention        25.5
                (Providence)




5    2   10.8                                1
32   0    1.0                               1




21   0    1.0                               1




4    18   50.0   Ranked no. 3 (Rio Grande   50
                 Valley and Gulf Coast)
7    1   5.9                                 1




50   0   1.0                                 1




1    0   1.0                                 1




10   1   5.9                                 1




45   0   1.0   Ranked no. 1 (entire state)   50
15   0   1.0   1




11   0   1.0   1
Litigation Risks


                                  13. Total state trial courts’ incoming
 12. Resident and active           civil cases per 100,000 residents
                           12r.                                            13r.
  attorneys / state GDP              (excluding domestic-relations
                                                 cases)


     0.000000078626634     31                     4391                     16




     0.000000056392166     10                     3954                     12




     0.000000052361021      6                     4754                     21
0.000000059888716   14   4808   22




0.000000081645058   36   2888   6




0.000000080046686   34   6841   37




0.000000091008847   45   6589   35
0.000000039611670   1    7350   43




0.000000065136194   19   5863   31




0.000000067532604   23   8605   47




0.000000068876807   25   2127   2
0.000000063437995   18   5954   32




0.000000103680813   48   4418   17




0.000000052503867   7    7659   45




0.000000055626361   9    5097   24
0.000000068630874   24   7433   44




0.000000077665646   30   5236   26




0.000000087786971   42   7021   39




0.000000074766355   28   2624   3
0.000000079553168   33   17647   50




0.000000147634565   50   5504    27




0.000000082498038   37   7207    42




0.000000082507994   38   2627    4
0.000000078848323   32   2737   5




0.000000096017284   47   4627   20




0.000000083720067   39   5828   30




0.000000066538970   21   5134   25
0.000000047128776   2    6319   34




0.000000057662236   11   4164   13




0.000000084880742   40   9676   48




0.000000067066263   22   3858   11
0.000000141494054   49   8353   46




0.000000047305253   3    6247   33




0.000000051847641   5    4226   14




0.000000074617062   27   7148   41




0.000000089134132   44   5766   29
0.000000071955902   26   4497   18




0.000000088997889   43   3411   9




0.000000086530880   41   4888   23




0.000000059129840   13   7036   40
0.000000053046706   8    6892   38




0.000000060790912   15   1307   1




0.000000065449469   20   3250   8
0.000000061801144   16   5576    28




0.000000092057985   46   3177    7




0.000000057929372   12   13376   49




0.000000077259301   29   3848    10




0.000000080797010   35   4354    15
0.000000063169476   17   4514   19




0.000000049829167   4    6645   36
14. Appeal-bond caps [18]   14r.




                             50




                             50




                             50
Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million.     9.64705882
[HB 1038. 2003]




MSA. Limits the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the         47.11764704
right to appeal to $150 million and applies to all judgments in civil litigation regardless of legal theory. [AB
1752. 2003]




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million.     9.64705882
[HB 1366. 2003]




Everything. Appeal bond is not required for a defendant to appeal a decision.                                           1
                                                                                                                     50




Everything. Limited appeal bond amounts in any civil action, except for certified class actions subject          18.29411764
768.733, to $50 million. [H.B. 841.2006] Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the
right to appeal punitive damages awards in class actions to the lesser of 10% of the defendants net worth or
$100 million. The reform applies in out-of-state judgments during the stay period only. [HB 1721. 2000] Limits
the amount that signatories to the Master Settlement Agreement are required to pay to secure the right to
appeal to $100 million. [SB 2826. 2003]




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million.   9.64705882
The reform applies in out-of-state judgments during the stay period only. [HB 1346. 2000] Expands the cap of
$25 million on appeal bonds that applied to punitive damages and expands the cap to cover all forms of
judgments in all civil cases. [SB 411. 2004]




MSA. Limited the appeal bond to $25 million, regardless of the amount of judgment. Provided a provision for      38.47058822
small businesses that limits the appeal bond to $1 million. [HB 3250. 2006] Limits the amount a signatory to
the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $150 million. [SB
2840. 2004]
Punitive. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal punitive damages   35.58823528
awards to only the first of $1,000,000 of any judgment. [HB 92. 2003]




                                                                                                                    50




Punitive. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal punitive damages   38.47058822
awards to $25 million. [HB 1204. 2002]




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $100          26.94117646
million. [SF 2306. 2004]
Everything. Provides that if the appellant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that setting the               3.88235294
supersedeas bond at the full amount of the judgment will result in the appellant suffering an undue hardship or
a denial of the right to appeal, the court may reduce the amount of the bond as follows: (1) if the judgment is
less than or equal to $1 million, the supersedeas bond shall be set at the full amount of the judgment; or (2) if
the judgment exceeds $1 million in value, the supersedeas bond shall be set at a total of $1 million plus 25
percent of any amount in excess of $1 million. [HB 2457 (Sub). 2005] Limits the amount that signatories to the
Master Settlement Agreement are required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million. [SB 48. 2003]




Everything. Provided that the total appeal bond required collectively of all appellants during the appeal of a      26.94117646
civil action may not exceed one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) in the aggregate, regardless of the
amount of the judgment. [HB 426. 2007] Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the
right to appeal to $100 million. The reform applies in out-of-state judgments during the stay period only. [SB
316. 2000]




Everything. Places a $150 million limit on the amount that defendants must post to obtain a bond during the         29.8235294
appeals process. [HB 1524. 2001] Limits the amount that signatories to the Master Settlement Agreement are
required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $50 million. [HB 1819. 2003]




Everything. Appeal bond is not required for a defendant to appeal a decision.                                            1
                                                                                                                      50




Everything. Appeal bond is not required for a defendant to appeal a decision.                                          1




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million.    9.64705882
Provides that this limit will be adjusted on January 1, 2008 and again on January 1 every five years after that
by an amount determined by the state treasurer to reflect the annual aggregate percentage change in the
Detroit consumer price index since the previous adjustment. [HB 5151. 2002]




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $100            26.94117646
million. [HF 1425. 2004]
Punitive. The Mississippi Supreme Court, acting on its own motion, imposed a $100 million limit on the            44.2352941
amount that defendants can be required to post to secure a bond to appeal large punitive damages verdicts.
[2001]




Everything. Limited the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $50            18.29411764
million. [HB 393. 2005] Limited the amount signatories to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to
pay to secure the right to appeal to $50 million. [SB 242. 2003]




                                                                                                                      50




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to the lesser of   15.4117647
the amount of the judgment, 50 percent of the appellant’s net worth, or $50 million. [LB 1207. 2004]
Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $50 million.   18.29411764
[AB 576. 2001]




Everything. Appeal bond is not required for a defendant to appeal a decision.                                         1




MSA. Limits the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the       41.35294116
right to appeal to $50 million. [SB 2738. 2003]




                                                                                                                     50
                                                                                                                     50




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million    9.64705882
regardless of legal theory. [SB 784. 2003]




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million.   9.64705882
[SB 2773. 2005]




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $50 million.   18.29411764
[HB 161. 2002]




MSA. Limited the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure          38.47058822
the right to appeal to $25 million. [SB 372. 2001]
MSA. Limits the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the   47.11764704
right to appeal to $150 million. [H.B. 2368. 2003]




MSA. Limited the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure      44.2352941
the right to appeal to $100 million. [HB 1718. 2003]




                                                                                                                 50




MSA. Provided that judgments are to be stayed during the appeal of a judgment by signatories to the Master   32.70588234
Settlement Agreement. Such defendants are not required to post an appeal bond. [H 4823. 2004]
Everything. The South Dakota Supreme Court, acting on its own motion, imposed a $25 million limit on the          9.64705882
amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal. [Rule 03-13. 2003]




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $75 million.    21.17647058
[SB 1687. 2003]




Everything, Punitive. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to       6.76470588
the lesser of 50% of a defendant’s net worth or $25 million. Provides that defendants are no longer required to
post a bond to appeal punitive damages. [HB 4. 2003]
Everything, Punitive. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal            12.52941176
compensatory damages to $25 million in class actions or actions involving multiple plaintiffs in which
compensatory damages are not proved for each plaintiff individually. Provided that in all class actions, there is
no bonding requirement to appeal a punitive damages award. [Supreme Court Order 2005-03-22 (amended
URCP 62). 2005]




Everything. Appeal bond is not required for a defendant to appeal a decision.                                            1




Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million.      9.64705882
Applies in out-of-state judgments during the stay period only. [HB 1547. 2000] Expands limit of $25 million on
appeal bond amounts for punitive damages to apply to appeal bond amounts for all forms of damages. [H.B.
430/S.B. 172. 2004]




MSA. Limited appeal bonds for signatories to the Master Settlement Agreement to $100 million. [SB 6541.             44.2352941
2006]




MSA, Punitive. Limited appeal bond amounts to $50 million, adjusted for inflation. [SB 194. 2007] Limited the       24.05882352
amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to
$200 million. Provides that an appeal bond may not exceed $100 million for compensatory damages and $100
million in punitive damages. [SB 661. 2001]
Everything. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $100            26.94117646
million. [A.B. 548. 2003]




Everything. Limited appeal bond amounts to $25 million, and contained $2 million limit for individuals or small   9.64705882
businesses defined as an employer with 50 or fewer employees. [HB 196. 2007]
                                                         Monetary Caps as of 2007




15. Caps on non-economic damages (excluding medical-malpractice lawsuits) [9]       15r.




                                                                                    50




                                                                                    50




                                                                                    50
                                                                                                               50




                                                                                                               50




S.B. 129 is legislation that will index for inflation, dating back to 1998, the limit on noneconomic damages   25.5
in general liability cases. This adjustment will bring the limit from the current level of about $366,000 to
nearly $500,000. [SB 129. 2007] Limits the award of noneconomic damages to $250,000, unless the court
finds justification by ―clear and convincing‖ evidence for a larger award not to exceed $500,000. [SB 67.
1986]




                                                                                                               50
                                                                                                         50




                                                                                                         50




                                                                                                         50




Limits noneconomic damages for physical pain and suffering to $375,000. [SB S1. 1986; Haw. Rev. Stat.   13.25
§§ 663-8.7, 663-10.9(2). 1991]
Limits the award of noneconomic damages in personal injury cases to $250,000. [HB 92. 2003] Limits the     7.125
award of noneconomic damages to $400,000. [Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1603. 1987]




                                                                                                            50




                                                                                                            50




Prohibits a motorist, passenger or pedestrian from collecting noneconomic damages for injuries sustained   43.875
in an automobile crash caused during the commission of a felony. [HF 2525. 2000]
Limits noneconomic damages to $250,000. [HB 2692, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-1902, 60-1903. 1988]   1




                                                                                               50




                                                                                               50




                                                                                               50
Limits the award of noneconomic damages to $500,000. [SB 558, Md. Cts. & Jud. Pro. §11-108. 1986]            19.375
Limits the award of noneconomic damages in public entity lawsuits to $200,000 per person and $500,000
per incident. [SB 237. 1987] Limits noneconomic damages in wrongful death actions to $500,000. In
cases where there are two or more beneficiaries, the limit is $700,000. [SB 283, Md. Cts. & Jud. Pro. §11-
108. 1994] Provides that an individual driving a motor vehicle that is not covered by insurance is
considered to have waived the right to recover noneconomic damages under specified circumstances.
[HB 714. 2001]

                                                                                                              50




Limits non-economic damages to $280,000, applicable only to product liability noneconomic damage             43.875
cases. [Michigan Compiled Laws 600.1483]




Limits the award of damages for loss of consortium, emotional distress, or embarrassment to $400,000.        13.25
[SB 2078. 1986]
Limited the recovery of noneconomic damages in all civil cases, with the exception of medical liability   37.75
actions, to $1 million. [HB 13. 2004]




                                                                                                           50




                                                                                                           50




                                                                                                           50
50




50




50




50
                                                                                                               50




                                                                                                               50




                                                                                                               50




Limits non-economic damages to $350,000, which can rise up to $1 million depending on the severity of         31.625
the injury and the number of plaintiffs involved in the suit. [S.B. 281. 2003] Limited noneconomic damages
in cases involving noncatastrophic injuries to the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages
up to $350,000, per plaintiff, with a maximum limit of $500,000 per occurrence. Limits applied to all cases
but medical liability cases. [Am Sub SB 80. 2004]




                                                                                                               50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50
50




50




50




50




50
50




50
7



       16. Caps on punitive damages (excluding medical-malpractice
                                                                                            16r.
                              lawsuits) [11]



    In physical injury cases: limits punitive damages to the greater of three times         10.8
    compensatory damages or $1.5 million. Limit to be adjusted by the Consumer
    Price Index in three-year intervals beginning on January 1, 2003. In non-physical
    injury cases: the greater of three times compensatory damages or $500,000; for
    small businesses with a net worth of less than $2 million, limits punitive damages
    to $50,000 or 10% of net worth up to $200,000, whichever is greater. [SB 137, Ala.
    Code § 6-11-21. 1999]




    Limits punitive damages to $500,000 or three times compensatory damages,                35.3
    whichever is greater, unless the defendant's action is motivated by financial gain in
    which case punitive damages are limited to $7,000,000, four times compensatory
    damages, or four times the aggregate amount of financial gain, whichever is
    greatest. (In unlawful employment practice suits punitive damages are limited on a
    sliding scale based on the number of employees in the state.) [HB 58, Alaska Stat.
    09.17.020. 1997]




                                                                                            50
Limits punitive damages to the greater of $250,000 or three times compensatory         15.7
damages not to exceed $1,000,000. [HB 1038, Ark. Code16-55-208. 2003]




                                                                                       50




Prohibited a plaintiff from filing a claim for punitive damages unless the claim can   30.4
show evidence of willful or wanton action that would justify such a claim. [HB 1186.
2003]




Punitive damage awards in product liability actions may not exceed two times           35.3
compensatory damages. [Conn.Gen.Stat.§52-240b. 1979]
                                                                                        50




Limits punitive damages to three times compensatory damages or $500,000,                30.4
whichever is greater; the limit is increased to four times compensatory damages or
$2,000,000, whichever is greater, if the defendant’s wrongful conduct was
motivated by unreasonable financial gain or the likelihood of injury was known. [HB
775, Fla. Stat. § 768.73. 1999] Prohibits the award of punitive damages in
asbestos claims. [HB 1019. 2005]




$250,000, limit does not apply to product liability cases. [HB 1, Ga. Code Ann. § 51-   15.7
12-5.1 (f)(g). 1987]




                                                                                        50
Limits punitive damages awards to the greater of $250,000 or three times   35.3
compensatory damages. [HB 92, Idaho Code 6-1604(3). 2003]




                                                                           50




Limits punitive damages to three times compensatory damages or $50,000,    30.4
whichever is greater. [HB 1741, Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-3-4. 1995]




                                                                           50
Limits punitive award at lesser of defendant's annual gross income or $5,000,000.    45.1
(The 1992 legislature amended this statute to allow a judge who felt a defendant’s
annual gross income was not a sufficient deterrent to look at 50% of the
defendant’s net assets and award the lesser of that amount or $5 million.) [HB
2731, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3701. 1988]




                                                                                     50




Repeals the statute that authorized punitive damages to be awarded for the           10.8
wrongful handling of hazardous substances. (The Louisiana courts had
established precedents substantially expanding liability based upon the repealed
statute.) [HB20. 1996] Additional: Louisiana does not allow punitive damages for
product liability or medical malpractice cases. Punitive damages not allowed
unless expressly authorized by statute. Furthermore, even when a statute
authorizes punitive damages, such statutory language is to be strictly construed.
Before punitive damages allowed, it must be shown that the defendant’s conduct
was wanton or reckless. The wanton or reckless conduct that must be proved is
highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in
a situation where a high degree of danger is apparent. It must also be shown that
the danger created by the defendant’s wanton or reckless conduct threatened or
endangered the public safety and that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the
wanton or reckless conduct. Breach of contract: Under LA law, there can be no
punitive damages for breach of contract, even when party has acted in bad faith in
breaching an agreement.




                                                                                     50
                                                                                        50




Massachusetts has consistently maintained that punitive damages are only                30.4
allowable by statutory authorization and not at common law…Punitive damages
are not favored in Massachusetts. Products liability: punitive damages not
recoverable against manufacturers under Mass law unless expressly authorized by
statute. Professional liability: punitive damages are recoverable against a
professional in an action authorized under a specific statute. General liability:
statute addressing actions for death by negligence allows for punitive damages ―in
an amount of not less than five thousand dollars in such case as the decedent’s
death was caused by the malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct of the
defendant or by the gross negligence of the defendant.‖ Employment liability:
punitive damages are allowed in gender discrimination claims against employers.
Other: punitive damages allowed for claims alleging interference with a lawful
taking of fish or wildlife; allowable where evidence warrants a finding of willful or
knowing unfair and deceptive insurance practices.



Punitive damages are not allowed in Michigan, but exemplary damages are                  1
allowed. Exemplary damages are a ―class of compensatory damages that allow
for compensation for injury to feelings.‖ Exemplary damages are awarded when
the act complained of was voluntary and inspired feelings of humiliation, outrage or
indignity. Exemplary damages compensate plaintiff for the harm done to their
feelings.




                                                                                        50
$20 million for a defendant with a net worth of more than $1 billion, $15 million for   35.3
a defendant with a net worth of more than $750 million but not more than $1 billion,
$5 million for a defendant with a net worth of more than $500 million but not more
than $750 million, $3.75 million for a defendant with a net worth of more than $100
million but not more than $500 million, $2.5 million for defendants with a net worth
of more than $50 million but not more than $100 million, Two percent of the
defendant’s net worth for a defendant with a net worth of $50 million or less. [Miss.
Code Ann. 11-1-65. 2003; H.B. 13. 2004]




Limits punitive damages to $500,000 or five times the judgment, whichever is            40.2
greater. Limit does not apply to certain cases involving housing discrimination. [HB
393. 2005]




Limits punitive damages, unless otherwise expressed by statute, to $10 million or 3     35.3
percent of a defendant’s net worth, whichever is less. The bill does not limit the
amount of punitive damages that may be awarded in class action lawsuits. [SB
363. 2003]




Punitive damages are unconstitutional under Nebraska law.                                1
Limits punitive damages to $300,000 in cases in which compensatory damages                50
are less than $100,000 and to three times compensatory damages in cases of
$100,000 or more. (Product liability, insurance bad faith, discrimination, toxic torts,
and defamation cases are excluded.) [AB 307, Nev. Rev. Stat. 42.005(1). 1989]




Prohibits the award of punitive damages. [HB 513. 1986]                                    1




Limits punitive damages to five times compensatory damages or $350,000,                   40.2
whichever is greater (Exemptions include: bias crimes, discrimination, AIDS testing
disclosure, sex abuse, drunk drivers.) [SB 1496, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-5.14.
1995]




                                                                                          50
                                                                                         50




Limits punitive damages to three times compensatory damages or $250,000,                 35.3
whichever is greater. (Exception is for harm caused by driving while impaired.) [HB
729, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 10-15(b), 1D-25. 1995]




Limits punitive damages to the greater of $250,000 or two times compensatory             25.5
damages. [SB 2351, N.D. Cent. Code § 32.03.2-11(4). 1993]




Limits punitive damages to not more than two times compensatory damages.                 10.8
Limits punitive damages for small businesses to the lesser of two times
compensatory damages or 10 percent of a defendants net worth, not to exceed
$350,000. Prohibits the award of punitive damages if punitive damages have
already been awarded based on the same act or conduct alleged, except under
certain circumstances. [SB80. 2004]




If defendant acted with ―reckless disregard for the rights of others,‖ punitive          15.7
damages may be awarded up to the greater of $100,000 or the amount of
compensatory damages awarded; if the defendant acted ―intentionally and with
malice toward others,‖ punitive damages may be awarded up to the greater of
$500,000 or twice the amount of compensatory damages awarded or the
―increased financial benefit derived by the defendant‖ as a result of its conduct. [SB
263, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 9.1. 1995]
                                                                       50




Limits punitive damages to 200% of compensatory awards. [HB 2210, 40   20.6
Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann.1303.505. 1996, 2002]




                                                                       50




                                                                       50
                                                                               50




                                                                               50




Limits punitive damage awards to $200,000 or two times economic damages plus   25.5
an amount equal to any noneconomic damages up to $750,000. [SB 25, Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 41.003, 41.008. 1995]
                                                                                   50




                                                                                   50




Limits the award of punitive damages to $350,000. [SB 402, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-   5.9
38.1. 1987]




An award of punitive damages is not in accord with Washington law. Recovery of     1
punitive damages is contrary to public policy and will not be allowed unless
expressly authorized by statute.




                                                                                   50
50




50
   17. Caps on damage awards in medical-malpractice
                                                                        17r.
                    lawsuits [21]



                                                                        50




Limits noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $250,000. In   15.7
the most severe cases involving disfigurement, severe permanent
physical impairment, and wrongful death, the limit on noneconomic
damages is $400,000. Damages limits not applicable to intentional
misconduct or reckless acts or omissions. [SB 67. 2005] Punitive
damages limited to $500,000 or 3 times compensatory damages. [SB
337., §9.17.020. 1986]




                                                                        50
Punitive damages limited to $250,000 per plaintiff or 3 times amount of       32.85
economic damages. Not to exceed $1 million. Limits adjusted for
inflation at 3-year intervals beginning in 2006. Contingent on proof of
recklessness or intentional malice. [§16-55-205 – 209]




$250,000 limit for noneconomic damages. [Civil Code §3333.2. 1975]            32.85




Limited the award of noneconomic damages to $300,000 in medical                5.9
liability cases. [HB 1012. 2003] Prohibited a plaintiff from filing a claim
for punitive damages unless the claim can show evidence of willful or
wanton action that would justify such a claim. [HB 1186. 2003]




                                                                               50
Punitive damages may be awarded only on finding of malicious intent to     30.4
injure or willful or wanton misconduct. No mandated limit. [§18.6855.
1976]




Provides for non-practitioner limits on noneconomic damages of             18.15
$750,000 per claimant, with an aggregate for all claimants. Provides for
practitioner limits on noneconomic damages of $500,000 per claimant,
with an aggregate limit for all claimants of $1 million, but no single
practitioner shall be liable for more than $500,000 regardless of the
number of claimants. [CS/SB 2-D. 2003] Noneconomic damages limited
to $500,000 per claimant. Death or permanent vegetative state,
noneconomic damages not to exceed $1 million. [§766.118] Punitive
damages limited to the greater of 3 times amount of economic damages
or $500,000. If deliberate intent to harm, no limit on punitive damages.
[§768.73]




Limits noneconomic damages to $350,000 per healthcare provider, with       20.6
an overall aggregate limit of $1.05 million. [SB 3. 2005] $250,000 limit
on punitive damages, unless demonstrated intent to harm. [HB 1, Ga.
Code Ann. § 51-12-5.1 (f)(g). 1987]




$375,000 limit for pain and suffering damages. [§663.8.5, 8.7. 1986]       37.75
$250,000 limit on noneconomic damages, adjusted annually according           8.35
to the state's adjustment of the average annual wage. Punitive damages
limited to $250,000 or amount 3 times of compensatory damages. [HB
92, §6.1603-4. 2003]




Punitive damages not recoverable in medical malpractice cases. [§735         8.35
5/2-1115] Limits the award of noneconomic damages in medical liability
cases to $500,000 per physician and $1 million per hospital. [SB475.
2005]




Permits the Attorney General's office to negotiate and compromise the        23.05
portion of a punitive damages award that is to be paid to the state.
Provides that the state's interest in a punitive damages award is
effective when a finder of fact announces a verdict that includes punitive
damages. [SB 0296. 2006] $1,250,000 total limit. Liability limited to
$250,000 per health care provider. Any award beyond limits covered by
Patient Compensation Fund. [§34-18-4-3]




                                                                              50
$250,000 limit on noneconomic damages recoverable by each party                27.95
from all defendants. [HB 2692, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-1902, 60-1903.
1988] Punitive damages limited to lesser of defendant's highest gross
income for prior 5 years or $5 million. If profitability of misconduct
exceeds limit, court may award 1.5 times profit instead, Judge
determines punitive damage. [HB 2731, §60.3702. 1988]




                                                                                50




$500,000 limit for total recovery. Health care provider liability limited to   8.35
$100,000. Any award in excess of all liable providers paid from Patient’s
Compensation Fund. [RS §40:1299.42] Punitive Damages not allowed.




                                                                                50
Limits the award of noneconomic damages to $500,000. [SB 558, Md.          42.65
Cts. & Jud. Pro. §11-108. 1986]




Limits noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $500,000,         8.35
unless the claimant can show ―a substantial or permanent loss or
impairment of a bodily function or substantial disfigurement.‖ [Mass.
Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 231 § 60-H] Punitive damages not allowed at
common law. Must be authorized under strict statute.




Limits the award of noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to      3.45
$280,000 for ordinary occurrences, and $500,000 if the claimant has
suffered brain damage, spinal cord damage, damage to the reproductive
system which prevents procreation, or injury to cognitive ability that
leaves the plaintiff unable to live alone. [SB 270, Mich. Comp. Laws §
600.1483. 1993] Punitive damages not allowed, but exemplary
damages are allowed.




No limitation for punitive damages but are only allowed if defendant       30.4
proven to have deliberate disregard to safety. Award subject to judicial
review. [§549.20. 1990]
Established a hard cap of $500,000 on noneconomic damages in              8.35
medical liability cases (the $500,000 cap that was passed during a
special session in 2002 contained an escalator clause which would have
raised the cap to $750,000 in 2011 and $1 million in 2017). [HB 13.
2004] Punitive damages only awarded if willful malice or gross
negligence proved. Court determines if award granted and amount.
Damages limited based on defendant’s net worth. [§11.1.65]




Limited noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $350,000        15.7
regardless of the number of defendants in the case. Limits punitive
damages to $500,000 or five times the judgment, whichever is greater.
[HB 393. 2005]




$250,000 limit on noneconomic damages. [HB 309, §25.9.411. 1995]           1
Liability for punitive damages determined by court, defendant must have
been proven guilty of deliberate malice. [§27-1-221]




Total damages limited to $1,750,000. Health care provider liability       8.35
limited to $500,000. Any excess of total liability of all health care
providers paid from Excess Liability Fund. [§44.2825. 1986, 1976]
Punitive damages are unconstitutional.
Question 3, Passed. Amends NRS Ch. 41A. $350,000 limit on                   13.25
noneconomic damages, no exceptions. [Nevada Ballot, 2004 Election]
$300,000 or 3 times compensatory damages limit on punitive damages,
only awarded by court for fraud, oppression, or malice. [§42.005]




Prohibits the award of punitive damages. [HB 513. 1986]                     30.4




$350,000 limit on punitive damages, or 5 times compensatory damages,        35.3
whichever is greater. [SB 1496, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-5.14. 1995]




$600,000 total limit on all damages. Health care providers not liable for   10.8
any amount over $200,000; any judgment in excess paid from Patient’s
Compensation Fund. [§41.5.6-7. 1976]
                                                                          50




$250,000 limit on punitive damages, or 3 times economic damages,         32.85
whichever is greater. [§1D-25]




$500,000 limit on noneconomic damages. [HB 1050, §32.42.02. 1995]        15.7
Limits punitive damages to the greater of $250,000 or two times
compensatory damages. [SB 2351, N.D. Cent. Code § 32.03.2-11(4).
1993]




Limits punitive damages to not more than two times compensatory          47.55
damages. [SB80. 2004]




$300,000 limit on noneconomic damages in all malpractice cases. [HB      27.95
2661. 2004] Limited the award of noneconomic damages to $350,000 in
cases involving pregnancy (labor, delivery, and post partum period) as
well as emergency care. [SB 629. 2003] Punitive damages awarded
based on condition of misconduct. [§23-9.1]
Punitive damages not awarded if physician is found acting in scope of         30.4
duties without malice. [§31.740]




Punitive damages granted only if defendant found guilty of willful            30.4
misconduct or reckless disregard. [§40.1301.812-A]




                                                                              50




Limited noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $350,000            20.6
per provider, with an overall aggregate limit of $1.05 million. [S83. 2005]
$500,000 limit on noneconomic damages. No limit on special damages.         42.65
[§21-3-11. 1986]




                                                                             50




Limited the award of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice             25.5
cases to $250,000 against all doctors and health care practitioners and
a $250,000 per-facility cap against health care facilities such as
hospitals and nursing homes, with an overall cap of $500,000 against
health care facilites, creating in effect an overall limit of noneconomic
damages in medical malpractice cases of $750,000. [HB 4. 2003] Limits
punitive damage awards to $200,000 or two times economic damages
plus an amount equal to any noneconomic damages up to $750,000.
[SB 25, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 41.003, 41.008. 1995]
Modified the limit on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases.         40.2
For a cause of action arising before July 1, 2001, limited noneconomic
damages to $250,000. For a cause of action arising on or after July 1,
2001 and before July 1, 2002, the limit is adjusted to $400,000. For a
cause of action arising on or after July 1, 2002, the limit shall be
adjusted for inflation by July 15 of each year. Limits are to be rounded to
the nearest $10,000 and apply to a cause of action arising on or after
the date the annual adjustment is made. Inflation is defined as the
seasonally adjusted consumer price index for all urban consumers as
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States
Department of Labor. [SB 129. 2001]




                                                                               50




$1.5 million limit on recovery damages. Increased by $50,000 each year        25.5
from 2001 to 2006. Increased by $75,000 each year in 2007 and 2008.
[§8.01-581.15]




No specific limits on damage awards. Judgment for noneconomic                 8.35
damages cannot exceed formulation of average annual wage and life
expectancy of injured. [§4.56.250] Punitive damages not allowed.




Limited the award of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice               42.65
cases to $250,000 to $500,000 depending on the severity of the injuries.
[HB 2122. 2003]
Limited noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $750,000.   45.1
[AB 1073. 2006]




                                                                      50
                                             18. Class-action rules [5]                                                   18r.




Sets procedures to certify class actions. Codifies Supreme Court rulings to ensure that a defendant receives              13.25
adequate notice prior to class certification. Provides for an immediate appeal of any order certifying a class or
refusing to certify a class, and for an automatic stay of matters in the trial court pending such appeal. [SB 72. 1999]




                                                                                                                           50




                                                                                                                           50
                                                                                                           50




                                                                                                           50




Permits the interlocutory appeal of class action certification in class action lawsuits. [HB 1027. 2003]   25.5




                                                                                                           50
                                                                                                                           50




Established venue reform to prohibit out-of-state residents from filing lawsuits in Florida courts unless the claim       37.75
occurred or emanated from the state. Required claimants to prove actual damages in order to maintain certain types
of class actions. Would not preclude the Attorney General from bringing a class action to cover statutory penalties.
[HB 7529. 2006]




Specified detailed procedures for the filing and certification of class action lawsuits. Provided for the interlocutory    1
appeal of class action certifications. [SB 19. 2005] Updates Georgia class action laws by providing for detailed
procedures for class action cases. Specifies factors under which a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction in a
cause of action of a nonresident occurring outside the state. [HB 792. 2003]




                                                                                                                           50
50




50




50




50
Provides for the interlocutory appeal of class action certifications. [HB 2764. 2004]                                   25.5




                                                                                                                        50




Updates Louisiana class action laws by providing objective definitions of class action terms, and detailed procedures   25.5
for class action cases. [HB 1984. 1997]




                                                                                                                        50
50




50




50




50
                                                                                   50




Provides for the interlocutory appeal of class certifications. [H.B. 1211. 2004]   25.5




                                                                                   50




                                                                                   50
50




50




50




50
                                                                                      50




                                                                                      50




                                                                                      50




Provides for the interlocutory appeal of class action certification. [HB 394. 1998]   25.5




                                                                                      50
50




50




50




50
                                                                                                                              50




                                                                                                                              50




Provides for the interlocutory appeal of class action certification. Reforms attorney fees whereby fees are based on          1
time and cost expended rather than a percentage of recovery. Provides for stay on all proceedings during appeal of
class certification. Provides for administrative relief which requires a court to consider administrative relief from state
agencies before certifying a class. [HB 4. 2003]
50




50




50




50




50
50




50
 19. Attorney contingency-fee limits (excluding medical-malpractice lawsuits) [6]            19r.




                                                                                             50




Requires that contingent fees be calculated exclusive of punitive damages. [Alaska Stat. §   40.2
9.60.080.]




                                                                                             50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
                                                                                              50




Limits contingent fees to 33.3% of the first $150,000 recovered, 25% of the next $850,000     1
recovered, and 20% of any amount recovered over $1 million. [735 Ill. Comp. Stat Ann. § 5/2
–1114.]




                                                                                              50




                                                                                              50
                                                                                                          50




                                                                                                          50




                                                                                                          50




Limits contingent fees in professional liability cases to 33.3% of the first $100,000 recovered, 25% of   30.4
the next $100,000 recovered, and 20% of any amount recovered over $2 million. Permits a judge to
allow fees in excess of these amounts in special circumstances. [Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24 § 2961.]
50




50




50




50
                                                                                                         50




                                                                                                         50




                                                                                                         50




Allows a court to review contingent fees in medical and professional liability cases. [Neb Stat. § 44-   40.2
2834.]
50




50




50




50
                                                                                          50




                                                                                          50




                                                                                          50




                                                                                          50




Limits contingent fees to 50% of a plaintiff’s recovery. [Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.5, § 7.]   20.6
50




50




50




50
50




50




50
50




50




50




50




50
Limits contingent fees to 1/3 of the first $1 million recovered, 25% of the first $1 million recovered if     10.8
liability is stipulated within 180 days of filing of the original complaint and not within 60 days of first
day of trial, and 20% for amounts exceeding $1 million recovered. Allows a judge to exceed these
amounts in exceptional circumstances. [Wisc. Stat. Ann. § 655.013.]




                                                                                                              50
     20. Does the state generally use a contributory,
    comparative, or modified-comparative standard for                  20r.
                     negligence? [4]



Pure Contributory Negligence [Alabama Power Co. v. Schotz, 215 So.2d    1
447 (Ala. 1968).]




Pure Comparative Fault [Alaska Stat. §§ 09.17.060 & .080.]             50




Pure Comparative Fault [Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2505.]                   50
Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-     17.33333333
122.]




Pure Comparative Fault [Liv v. Yellow Cab, 119 Cal. Rptr. 858 (1975).]        50




Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-   17.33333333
111.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-      33.66666667
572(h).]
Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [1 Del. C. § 8132.]       33.66666667




Pure Comparative Fault [Fla. Stat. § 768.81(2).]                           50




Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Ga. Code Ann. § 51-11-   17.33333333
7.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-   33.66666667
31.]
Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Idaho Code § 6-801.]        17.33333333




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Ill. Comp. Stat. § 735      33.66666667
ILCS 5/2-1116.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Ind. Code § 34-51-2-6.]     33.66666667




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Iowa Code § 668.3(1)(b).]   33.66666667
Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-      17.33333333
258a(a).]




Pure Comparative Fault [Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.182.]                      50




Pure Comparative Fault [La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 2323.]                       50




Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit.   17.33333333
14 § 156.]
Pure Contributory Negligence [Board of County Comm’r of Garrett             1
County v Bell Atlantic, 695 A.2d 171 (Md. 1997).]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Mass. Gen. Laws ch.       33.66666667
231, § 85.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Mich. Comp. Laws §        33.66666667
600.2959 (at 51% fault, plaintiff’s economic damages reduced and non-
economic damages are barred).]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Minn. Stat. § 604.01,     33.66666667
subd. 1.]
Pure Comparative Fault [Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-15.]                         50




Pure Comparative Fault [Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.              50
1983).]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-   33.66666667
702.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-     17.33333333
21,185.11.]
Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41-    33.66666667
141.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §   33.66666667
507:7-d.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1.]     33.66666667




Pure Comparative Fault [Scott v. Rizzo, 634 P.2d 1234 (1981).]             50
Pure Comparative Fault [N.Y.C.P.L.R. 1411.]                                    50




Pure Contributory Negligence [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4(3).]                     1




Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [N.D. Cent. Code § 32-        17.33333333
03.2-02.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Ohio Rev. Code §             33.66666667
2315.19(B)(4).]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [23 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 13.]   17.33333333
Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Or. Rev. Stat. § 18.470.]   33.66666667




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §   33.66666667
7102]




Pure Comparative Fault [R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4.]                             50




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Nelson v. Concrete          33.66666667
Supply, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991).]
Pure Comparative Fault [S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2]                       50




Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [McIntyre v. Balentine,   17.33333333
833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem.     33.66666667
Code §§ 33.001-33.017.]
Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-27-     17.33333333
37 & 78-27-38.]




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [12 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 1036.]   33.66666667




Pure Contributory Negligence [Baskett v. Banks, 45 S.E.2d 173 (Va.             1
1947).]




Pure Comparative Fault [Wash. Rev. Code §§ 4.22.005-015.]                      50




Modified Comparative Fault -- 50 Percent Bar [Bradley v. Appalachian       17.33333333
Power Co., 256 S.E.2d 879 (W.Va. 1979).]
Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Wis. Stat. § 895.045(1).]   33.66666667




Modified Comparative Fault -- 51 Percent Bar [Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b).]   33.66666667
           21. Rules on joint and several liability [7]                       21r.




                                                                               50




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery     1
of all damages. [Proposition 2. 1988]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   9.1667
of all damages, except in cases of intentional torts and hazardous
waste. [SB 1036, Ariz. Stat. § 12-2506. 1987]
Provides for a modified repeal of joint and several liability instead of      9.1667
complete repeal, whereby defendants who are found to be 1 percent
to 10 percent at fault will only be responsible for the percentage of
damage caused, defendants who are 11 percent to 50 percent at fault
can be assessed an additional 10 percent if a co-defendant is unable
to pay its share of a judgment, and defendants who are 51 percent to
99 percent at fault can be assessed an additional 20 percent if a co-
defendant is unable to pay its share of the judgment (this provision
does not apply to long-term care facility medical directors or punitive
damages). [HB 1038. 2003]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   17.3333
of noneconomic damages. [Prop 51, Cal. Civ. Code § 1431.2. 1986]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery     1
of all damages. (An amendment approved in 1987 allowed joint
liability when tortfeasors consciously acted in a concerted effort to
commit a tortious act.) [SB 70, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.5. 1986]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   33.6667
of all damages, except where the liable party’s share of the judgment
is uncollectible. (The 1987 legislation limited application of this
reform to noneconomic damages.) [HB 6134, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §
52-572h. 1986]
                                                                                50




Abolished joint and several liability. [HB 145. 2006]                           1




Eliminated joint and several liability. [SB 3. 2005] Barred application         1
of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of all damages
when a plaintiff is assessed a portion of the fault. [HB 1. 1987]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   33.6667
of all damages from all governmental entities. [HB 1088, Haw. Rev.
Stat. § 663-10.9. 1994] Barred application of the rule of joint and
several liability in the recovery of noneconomic damages from
defendants found to be 25% or less at fault. The reform does not
apply to auto, product, or environmental cases. [SB S1. 1986]
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery     1
of all damages, except in cases of intentional torts, hazardous waste,
and medical and pharmaceutical products. Amended in 2003 to
eliminate joint and several liability for pollution/hazard waste and
pharmaceutical product liability. [SB 1223, Idaho Code Ann. § 6-803.
1987] Defined the term ―acting in concert,‖ as used in SB 1223, as
pursuing a common plan or design that results in the commission of
an intentional or reckless tortious act. [HB 744. 1990]




Excepts plaintiffs’ employers from the calculation of joint and several        25.5
liability for medical and medically-related expenses. [SB 729. 2004]
Barred application of the rule of joint and several liability in the
recovery of noneconomic damages from defendants found to be 25%
or less at fault. The reform does not apply to auto, product, or
environmental cases. [SB 1200. 1986]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery     1
of all damages. [Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2-8. 1996]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   9.1667
of all noneconomic damages, and economic damages, where a
defendant is found to be less than 50% at fault. Provided that
defendants found to be 50% or more at fault are jointly liable for
economic damages only. [HF 693, 985, Iowa Code Ann. § 668.4.
1997]
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   1
of all damages. [Brown v. Keill, 580 P.2d 867, 874. 1978]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   1
of all damages. [HB 21, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.182. 1996]
Requires that juries be instructed to determine the percentage of fault
appropriate to each claimant, defendant, third party defendant and
defendant settling out of court and apportion each party's equitable
share in accordance with the respective percentages of fault. [HB
551. 1988]

Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   1
of all damages. [HB 21, La. Civ. Code arts 1804, 2323, 2324. 1996]




                                                                              50
                                                                                  50




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery     41.8333
of all damages against public accountants so that an individual or firm
is only liable for damages in proportion to the assigned degree of
fault. [HB 574, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 231B §§ 1-2. 2001]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery      25.5
of all damages, except in cases of employers’ vicarious liability and in
medical liability cases, where the plaintiff is determined not to have a
percentage of fault. [HB 4508, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.6304(4),
600.6312. 1995] Bars application of the rule of joint and several
liability in the recovery of all damages from municipalities. Bars
application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of all
damages from all other defendants, except in products liability actions
and actions involving a blame-free plaintiff. Provides that defendants
are severally liable, except when uncollectible shares of a judgment
are reallocated between solvent co-defendants according to their
degree of negligence. [HB 5154, 1986]




Provides that joint and several liability does not apply to defendants          17.3333
found to be less than 50% at fault. [SF 872. 2003] Provides that
defendants found to be 15% or less at fault shall pay no more than
four times their share of damages. [HF 1493, Minn. Stat. Ann. §
604.02 Subd. 1. 1988]
Abolishes joint and several liability. Provides that defendants are not          1
responsible for any fault allocated to an immune tortfeasor or a
tortfeasor whose liability is limited by law. [H.B. 13. 2004 (special
session)]




Provides that joint and several liability applies if a defendant is 51         17.3333
percent or more at fault. In such circumstances, the defendant is
jointly and severally liable for the amount of the judgment rendered
against the defendant. If a defendant is found to be less than 51
percent at fault, the defendant is only responsible for the percent of
the judgment he or she is responsible for. [HB 393. 2005] Limits joint
liability to two times the defendant’s percentage of fault, if the plaintiff
was at fault. [Mo. Stat. § 537.067] Bars application of the rule of joint
and several liability in the recovery of all damages when a plaintiff is
assessed a portion of the fault. [HB 700. 1987]




Retains the current system of modified joint and several liability,            17.3333
where joint liability does not apply to defendants found to be less than
50% at fault. Revises the comparative negligence statute to permit
the allocation of a percentage of liability to defendants who settle or
are released from liability by the plaintiff. Allows those defendants to
intervene in the action to defend against claims affirmatively asserted.
Provides that joint liability shall apply in actions arising from an act or
omission that violates a state environmental law relating to hazardous
or deleterious substances. [HB 571, Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-705.
1997] Barred application of the rule of joint and several liability in the
recovery of all damages. (Only if HB 571 is held unconstitutional.) [HB
572. 1997]



Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery    17.3333
of noneconomic damages. [LB 88, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.10.
1991]
Question 3, Passed. Amends NRS Ch. 41A. Defendants                            9.1667
proportionally liable according to percentage of fault for economic and
noneconomic damages awarded. [Nevada Ballot, 2004 Election]
Barred application of the rule of joint and several liability in the
recovery of noneconomic damages for medical liability claims. [AB 1.
2002] Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the
recovery of all damages, except in product liability cases, cases
involving toxic waste, cases involving intentional torts, and cases
where defendants acted in concert. [SB 511, Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann §
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   17.3333
of all damages from defendants found to be less than 50% at fault.
[SB 110, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:7-e. 1989]




Barred application of the rule of joint and several liability in the          17.3333
recovery of all damages from defendants found to be less than 60%
at fault. (The law formerly extended the 60% threshold for
noneconomic damages only.) The reform does not apply to toxic torts.
[SB 1494, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-5.3. 1995]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   9.1667
of all damages, except in cases involving toxic torts, cases in which
the relationship of defendants could make one defendant vicariously
liable for the acts of others, cases involving the manufacture or sale
of a defective product (in these cases the manufacturer and retailer
can be held liable for their collective percentage of fault but not the
fault of other defendants), and in situations ―having a sound basis in
public policy.‖ [SB 164, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-3A-1. 1987]
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery    25.5
of noneconomic damages from defendants found to be 50% or less at
fault. The reform does not apply to actions where the defendant is
found to have acted with reckless disregard of the rights of others,
and in actions involving motor vehicle cases, actions involving the
release of toxic substances into the environment, intentional torts,
contract cases, product liability cases where the manufacturer could
not be joined, construction cases, and other specific actions. [SB
9391, N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. §§ 1601-1602. 1986]




                                                                                50




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   9.1667
of all damages, except for intentional torts, cases in which defendants
acted in concert, and product liability cases. [HB 1571, N.D. Cent
Code § 32-03.2-02. 1987]




Barred application of the rule of joint and several liability in the          17.3333
recovery of all damages from defendants found to be less than 50%
unless the defendant committed an intentional tort. Barred application
of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of noneconomic
damages. [SB 120. 2003] Barred application of the rule of joint and
several liability in the recovery of noneconomic damages when the
plaintiff is also assessed a portion of the fault. [HB 1. 1987]




Restricts joint liability to only a defendant that is more than 50 percent     25.5
at fault, except where any defendant acted with willful and wanton
conduct or reckless disregard and then all defendants may be held
joint and severably liable. Limitation only applies when the plaintiff
has no comparative negligence. [H.B. 2661. 2004] Bars application of
the rule of joint and several liability in the award of all damages if the
plaintiff was at fault. [Anderson v. O’Donohue, 677 P.2d 648 (Okla.
1983). Laubach v. Morgan, 588 P.2d 1071 (Okla. 1978).]
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery     25.5
of all damages, except where the defendant is determined to be
insolvent within one year of the final judgment. In those cases, a
defendant less than 20% at fault would be liable for no more than two
times her original exposure and a defendant more than 20% liable
would be liable for the full amount of damages. [SB 601, Or. Rev.
Stat. § 18.485. 1995]




Defendants are proportionally liable according to percentage of fault          17.3333
for damages awarded, unless found more than 60% at fault or guilty
of intentional misconduct. [SB 1089., §42.71.7102. 2002]




                                                                                 50




Provided that joint and several liability does not apply to defendants         9.1667
less than 50 percent responsible of the total fault. In the calculation of
total fault, comparative fault of the plaintiff is to be included. If the
plaintiff is found to be 50 percent or greater at fault, the plaintiff shall
then be barred from recovery. Defendant’s less than 50 percent at
fault shall only be responsible for its proportional share of the
damages based on its percentages of liability. [H3008, S83. 2005]
Provides that ―any party who is allocated less than 50% of the total          17.3333
fault allocated to all parties may not be jointly liable for more than
twice the percentage of fault allocated to that party.‖ [SB 263, S.D.
Codified Laws Ann. § 15-8-15.1. 1987]




Bans application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery     1
of all damages. [McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).]




Defendant pays only assessed percentage of fault unless defendant             17.3333
is 50% or more responsible. Defendants can designate (as opposed
to join) other responsible third parties whose fault contributed to
causing plaintiff’s harm. In toxic tort cases, the threshold for joint and
several liability raised from 15% to 50%. [HB 4. 2003]
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery      1
of all damages. [SB 64, HB 74 Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-40. 1986]
Clarified the 1986 statute that totally abolished joint liability to address
the Utah Supreme Court decision in Field v. The Boyer Company.
[HB 74. 1999]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery      1
of all damages. [Vermont Statutes 12-1036. 1985]




                                                                                 50




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery    17.3333
of all damages, except in cases in which defendants acted in concert
or the plaintiff is found to be fault free, or in cases involving hazardous
or solid waste disposal sites, business torts and manufacturing of
generic products. [SB 4630, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.22.070(1)(b).
1986]




Bars the application of joint and several liability for defendants 30           25.5
percent or less at fault. In such situations, defendants pay only
percentage of fault as determined by the jury. Provides that if a
claimant has not been paid after six months of the judgment,
defendants 10 percent or more responsible are subject to reallocation
of uncollected amount. Defendants less than 10 percent at fault or
whose fault is equal to or less than the claimant’s percentage of fault
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery   17.3333
of all damages from defendants found to be less than 51% at fault.
Provides that a plaintiff’s negligence will be measured separately
against each defendant. [SB11, 1995]




Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery     1
of all damages. [SB 17, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109(e). 1986] Defines
when an individual is at fault. Specifies the amount of damages
recoverable in cases where more than one party is at fault. Clarifies
the relationship between fault and negligence. [SF 35. 1994]
                22. Rules on early offers of settlement [11]                             22r.




Same as Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not     25.5
more favorable than offer. [Ala. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]




If judgment is 5% (10% in case of multiple defendants) less favorable than offer,        30.4
offeree shall pay all costs (including deposition expenses and travel) plus attorneys’
fees on a sliding scale from 30-75% depending upon timing of offer. Costs include
attorneys’ fees. [Alaska Stat. § 09.30.065]




If judgment not more favorable than offer, offeree shall pay expert witness fees,         1
double the taxable costs of the offeror, and prejudgment interest on unliquidated
claims (with interest accruing from the date of the offer). Expanded definition of
costs; available to any party. [Ariz..Rule Civ.
Proc. 68]
Similar to Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not      15.7
more favorable than offer; costs include all reasonable litigation expenses, excluding
attorney’s fees. Expanded definition of costs. [Ark. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]




If the defendant is the offeror and the judgment is not more favorable than offer, the        1
plaintiff shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. If the costs
awarded exceed the damages awarded to the plaintiff, the net amount is awarded to
the defendant; If the Plaintiff is the offeror and the defendant fails to obtain a more
favorable judgment, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the
defendant to pay a reasonable sum to cover costs of expert witnesses. Expanded
definition of costs; available to any party. [Cal. Civil Code §998]


Assesses attorney fees and costs for plaintiffs who decline an offer of settlement,          20.6
proceed to litigation, and receive a smaller judgment than would have been received
if a settlement offer had been accepted. [Early Offer of Settlement: HB 1121. 2003]




Plaintiff: If judgment is equal to or greater than an offer and is filed within 18 months    5.9
of the filing of the complaint, the Court shall add 12% annually on the amount of the
judgment from the date of the complaint; if the offer is filed more than 18 months
after the complaint, interest runs from the date of the offer. Adds 12% per annum
interest to judgment. [Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-192a] Defendant: If judgment is less
than the offer, plaintiff recovers no costs accruing after receipt of notice of the offer;
defendant recovers its costs incurred after date of offer. Such costs shall include
attorney’s costs not exceeding $350. [Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-193 § 52-194 § 52-195-
195] Two-sided arrangment.
Same as Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not         25.5
more favorable than offer. [Del. Super. Ct. C.P.R. 68]




Offeror entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees if judgment is 25% less              40.2
favorable than offer; If offer not in good faith, court may disallow costs and fees.
Costs include attorneys’ fees. [Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.79; Fla. Rule Civ. Proc.
1.442(a)-(j)]




Provides that a party declining a settlement offer is potentially liable for attorneys’      40.2
fees and court costs. S.B. 239 establishes that a plaintiff who rejects an offer of
settlement would be liable for attorneys’ fess and litigation costs if the defendant is
found not liable or the final judgment in favor of the plaintiff is 75 percent of the
settlement offer. A defendant who rejects a plaintiff’s offer of settlement would be
liable for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs if the plaintiff recovers a final judgment
which is 125 percent greater than the offer of settlement. [Early Offer of Settlement:
S.B. 239. 2006]




Similar to Federal Rule; If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more         10.8
favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of
the offer. Available to any party. [Haw. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]
If the ―adjusted award‖ (i.e. the verdict, as well as the offeree’s costs and attorney’s    5.9
fees prior to the service of the offer) is less than the offer, then the offeree must pay
the offeror’s costs incurred after the making of the offer, while the offeror must pay
costs and attorney’s fees incurred before the making of the offer; if the judgment is
more than the ―adjusted award‖, the offeror must pay the offeree its costs incurred
both before and after the offer. Costs include attorneys’ fees. [Idaho Rule Civ.
Proc. 68; Rule 54(d)(1); Rule 54(e)(1)]




                                                                                            50




Same as Federal Rule; if judgment less favorable than offer, offeree must pay costs         25.5
incurred after offer was made. [Ind. Rule Tr. Proc. 68.]




Offer must be made ―in court‖; if offeree is present and refuses when offer is made         10.8
or had three days notice of its amount and fails to appear, offeree must pay costs
incurred after offer if judgment is not more favorable than offer. [Iowa Code Ann. §
677.4 677.5 677.6.] Offeree must pay costs, not including attorney’s fees, incurred
after offer if judgment is not more favorable than offer; plaintiff also does not recover
costs incurred after offer which would ordinarily be recoverable by prevailing party;
includes offers conditional upon failure of defense. [Iowa Code Ann. § 677.7, 677.8,
677.9, 677..10.]
Same as Federal Rule except for filing deadline; offeree must pay costs incurred          25.5
after offer if judgment is not more favorable than offer. [Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-
2002(b).]




Recommends that the Supreme Court amend Rule 68 directing that all costs be               25.5
awarded against a party failing to accept a reasonable offer of settlement. [Supreme
Court Recommendations: HB 551. 1988: House Concurrent Res. 62] Similar to
Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not more
favorable than offer; includes offer conditioned upon failure of defense; also applies
to appeals. [Ky. Court Rule 68; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453.160.]


Offer admits no liability; if defendant offers, plaintiff must pay costs if judgment is   45.1
25% less than offer; if plaintiff offers, defendant must pay costs if judgment is 25%
greater than the offer; costs are after offer only and may include anything except
attorney’s fees, at the discretion of trial court. Expanded definition of costs;
available to any party. [La. Code. Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 970.]




Same as Federal Rule, except it allows court to approve filing deadline closer to trial   25.5
and shorter response deadlines; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if
judgment is not more favorable than offer. [Me. R. Civ. Proc. 68.]
                                                                                          50




Similar to Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not   25.5
more favorable than offer; expressly excludes interest from amount of judgment;
statute expressly excludes offers from evidence in subsequent actions. [Mass. Rule
Civ. Proc. 68; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 231, § 88.]




Rule contemplates that offeree may make a counteroffer; average is used for               5.9
determining consequences (if no counteroffer made, the offer is deemed the
average); if an offer is rejected, the party rejecting must pay costs, including
reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred after the rejection if judgment is less favorable
than the average offer; an offeree who does not make a counteroffer only recovers
costs if the offer was made less than 42 days before trial; all costs within discretion
of trial court who may refuse attorney’s fees ―in the interest of justice.‖ Costs
include attorneys’ fees; available to any party. [Mich. Court Rule 2.405.]




Similar to Federal Rule except that it contemplates an offer by any party and             10.8
excludes provision regarding offers made after liability is determined; offeree must
pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not more favorable than offer. Available
to any party. [Minn. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]
Same as Federal Rule except for timing; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer        25.5
if judgment is not more favorable than offer. [Miss. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]




Similar to Federal Rule, but excludes provision regarding offers made after liability is   25.5
determined; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not more
favorable than offer. [Mo. Rule Civ. Proc. 77.04.]




Same as Federal Rule; if judgment less favorable than offer, offeree must pay costs        25.5
incurred after offer was made. [Mont. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]




Adopts an offer of settlement provision that allows the award of prejudgment interest      25.5
for an unreasonable failure to settle. [Offer of Settlement Rule: LB 298. 1986]
Similar to Federal Rule; only applicable in actions for the recovery of money; if
judgment less favorable than offer, offeree must pay costs incurred after offer was
made. [Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-901, 25-902]
Similar to Federal rule; allows for joint offers — joint offers to multiple parties may          10.8
be conditioned on each party’s acceptance; joint offers to defendants can only
invoke penalties if there the theory of liability is the same for each; joint offers to
plaintiffs can only invoke penalties if the damages claimed are all derivative of each
other — If judgment not more favorable than offer, offeree shall not recover
attorneys’ fees and costs, and, if allowed, shall pay the fees and costs of offeror.
Available to any party. [Nev. Rule Civ. Proc. 68, Nev. Rev. Stat. §17.115]


                                                                                                 50




(a) Plaintiff’s offer. If plaintiff’s offer is not accepted and judgment is as good or            1
better for plaintiff, defendant must pay reasonable litigation expenses, attorney’s
fees, and 8% interest on the amount of recovery from the date the offer was made,
or the discovery was completed. However if action is for un-liquidated damages, no
such awards are given unless the amount of recovery is 120% of the offer. (b)
Defendant’s offer. If defendant’s offer is not accepted and judgment is as favorable
or more favorable for defendant, plaintiff must pay the cost of defendant’s suit,
litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees. However if action is for un-liquidated
damages, no such awards are given unless the amount awarded to plaintiff is
greater than $750 and is less than 80% of the offer. Includes provisions for multiple
parties. Adds 8% interest; costs include attorneys’ fees; available to any party.
[NJ Court Rules R. 4:58-1, 4:58-2, 4:58-3, 4:58-4]




All penalties are barred in domestic relations actions. Acceptance of offer does not             10.8
require judgment to be filed against defendant. (a) Plaintiff’s offer. If plaintiff’s offer is
not accepted and the final judgment is more favorable to plaintiff than the offer,
defendant must pay costs, excluding attorney’s fees, including double the amount of
costs incurred after the offer was made. (b) Defendant’s offer. If defendant’s offer is
not accepted and the final judgment is more favorable to defendant, plaintiff must
pay costs, excluding attorney’s fees, incurred by defendant after the offer was made.
Available to any party. [N.M. Dist. Court Rule. Civ. Proc. 1-068]
(a) R. 3219. This provision applies only to defendants to a contract action.                     25.5
Defendant must deposit tender offer to the clerk of the court. If not accepted by
plaintiff within 10 days, defendant must request its return or the amount is deemed
―paid into the court.‖ If judgment is equal to or less than the amount offered, the
plaintiff must pay defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. (b) R. 3220. This
provision applies only to defendants to a contract action. Defendant’s offer is made
conditional on a finding of liability — if defendant is not found liable, offer is invalid. If
plaintiff does not accept, and defendant is found liable, but for less than the amount
offered, plaintiff must pay defendant’s expenses solely for trying the issue of
damages. (c) R. 3221. This provision applies to all defendants not in a matrimonial
action. If offer is not accepted, and judgment is for less than the amount offered,
plaintiff must pay defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. Limited availability.
[N.Y. Civ. Practice Law and Rules 3219, 3220, 3221]



Similar to Federal Rule; if judgment less favorable than offer, offeree must pay costs           25.5
incurred after offer was made. Defendant may make offer conditional on a finding of
liability — if defendant is not found liable, offer is invalid. If plaintiff does not accept
offer, and defendant is found liable but for less than the amount offered, plaintiff
must pay defendant’s costs for litigating the damages issue. [N.C. Gen Stat. § 1A-1,
R. 68]

If judgment less favorable than offer, offeree must pay for the offeror’s costs                  10.8
incurred after the making of the offer. Offer may be accepted without entering
judgment against defendant. Available to any party. [N.D. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]




                                                                                                 50




Only defendant can initiate procedure, but once initiated, plaintiff can make                    25.5
counteroffer and same rules apply to either party; different rules (and deadlines)
apply to certain causes of action and claimed amounts, but in general if judgment is
less favorable than offer, offeror is entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees
incurred after offer. Available to any party. [12 Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 1101, 1101.1]
Similar to Federal Rule. If judgment not more favorable than offer, offeree shall not   25.5
recover costs, prevailing party’s fees, disbursements or attorney fees incurred after
date of offer; and offeror shall recover costs and disbursements, not including
prevailing party fees, from the time the offer was served. [Or. R. Civ. P. 54(E)]




                                                                                        50




Similar to Federal Rule; in addition to normal options, allows offeree to accept        25.5
tender as part payment and proceed to trial solely on damages. [R.I. Dist. Court
Rule 68]




Similar to Federal Rule except for omission of provision allowing for offers of         25.5
judgment prior to hearing for damages when liability has already been determined;
offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not more favorable than
offer under Rule 68(a). Under Rule 68(b), breach of contract defendant may make
offer that, if he fails on his defense, damages be assessed at a certain sum, and if
plaintiff does not recover damages greater than offer, he must pay costs incurred in
defense of damages claim. Costs are defined by S.C. R. Civ. P. 54, and do not
include attorney’s fees. [S.C. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]
Similar to Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not   25.5
more favorable than offer. [S.D. Cod. Laws § 15-6-68]




Similar to Federal Rule except for omission of provision allowing for offers of           10.8
judgment prior to hearing for damages when liability has already been determined;
offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not more favorable than
offer. Available to any party. [Tenn. R. Civ. P. 68]




Provides that provisions may only be initiated by defendant, but once initiated,          35.3
plaintiff may invoke them as well. Provides that if a defendant makes an offer that is
rejected, and the plaintiff does not obtain a judgment for at least 80% of the amount,
the plaintiff must pay attorney fees and costs incurred after rejection. Provides that
if a plaintiff makes an offer that is rejected, and the judgment exceeds 120% of the
amount, the defendant must pay attorney fees and costs incurred after rejection.
Provides that the amount of fees and costs shifted cannot exceed the sum of
noneconomic damages, punitive damages, and 50% of economic damages. [Early
Offer of Settlement: HB 4. 2003] If judgment is 10% or less beneficial than offer,
offeree must pay the litigation costs incurred after offer was rejected; ―litigation
costs‖ are costs directly related to trial preparation and actual trial expenses.
―Litigation costs‖ include but are not limited to attorney’s fees. Costs include
attorneys’ fees; available to any party. [E.D. Tex. Local Rules (Civil Justice
Expense and Delay Reduction Plan, Art. 6 (2002))]
Similar to Federal Rule; Costs are defined by Utah R. Civ. P. 54 and do not include       25.5
attorneys’ fees. [Utah Rule Civ. Proc. 68(b)]




Similar to Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not   25.5
more favorable than offer. [Vt. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]




                                                                                          50




Same as Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not      25.5
more favorable than offer. [Wash. Civ Rule 68]




Similar to Federal Rule; offeree must pay costs incurred after offer if judgment is not   25.5
more favorable than offer; in addition to Federal Rule options, allows offeree to
accept tender as payment and proceed to trial solely on damages. [W. Va. Rule Civ.
Proc. 68 (a)-(d)]
Defendant: Defendant can make offer for pretrial judgment or to have specified sum         5.9
assessed on an adverse result at trial; If judgment less favorable than offer, plaintiff
recovers no costs; defendant recovers costs. Adds 12% interest; available to any
party. [Wis. Stat. Ann. § 807.01(1) and (2)] Plaintiff: If judgment greater than offer,
plaintiff recovers double the amount of costs and 12% interest on the award from
the date of the offer (prejudgment interest is generally not allowed other than
through the offer provision). [Wis. Stat. Ann. § 807.01(3) and (4)]




Similar to Federal Rule; offeree must pay cost incurred after offer if judgment is not     10.8
more favorable than offer; costs do not include attorney’s fees. Available to any
party. [Wyo. Rule Civ. Proc. 68]
    23. Does the state have an
 ―Illinois Brick repealer‖ statute?   23r.   24. Attorney-retention sunshine rules [8]
                  [3]



Alabama, Ala. Code 6-5-4 (d)          50




                                       1




                                       1
                                              1




California, Cal. Bus. And prof. Code 16750   50
(a)




Colorado, Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-4-111 (2)       25.5   Requires monthly reports by outside counsel to include number of hours
authorizing the state attorney general to           worked, court costs incurred, and to provide such data in aggregate from
bring suit for indirect injury to any               the effective date of the contingent fee contract. In addition, it provides
government or public entity                         that at the conclusion of representation, outside counsel is to provide the
                                                    state with a statement of hours worked and fees recovered through a
                                                    contract for legal services between the state and outside counsel.
                                                    Provided that in no instance shall the state pay fees, even on a contingent
                                                    fee basis, in excess of $1,000 per hour. [SB 03-086. 2003]




                                              1     Requires proposals or requests for qualification and negotiation
                                                    procedures for any contract between the Attorney General or state agency
                                                    and private attorneys in which the contingency fee is reasonably expected
                                                    to exceed $250,000. Specifies that the Attorney General is to develop
                                                    such procedures and qualifications. [HB7502 (sec. 104). 2005]
                                               1




                                               1




                                               1




Hawaii, Hawaii Rev. Stat. 480-3, 480-13,      25.5
and 480-14 allowing the state attorney
general to file class-action suit on behalf
of indirect purchasers
Idaho, Idaho Code 48-108 (2) permitting   25.5
the state attorney general as parens
patriae to bring suit




Illinois, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/7 (2)   50




                                           1




                                           1
Kansas, Kan. Stat. Ann. 50-161 (b)      50   Requires open and competitive bidding for all contingent fee contracts for
                                             legal services between the state and outside counsel, where fees and
                                             services exceed $7,500. Requires proposed contracts for legal services
                                             between the state and outside counsel in excess of $1 million to be
                                             submitted to the legislative budget committee for approval. Requires, at
                                             the conclusion of representation, outside counsel to provide the state with
                                             a statement of hours worked and fees recovered through a contract for
                                             legal services between the state and outside counsel. Provides that in no
                                             instance shall the state pay fees, even on a contingent fee basis, in
                                             excess of $1,000 per hour. [HB 2627. 2000]




                                        1




                                        1




Maine, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Title 10,   50
Section 1104 (1)
Maryland, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II,           25.5
Section 11-209 (b) (2) (ii) allowing the
state and its subdivisions to bring indirect-
purchaser suits




                                                 1




Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws 445.778 (2)          50




Minnesota, Minn. Stat. 325D.57                  50     Specifies that the attorney general may not enter into a contract for legal
                                                       services in which the fees and expenses paid by the state, or can
                                                       reasonably be expected to exceed $1 million unless the attorney general
                                                       first submits the proposed contract to the Legislative Advisory
                                                       Commission, and waits at least 20 days to receive a possible
                                                       recommendation from the commission. [HF1481 (article 2, sec. 5 {8.065}).
                                                       2005]
Mississippi, Miss. Code Ann. 75-21-9   50




                                       1




                                       1




Nebraska, Neb. Rev. Stat. 59-821       50
Nevada, Nev. Rev. Stat. 598A.210 (2)     50




                                         1




                                         1




New Mexico, N.M. Stat. Ann. 57-1-3 (A)   50
New York, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 340 (6)     50




                                         1




North Dakota, N.D. Cent. Code 51-08.1-   50   Provides that an emergency commission must approve the attorney
.08 (3)                                       general’s appointment of a special assistant attorney general in a civil
                                              case in which the amount in controversy exceeds $150,000. Prohibits a
                                              state governmental agency from contracting legal services by contingent
                                              fee unless the entity receives an appointment from the attorney general
                                              for a special assistant attorney general. [SB 2047, North Dakota Century
                                              Code 15-12-08.1. 1999]


                                         1




                                         1
Oregon, Ore. Rev. Stat. 646.755 allowing     25.5
attorney general to sue on behalf of
indirect purchasers




                                              1




Rhode Island, R.I. Gen. Laws 6-36-12         25.5
allowing attorney general to sue on behalf
of indirect purchasers




                                              1
South Dakota, S.D. Codified Laws 37-1-33   50




                                           1




                                           1    Requires that the state attempt to handle all litigation through in-house
                                                counsel. Provides that when seeking outside counsel, the contracting
                                                agency must first seek an hourly fee arrangement. Provides that
                                                contingent fee contracts in excess of $100,000 be approved by a
                                                Legislative Review Board. Requires that at the conclusion of contingent
                                                fee representation, the state receive a statement of hours worked and
                                                total fees recovered. [SB 113. 1999]
                                            1




Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Title. 9, Section   50
2465 (b)




                                            1    Requires open and competitive bidding in accordance with the Virginia
                                                 Public Procurement Act for all contingent fee contracts for legal services
                                                 between a state agency or state agent and outside counsel, where fees
                                                 and services are reasonably expected to exceed $100,000. [HB 309,
                                                 Code of Virginia 2.2-510.1. 2002]



                                            1




                                            1
Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. 133.18 (1) (a)   50




                                       1
                                 Substantive-Law Rules as of 2007




24r.           25. Reform of the collateral-source rule [4]                        25r.




50     Sets forth the state legislature’s intent that plaintiffs be adequately    17.3333
       compensated for injuries, but that they not receive compensation
       more than once for the same medical expenses. Applicable only to
       injuries directly related to product liability cases. [Alabama Code 6-5-
       520. 1987]




50     Allows introduction of evidence after judgment as well as court and          1
       attorney fees have been awarded. Defendant not permitted to
       introduce evidence of benefits protected by federal law, deceased
       life insurance policy benefits, or gratuitous benefits provided to
       claimant. [SB 337, Alaska Statutes 9.17.070. 1986]




50     Allows introduction of evidence of collateral sources of benefits.         17.3333
       Applicable only to medical malpractice cases. [SB 1055, Arizona
       Revised Statutes 12-565. 1993]
50                                                                          50




50   Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments    1
     and amounts paid to secure the benefit. [Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.1.
     1975]




15   Directs the court to reduce awards by the same amount the plaintiff    1
     has been compensated by other sources for the same loss. [SB 67,
     Colorado Revised Statutes 13-21-111.6. 1986]




36   Allows introduction of evidence after judgment and directs the court   1
     to reduce judgment accordingly. Not applicable to collateral sources
     for which a right subrogation exists. [HB 6134, General Statutes of
     Connecticut 52-225a. 1986]
50   Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments          17.3333
     in medical liability actions. [Del. Code Ann. tit. 18 § 6862. 1976]




50   Directs the court to reduce awards by the same amount the plaintiff            1
     has been compensated by other sources for the same loss. Not
     applicable to collateral sources for which a right of subrogation
     exists, federal medical services benefits, or workers compensation.
     [SB 465, Florida Statutes XLV 768.76. 1986]




50                                                                                  50




50   Provides for the payment of valid liens (arising out of claims for             1
     payments made from collateral sources for costs and expenses
     arising from an injury) from special damages recovered. Prevents
     double recoveries by allowing subrogation liens by insurance
     companies or other sources. Allows third parties to file a lien and
     collect the benefits paid to the plaintiff from the plaintiff’s award. The
     reform does not affect the amount of damages paid by the defendant
     to the plaintiff. [SB S1, Hawaii Revised Statutes 663-10. 1986]
50   Allows the introduction of evidence, after award is rendered, of          1
     collateral sources of benefits. Not applicable to benefits paid under
     federal programs, death benefits paid by life insurance policy
     benefits, or benefits paid and recoverable under subrogation rights
     by state law or contract. [HB 745, Idaho Code 6-1606. 1990]




50   Provides for awards to be offset for benefits over $25,000, as long     33.6667
     as the offset does not reduce the judgment by more than 50%. [SB
     1200, Illinois Compiled Statutes 735-5/2-1205. 1986]




50   Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments       1
     from sources other than life insurance, other insurance for which the
     plaintiff or members of the plaintiff’s family have paid directly, or
     payments made by the United States or any of its agencies or
     subdivisions. Provides for awards to be offset at the court’s
     discretion. Permits a court to instruct a jury to disregard tax
     consequences of its verdict. [SB 394, Indiana Code 34-44. 1986]




50   Allows the introduction of evidence of collateral source payments.        1
     Not applicable to laws governing (professional) peer review
     committees. [SF 482, Iowa Code 668.14. 1987]
1                                                                               50




50   Mandated that juries be advised of collateral source payments and          1
     subrogation of rights of collateral payers. [HB 551. 1988]




50                                                                              50




50   Allows the introduction of evidence of collateral source payments        17.3333
     after verdict, but prior to judgment. Contained in the Maine Health
     Security Act - applicable only to personal injury-related professional
     negligence cases. Not applicable to federal benefit programs or life
     insurance policy benefits. [Maine Revised Statutes 24:21:5.2906.
     1990]
50                                                                         50




50                                                                         50




50   Allows for the introduction of evidence, after verdict and prior to   1
     judgment, of collateral source. Any offset shall not exceed the
     amount of judgment. [HB 5154, Michigan Compiled Laws 600.6303.
     1986]




43   Allows for the filing of a motion, after judgment and award,          1
     requesting determination of collateral source payments. Not
     applicable to life insurance policy, social security, pension , or
     private disability insurance policy benefits. [SB 2078, Minnesota
     Statutes 548.36. 1986]
50                                                                              50




50   Modified the collateral source rule to allow the actual amount of paid     1
     medical expenses to be introduced into evidence rather than the
     amount billed. [HB 393. 2005] Permits the admissibility of evidence
     of collateral source payments, but provided that a defendant who
     presents collateral source payments as evidence waives his right to
     a credit against the judgment for that amount. [HB 700, Missouri
     Revised Statutes 490.715. 1987]




50   When total amount of an award exceeds $50,000, recovery must be          33.6667
     reduced by any amount paid from collateral sources. Requires
     certain deductions from insurance policies before they can be used
     to reduce awards. [HB 567, Montana Code Annotated 27-1-308.
     1987]




50                                                                              50
50   In any medical malpractice action, the damages awarded must be          17.3333
     reduced by the amount of any prior payment made by the defendant
     health care provider to the claimant. [Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42.020]




50                                                                             50




50   Requires plaintiff to disclose collateral payment sources and for any     1
     such amount to be deducted from the award. Not applicable to
     workers’ compensation or life insurance policy benefits. [SB 2703,
     2708, New Jersey Statutes 2A:15-97. 1987] Applies existing
     collateral source reimbursement provisions to the newly created
     ―Special Auto Insurance Policy‖. [SB 63]




50                                                                             50
50   Allows for the introduction of evidence of collateral source payments.        1
     Not applicable to life insurance, title XVIII social security benefits or
     voluntary charitable contributions. [SB 9351, New York State
     Consolidated Laws 45-4545. 1986]




50                                                                                 50




22   Allows defendant to apply to the court for a reduction of economic            1
     damages to the extent they are covered by a collateral source. Not
     applicable to life insurance or other death or retirement benefits or
     any insurance or benefit purchased by plaintiff. [HB 1571, North
     Dakota Century Code 32-03.2-06. 1987]




50   Provided that collateral source benefits can be introduced into             17.3333
     evidence, except under certain circumstances. [Am. Sub. S.B. 80.
     2004] Provided for awards in medical malpractice cases to be offset
     by collateral source payments, unless the source of reimbursement
     has a mandatory self-effectuating federal right of subrogation or a
     contractual or statutory right of subrogation. [SB 281. 2003]




50   In medical liability actions, the court shall admit evidence of             33.6667
     payments of medical bills made to the injured party unless the
     payments are subject to subrogation or other right of recovery. [SB
     629. 2003]
50   Allows for the introduction of evidence of collateral source payments         1
     after trial, but prior to final judgment. Not applicable to benefits that
     the plaintiff is obligated to repay, life insurance or other death
     benefits, insurance benefits where the plaintiff paid premiums,
     retirement, disability or pension benefits, or to social security
     benefits. [SB 323, Oregon Revised Statutes 18.580. 1987]




50   Prohibits a patient from suing for damages that were paid by a              33.6667
     health insurer. [40 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1301.602. 2002]




50   Permits the admissibility of evidence collateral source payments              1
     from ―state income disability or workers’ compensation, any health,
     sickness or income disability policy, or other contracts‖ for
     reimbursement. Requires a jury to reduce damages awards by the
     amount paid by collateral sources, if such evidence is introduced.
     [R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-19-34.1. 1986]


50                                                                                 50
50   Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments        1
     when the claimant alleges special damages that are or will be paid
     by insurance, are not subject to subrogation, and are not purchased
     privately or by government programs. [S.D. Codified Laws § 21-3-12.
     1977]




50   Provides for economic damages to be offset in medical liability          17.3333
     cases by collateral sources, except for sources including the assets
     of the plaintiff and the immediate family, or insurance purchased by
     the plaintiff in whole or in part. [Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119. 1975]




8                                                                               50
50   Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments,                 1
     excluding any source for which a subrogation right exists and any
     amount paid by plaintiff or the immediate family to secure the
     benefit. [Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-4.5]




50                                                                                   50




29                                                                                   50




50   Provided for the admissibility of evidence that the plaintiff has               1
     already been compensated for the injury from any source except for
     the assets of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s representative, or the plaintiff’s
     immediate family. Plaintiff may also present evidence of an
     obligation to repay any compensation. [HB 2292. 2006] Permits the
     admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments in medical
     liability cases, except if the source is an insurance policy that the
     plaintiff or a member of the immediate family purchased with his or
     her assets. [Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.70.080]




50   Provides medical malpractice reform by providing for a reduction in           17.3333
     damages for certain collateral source payments to plaintiffs. [HB
     2122]
50   Allows for the admissibility of ―evidence of any compensation for   17.3333
     bodily injury received from sources other than the defendant to
     compensate the claimant.‖ [Wisc. Stat. Ann. § 893.55 (7)]




50                                                                         50
                         26. Jury-service rules [11]                                   26r.




Provided the right to one automatic postponement with the requirement that              1
service be rescheduled within six months of the original summons. Protected
small businesses (defined as having five or fewer full time employees) by requiring
the court to postpone and reschedule the service of an employee of a small
business if another employee of that employer is already serving. Limited the
frequency of service to no more than once every two years. Prohibited an
employer from taking any adverse employment action against an employee solely
because the person serves on a jury. Clarified that employers may not require an
employee to use annual, vacation, or sick leave time for the period in which he or
she leaves. Set stricter for prospective jurors to be excused from service.
Increased the maximum fine for contempt for failure to appear from $100 to $300.
[SB 87. 2005]




                                                                                       50




Modified key provisions of ALEC’s Jury Patriotism Act that was adopted in 2003 to      15.7
make jurors eligible to receive compensation from the lengthy trial fund (up to $300
per day) for those who serve on juries for more than five days. In such
circumstances, jurors would then receive additional compensation beginning from
the fourth day served. [HB 2133. 2006] Amended for perspective jurors to be
excused from service by permitting a person who is at least 75 years of age to
have the option to be temporarily or permanently excused. Also, provided that a
judge or jury commissioner may temporarily excuse a prospective juror for good
cause, such as a lack of transportation or absence from the jurisdiction. Included
technical changes to the statement required for verification of the medical need for
an excuse due to a mental or physical condition that makes the prospective juror
unfit for service. [HB2305. 2005] Creates the Arizona Lengthy Trial Fund to
compensate jurors who serve more than ten days. This fund will be comprised of
monies collected from a fee on each filing, appearance and answer or response
fees beginning January 1, 2004. [HB 2520, Arizona Revised Statutes 21.222.
2003]
                                                                                    50




In 1995, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court and the California       45.1
Judicial Council, the research and policymaking body of the court system,
established a Blue Ribbon Commission on jury reform. The Judicial Council
appears to have had limited success convincing the legislature to implement its
recommendations. In 2002, California trial courts adopted a one-day/one-trial
system to lessen the burden of service on jurors and the California Supreme Court
amended California Rules of Court 701 to strengthen standards for hardship
excuses. [2002]

Establishes stricter criteria for jurors to be excused from service. Provides       35.3
protections for small business by allowing employees of small businesses to
reschedule service if another employee from the same firm already is serving on a
jury. [Jury Service Reform: HB 1159. 2004]




                                                                                    50
50




50




50




50
                                                                                         50




                                                                                         50




Made the following changes to improve the jury system: (1) provided a one-time           20.6
postponement to another date within one year upon a showing of hardship,
extreme inconvenience, or necessity; (2) protected an individual called for jury
service who provides reasonable notice to his or her employer from being
subjected to adverse employment action; (3) prohibited employers from requiring
or requesting employees to use annual leave for jury service. In addition, the
legislation eliminated automatic postponement from jury service including those for
ferry-keepers and persons employed in attendance at such ferry, people age 65
and older, government officials, legislators, armed services, veterinarians, dentists,
Indianapolis School Board members, and police and fire department members.
[SB 232. 2006]




                                                                                         50
                                                                                        50




                                                                                        50




Required all people to serve on juries unless they experience undue or extreme          5.9
physical or financial hardship. Established a lengthy trial fund to compensate jurors
up to $300 per juror, per day for trials lasting more than 10 days, starting on the
eleventh day of trial. In such circumstances, jurors would also be eligible to
retroactively collect up to $100 per day from the fourth day to the tenth day of
service. The bill did not specify a financing mechanism, but tasked the Louisiana
Supreme Court to develop recommendations for the Legislature to consider at
some point in the future. Prohibited employers from dismissing or otherwise
subjecting employees to any adverse employment action for responding to a jury
service summons. Allowed for one automatic postponement from service. [HB
2008, Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:3041, 3042, 3044c, 3106. 2003]




                                                                                        50
Increased juror compensation from $15 to $50 per day, after the fifth day of   35.3
service. Provided leave time protections for employees. [HB 1185. 2005]




                                                                               50




                                                                               50




                                                                               50
Postponed the enactment of the jury service portion of H.B. 13 (2004) until           10.8
January 1, 2008. H.B. 13 established a lengthy trial fund to compensate jurors up
to $300 per day, starting on the eleventh day of service. In such circumstances,
jurors who can show hardship may also receive compensation of up to $100 per
day from the fourth through tenth days of service. Specified circumstances under
which jurors may be excused from service. Provided for penalties for those who fail
to appear: fines up to $500 and/or three days imprisonment, or alternatively
community service. [SB 2488. 2006] Establishes a lengthy trial fund to
compensate jurors up to $300 per day, starting on the eleventh day of service. In
such circumstances, jurors who can show hardship may also receive
compensation of up to $100 per day from the fourth through tenth days of service.
Specified circumstances under which jurors may be excused from service.
Provided for penalties for those who fail to appear: fines up to $500 and/or three
days imprisonment, or alternatively community service. [Jury Service Reform: H.B.
13 (special session). 2004]




Provides for stricter criteria for jurors to be excused from service. Allows one      5.9
automatic postponement from service. Specifies a maximum fine of $500 for
those who fail to appear for jury service. Provides for employee protections which
prohibits employers from requiring employees to use personal or sick leave for
time spent responding to a summons for jury duty. Provides for small business
protections which required a court to reschedule the service of a summoned juror if
the juror works for an employer with five or fewer employees and has another
employee already summoned during the same period. [Jury Service and Class
Action Reform: H.B. 1211. 2004]




                                                                                      50




                                                                                      50
                                                                                       50




                                                                                       50




                                                                                       50




Provided for: automatic postponement, allowing summoned jurors to reschedule           20.6
service within six months of the original date; small business protections, allowing
jurors who work for employers with fewer than five employees to postpone service
if another employee is summoned within the same time period; leave time
protection; and an expansion of juror source lists to include income tax filers. The
legislation included a hardship standard, defining that an excused juror must
demonstrate that participating in their service would (1) be required to abandon
another person under the person's care or supervision due to the extreme difficulty
of obtaining an appropriate substitute caregiver during the period of jury service;
(2) incur costs that would have a substantial adverse impact on the payment of
necessary daily living expenses of the person or the person's dependent; or (3)
suffer physical hardship that would result in illness or disease. Hardship would not
exist solely because a prospective juror will be absent from employment. [SB 240.
2005]
In 1993, Chief Judge Judith Kaye established the Jury Project, a statewide jury        40.2
reform commission, in order to improve the response rate to juror summonses,
ensure more representative juror pools, and improve the public’s understanding of
jury service. The court also adopted various reforms to increase juror
comprehension and public education, and invested significant resources to
improve court facilities and services. Following New York’s reform, press reports
hailed the increased diversity of the jury pool and the greater willingness of those
summoned to serve. [1995]




                                                                                       50




                                                                                       50




Provided jurors the right to automatically postpone service on time, allowing jurors    1
to reschedule service within six months of the original date of the summons.
Stricter criteria for jurors to be excused. Employee protection prohibited an
employer from requiring an employee use annual, vacation, or sick leave for time
spent during jury service process. Provides small business protections which
require a court to reschedule the service of a summoned juror if the juror works for
an employer with 25 or fewer employees and has another employee summoned
during the same period. Provides for the establishment of an electronic notification
system to alert jurors of the need to appear in person in court during the period of
availability provided in the juror summons. Increased the minimum fine of failure to
appear for jury service from $25 to $100. [SB 71. 2004]




Provides jurors the right to automatically postpone service one time. Reduces the      5.9
length of service from a two-week term to no more than one day unless selected to
serve on a jury. Limits jury service to once every two years. Creates a lengthy
trial fund which compensates jurors up to $200 per day, starting on the eleventh
day of service – the fund is to be financed by a $10 filing fee on all civil cases.
Provides jurors employment protections by prohibiting employers from penalizing
jurors who serve. Provides small business protections by allowing an employee of
a small business to differ service if another employee from the same firm is
already serving in the same period. Increases penalties for no-shows. [Jury
Service Reform: S.B. 479. 2004]
50




50




50




50
                                                                                     50




In 1998, the Tennessee Bar Association formed the Jury Reform Commission. The        45.1
court implemented many of the reforms aimed at improving comprehension during
a six-month pilot project commencing in September of 2001. Despite the
Commission’s success in implementing jury trial reforms, Tennessee continues to
have numerous professional exemptions, which provide members of chosen
professions with an automatic postponement of jury service not enjoyed by others.
[2001]




Increases juror pay in both civil and criminal cases from not less than $6 per day   30.4
to not less than $40 per day, beginning on the second day of service. The
increased compensation is to be financed by a $4 fee placed on individuals
convicted of a crime. Provides prospective jurors with one automatic
postponement from service, in which case service must be rescheduled within six
months after the date of the original summons. [SB 1704. 2005]
Required all people to serve on juries unless they experience undue or extreme           25.5
physical or financial hardship or incur substantial costs or lost opportunities due to
missing an event that was scheduled prior to the initial notice of potential jury
service. Provided that a person who fails to appear for jury duty is in contempt of
court and subject to penalties under Title 78, Chapter 32, Contempt. Provided that
a person who willfully misrepresents a material fact regarding qualification for,
excuse from, or postponement of jury service is guilty of a class C misdemeanor.
Provided for employee protection by prohibiting an employer to require an
employee to use annual, vacation, or sick leave for the time spent in the jury
service process. In addition, it prohibited employers to dismiss or in any other way
penalize employees for responding to a jury service summons. [HB 324, Utah
Code Annotated 78-46-2,4,12,15,20,21. 2003]




                                                                                         50




                                                                                         50




                                                                                         50




                                                                                         50
50




50
                                                                     Medical Malpractice



                   27. Attorney-fee limits [15]                      27r.



                                                                      50




Requires that contingent fees be calculated exclusive of punitive    46.5
damages. [Alaska Stat. § 9.60.080.]




Attorney fees limited but additional fees may be awarded by court.    36
[SB 1251. 2005]
                                                                     50




Sliding scale, not to exceed 40% of first $50,000, 33 1/3% of next   11.5
$50,000, 25% of next $500,000, and 15% of damages exceeding
$600,000. [Business and Professions §6146. 1987, 1975]




                                                                     50




Sliding scale, not to exceed 1/3 of first $300,000; 25% of next      15
$300,000; 20% of next $300,000; 15% of next $300,000; and 10% of
damages exceeding $1.2 million. [§52-251c. 1986]
Sliding scale, not to exceed 35% of first $100,000; 25% of next            4.5
$100,000; and 10% of all damages exceeding $200,000. [§18.6865.
1976]




Constitutional amendment adopted, effective immediately. Limits             8
attorney fees in malpractice lawsuits to 30% of first $250,000; 10% of
any award over $250,000. [Florida Ballot, 2004 Election] Limits
contingent fees in medical liability cases that settle before filing an
answer or appointing an arbitrator to 33.3% of awards up to $1 million,
30% of awards between $1 million and $2 million, and 20% of awards
exceeding $2 million. Limits contingent fees in medical liability cases
that do not settle before an answer is filed to 40% of awards up to $1
million, 30% of awards between $1 and $2 million, and 20% of awards
exceeding $2 million. Limits contingent fees in medical liability cases,
where liability is admitted and only damages are contested, to 33.3%
of awards up to $1 million, 20% of awards between $1 and $2 million,
and 15% of awards exceeding $2 million. Limits fees in medical
liability cases that are appealed to an extra 5% of what is otherwise
allowed. [Fla. Atty. Conduct Reg. § 4-1.5(f)(4)(b).]



                                                                           50




Attorney fees must be approved by court. [§607.15.5. 1986]                 39.5
                                                                      50




Sliding scale, not to exceed 1/3 of first $150,000; 25% of next       18.5
$850,000; 20% of damages over $1 million. [§735 5/2-1114. 1985]




Plaintiff's attorney fees may not exceed 15% of any award made from   36
Patient Compensation Fund. [§34-18-18-1]




Court to review plaintiff attorney fees in any personal injury or     43
wrongful death action against specified health care providers or
hospitals. [§147.138. 1975]
Attorney fees must be approved by court. [§7.121b. 1988, 1976]    39.5




                                                                  50




                                                                  50




Sliding scale, not to exceed 1/3 of first $100,000; 25% of next    8
$100,000; and 20% of damages exceeding $200,000. [§24.2961.
1987, 1985]
When attorneys' fees are in dispute, the claimed fees must first be      43
approved by the arbitration panel or court. [Md. Code Ann., Cts. &
Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-07. 1995]




Sliding scale, not to exceed 40% of first $150,000; 33.33% of next       18.5
$150,000; 30% of next $200,000 and 25% of award over $500,000.
[§231.601. 1986]




Maximum contingency fee for personal injury action is third of amount    32.5
recovered. [Court Rules 8.121(b). 1981]




Requires that contingent fees in medical liability cases be based on     39.5
the award adjusted for collateral source benefits. [Minn. Stat. Ann. §
548.36.]
                                                                      50




                                                                      50




                                                                      50




No limitations, but court can review for reasonableness. [§44.2834.   46.5
1993]
Question 3, Passed. Amends NRS Ch. 7. Creates sliding scale for         11.5
attorney fees, not to exceed 40% of first $50,000; 33 1/3% of next
$50,000; 25% of next $500,000; 15% of any amount over $600,000.
[Nevada Ballot, 2004 Election]




Sliding scale, not to exceed 50% of first $1000; 40% of next $2000;      1
1/3 of next $97,000; 20% of excess of $100,000. When settled out of
court, fee limited to 25% of up to $50,000. [§507-C:8. 1997]




Sliding scale, not to exceed 1/3 of first $500,000; 30% of next         22
$500,000; 25% of third $500,000; and 20% of fourth $500,000. 25%
limit for minor or incompetent plaintiff. [Court Rules §1:2107. 1976]




                                                                        50
Sliding scale, not to exceed 30% of first $250,000; 25% of second   15
$250,000; 20% of next $500,000; 15% of next $250,000; 10% over
$1.25 million. [Jud. §474-A. 1985]




                                                                    50




                                                                    50




                                                                    50




Fee may not exceed 50% of net judgment. [§5-7. 1953]                29
No more than 20% of punitive damages to attorney, no limitation of   36
percentage of economic damages. [§31.735]




                                                                     50




                                                                     50




                                                                     50
                                                                50




Fees limited to 1/3 of award to plaintiff. [§29.26.120. 1975]   25.5




                                                                50
Contingency fee not to exceed 1/3 of award. [§78.14.7.5]           25.5




                                                                   50




                                                                   50




Court to determine reasonableness of each party's attorney fees.   39.5
[§7.70.070]




                                                                   50
Sliding scale, not to exceed 1/3 of first $1 million, or 25% of first $1      22
million recovered if liability is stipulated within time limits, 20% of any
amount exceeding $1 million. [§655.013]




Recovery $1 million or less: 1/3 if claim settled prior to 60 days after      25.5
filing; 40% if settled after 60 days or judgment; 30% over $1 million.
[Ct. Rules, R. 5]
Medical Malpractice



                    28. Pre-trial screening or arbitration [6]                      28r.



         Voluntary arbitration, agreed to in writing. [§6.5.485]                     1




         Voluntary arbitration, cannot be a prerequisite to receiving care or        1
         treatment. [§09.55.535] Expert advisory panel used after lawsuit is
         filed. Must issue report within 30 days of selection on the facts of the
         case. Report is admissible evidence in trial. [§09.55.536. 1976]




         Good cause hearing determines if a basis exists to go to trial. [§12-      10.8
         583]
Voluntary arbitration and dispute resolution. [§16-108-102] Permits    30.4
courts to set mediation and/or arbitration to encourage their use to
promote settlement of cases. [§16-7-101]




Voluntary arbitration contract. Entering contract removes option for   30.4
trial and is binding. [Civil Procedure §1295]




Court may refer case to mediation. [§13-22-311. 1988] Voluntary        30.4
arbitration. [§13-22-201 – 223]




Medical Screening Panel selected when all parties agree.               40.2
Proceedings confidential. [§38a-32 and 33]
Medical negligence review panel part of court review; panel’s findings      10.8
admissible as evidence at trial. [§18.6803-6812. 1976]




Pre-suit investigation and informal discovery conducted by                  30.4
defendant’s insurer prior to submission to courts. [§766.106] Court
may require submission of claim to arbitration, non-binding, limits on
what is admissible at trial. [§766.107] Mandatory mediation and
mandatory settlement conference held prior to trial if no binding
arbitration agreed to. [§766.108]




Voluntary arbitration subject to court review; binding if prior agreement   30.4
to make it so. [§9.9.61-63]




Mandatory nonbinding arbitration for all cases involving $150,000 or         1
less. [§601.20. 1976] Mandatory submission to medical claim
conciliation panel; results not admissible at trial. [§671.11-20]
Mandatory submission of claim to hearing panel; results non-binding      10.8
and not admissible at trial. [§6.1001-1011. 1976]




Arbitration may be court ordered for cases totaling less than $50,000.   40.2
[§735 5/2-1001A]




Optional Medical Review Panel at request of either party; 2 panelists    10.8
must be of same specialty as defendant. Panel findings are
admissible at trial. [§34-18-10]




Written arbitration agreement not mandatory, but binding once            30.4
entered into. [§679A.1]
Voluntary submission to medical screening panel upon request of         10.8
party; panelists must include medical professional of same specialty
as defendant. [§65.4901, §60.3502. 1987]




Written arbitration agreements voluntary, once entered are considered   20.6
enforceable and irrevocable. [§417.050] Courts encouraged to make
referrals to mediation prior to trials. [§454.011]




Voluntary arbitration, considered binding and enforceable once          30.4
entered. [RS §9.4231]




Mandatory pre-litigation screening and mediation panel, findings         1
confidential except under certain provisions. [§24.2851-59. 1989,
1986]
Mandatory ADR or mediation within 30 days of filing defendant's              20.6
answer or defendant's certificate of qualified expert, whichever is later.
No mandatory mediation if court finds it unproductive and if all parties
file agreement not to participate. [§3-2A-06-C. 1989, 1976]




Mandatory submission of claims to medical malpractice court tribunal,        10.8
decision admissible at trial. [§231.608. 1975]




Mandatory review by mediation panel, findings not admissible at trial.       20.6
[§600.4903 - 4919] Voluntary arbitration binding if total damages
claimed less than $75,000. [§600.2912g]




Alternative dispute resolution program. [§484.76] Plaintiff must consult      1
with expert prior to trial to determine validity of claims asserted.
[§145.682]
Voluntary arbitration must be agreed to in writing. [§11.15.1]                1
Malpractice complaint filed must be accompanied by certificate
stating that plaintiff’s attorney consulted with at least 1 medical expert
qualified to render testimony on standard of care. [§11.1.58]




                                                                             50




All malpractice claims submitted to Medical Legal Panel for review            1
unless voluntary arbitration agreed to. Findings not admissible into
court evidence. [§27.6.101-704. 1977]




Mandatory review of malpractice claims by medical review panel.              10.8
[§44.2840. 1976]
All parties, insurers and attorneys required to participate in settlement      20.6
conference before district judge other than trial judge. [§41A.081]




Created a pre-trial screening panel requiring all medical liability cases       1
go before a three person panel: a judge, an attorney & a health care
practitioner of the same or similar specialty as the defendant. SB 214
does not restrict anyone's right to a jury trial. The panel helps plaintiffs
with smaller cases because panel expenses are less. SB 214 required
the panel to decide negligence based on a preponderance of
evidence (more likely than not), thus encouraging the dropping of non-
meritorious cases or quicker settlement of meritorious cases. Only
unanimous decisions by the panel are admissible in any future trial.
S.B. 214 also created a legislative oversight committee that will look
at data over the next few years to determine if the new panel system
is working. The bill required liability insurers to report certain data to
the New Hampshire Department of insurance annually. [SB 214.
2005]




Mandatory arbitration of medical claims under $20,000; voluntary if            20.6
over $20,000. [§2A:23A-20] Presiding judge may refer malpractice
action to complementary dispute resolution mechanism within 30 days
after trial discovery end date. [§2A:53A-39]




Mandatory submission of malpractice claims to hearing panel; panel             10.8
report not admissible as court evidence. [§41.5.14-20. 1976]
When liability is conceded, either party may call for arbitration of   40.2
damages amounts. [§3045]




Mandatory pre-trial, mediated settlement conference for all civil      30.4
actions filed in Superior Court. [§7A-38.1]




Attorneys must disclose alternative dispute resolutions; good faith    20.6
effort to resolve dispute required. [§32.42.03]




Voluntary arbitration, decision is not admissible as court evidence.   30.4
[§2711.01]




Parties may agree in writing to arbitration.                           30.4
All parties and attorneys to participate in some form of dispute             20.6
resolution within 270 days of action filed unless case is settled or
parties voluntarily waive in writing. [§31.250]




Mandatory conciliation hearing, which may be a settlement                    20.6
conference or mediation as the parties prefer. [§40.1301.825-A]




Arbitration Act requires request for arbitration be in writing. Voluntary.   30.4
[§10.3.1]




Mandatory mediation for malpractice actions, binding arbitration             20.6
permitted. [S 83. 2005]
Voluntary arbitration. [§21-25-B.1]                                    30.4




Voluntary arbitration. [§29.5.101]                                     30.4




Expert reports to be submitted to defendant and defendant’s attorney    1
within 120 days of filing claim. [§74.351] Voluntary arbitration.
[§74.451]
Voluntary pre-litigation panel may be requested. [§78.14.12] Upon             1
written agreement by all parties, proceedings may be considered a
binding arbitration hearing. [§78.14.16]




Voluntary arbitration, panel consists of judicial referee selected by        30.4
court administrator, layman and member of same profession as
defendant. [§12.7002]




Review by pre-trial panel by request of either party. Findings                1
admissible in court but not considered conclusive. [§8.01-581.2 - 8]
Voluntary arbitration, decision binding. [§8.01-581.12]




Allowed parties in an action to elect to submit the dispute to               20.6
arbitration. [HB 2292. 2006] Mandatory pre-trial mediation. Panel
members shall have expertise related specialty or action in question,
and be a member of state bar association for minimum of 5 years or
is a retired judge. [§7.70.100]




Plaintiff must file notice with certificate of merit stating expert’s        10.8
familiarity with standards, qualifications, opinion of breach of standard
of care. Certificates must be filed at least 30 days before filing action,
and one certificate for each defendant named. [§55.7B.6]
Voluntary. Mediation request must be made prior to court action and          30.4
tolls statute of limitations until 30 days after the last day of mediation
period. [§655.42-4]




Medical Review Panel to review all malpractice claims and render              1
decision prior to claim being submitted to court. [§9.2.1506]
Legislative referendum adopted. Allows legislature to create statutes
requiring alternative dispute resolution or panel review prior to filing
malpractice lawsuits. [Wyoming Ballot, 2004 Election]
29. Asbestos- and silica-liability rules [7]   29r.



                                               50




                                               50




                                               50
50




50




50




50
                                                                      50




Establishes minimum medical criteria, based on American                1
Medical Association recommendations, for filing asbestos and
silica claims. Revised statute of limitations for filing asbestos
and silica claims. The period for filing claims begins only after a
patient has demonstrated symptoms of illness. Prohibited the
award of punitive damages in asbestos/silica claims. Increased
standards for establishing venue in all asbestos and silica
cases. [HB 1019. 2005] Applies provisions of the bill to
corporations that are successors and became a successors
before January 1, 1972. Provides that cumulative successor
asbestos-related liabilities of a corporation are limited to fair
market value of total gross assets of transferor determined as of
time of merger or consolidation. Provides methods by which to
establish fair market value of total gross assets. [CS/SB 2228.
2005]



Reenacted the 2005 legislation struck down on constitutional          25.5
grounds related to retroactivity. Established objective medical
criteria required to bring asbestos or silica claims; reformed
successor asbestos-related liability. [SB 182. 2007] Established
minimum medical criteria (based on AMA guide to the
evaluation of permanent impairment) for the filing of asbestos
and silica claims and established criteria for dismissal of
pending claims. Provided that, in general, asbestos and silica
claims may only be brought or maintained by Georgia residents.
[HB 416. 2005]




                                                                      50
50




50




50




50
Established minimum medical criteria for the filing of asbestos   33.66666666
and silica claims. [SB 512. 2006]




                                                                      50




                                                                      50




                                                                      50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
                                                                            50




                                                                            50




                                                                            50




Establishes minimum medical requirements (based on AMA                  17.33333333
guide to the evaluation of permanent impairment) for filing
asbestos claims. Specifies plaintiff’s burden of proof in
asbestos actions. Establishes premises liability with respect to
asbestos claims. [Asbestos Litigation Reform: H.B. 292. 2004]
In tort actions, limited the liability for certain successors in tort
actions to the value of the acquired company on the effective
date of the acquisition. [Am. Sub. S.B. 80. 2004]




                                                                            50
                                                                     50




                                                                     50




                                                                     50




Established minimum medical criteria (based on the AMA guide         25.5
to the evaluation of permanent impairment) for the filing of
asbestos and silica claims. Extended the statute of limitations to
when an exposed person discovers or should have discovered
his or her physical impairment. [S 1038. 2006] Limited
successor asbestos-related liability to the fair market value or
the total gross assets of the transferor determined at the time of
the merger or consolidation. Provided methods for determining
fair market value. [S 1163. 2006]
                                                                            50




Established minimum medical criteria for the filing of silica           41.83333333
cases. Required a claimant to submit a written report from a
qualified medical authority within 30 days of filing a silica
complaint. Allowed for premises liability reform. [SB 3539. 2006]




Provides that if a company with liability for mining or sale of         9.16666666
asbestos-containing products was merged or acquired by a
successor prior to May 13, 1968, the limit of the successor
company’s liability for asbestos claims as a result of the
acquisition is limited to the FMV of the acquired company at the
time of acquisition. The limitation applies to ―successors of
successors,‖ based on the FMV of the initially acquired
company at the time of the initial acquisition. [Asbestos Liability
Reform: Successor Liability: HB 4. 2003] (1) establish medical
criteria for all pending and future asbestos claims, including a
requirement that all claimants submit a qualifying medical report
with a pulmonary function test that demonstrates physical
impairment; (2) provide that all pending asbestos claims that
have not been scheduled for trail within 90 days after the
effective date, except for cases involving cancer, are subject to
the multi-district litigation court process; (3) assure that the most
seriously ill—those suffering from mesothelioma or other
malignancy caused exposure to asbestos or silica—will receive
expedited trials and adequate compensation for their injuries; (4)
require that each asbestos case be tried on its own merits, not
as a ―bundle‖ of claims that may include a few truly sick
50




50




50




50




50
50




50
                                                                             Product Liability



            30. Construction-liability rules [2]                      30r.



                                                                      50




Provides for a 15-year statute of repose in civil actions brought      1
against design and construction professionals. The statute
would begin to run from substantial completion of the work and
require that liability be assigned proportionally to the
defendant's degree of fault. [HB 160. 1994]




Requires a purchaser to wait to file a lawsuit against a seller for    1
a construction defect until after the seller has had an opportunity
to correct the defect. [HB 2620 (2002)]
                                                                    50




                                                                    50




Prohibits damages arising from improvements to residential          1
property provided construction complies with the applicable
building code or industry standards. Provides that a claim for
relief must be brought within ninety days of discovering physical
manifestations of a defect in the improvement that ultimately
causes injury. [HB 1166 (2001)]




                                                                    50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50




50
50




50




50




50
50




50




50
                                                                  50




                                                                  50




                                                                  50




Addresses construction defect disputes in multi-unit buildings.   1
[Condo liability HB 1848. 2005]




                                                                  50
50




50
                              Product Liability



 31. Does the state allow a ―FDA defense‖ or ―FTC
                                                         31r.
                   defense‖? [5]



                                                          50




                                                          50




Establishes a government standards defense to punitive   37.75
damages for FDA-approved drugs. [SB 1453. 1989]
                                                                  50




                                                                  50




Expands 1990's prohibition against seeking punitive damages in   37.75
cases in which FDA approved drugs are administered by a
physician, to include medically prescribed drugs or products
used on an experimental basis (when such experimental use
has not received specific FDA approval) and when the patient
has given informed consent. [HB 1093 (1991)]




                                                                  50
50




50




50




50
                                                                  50




Illinois Supreme Court recognizes a FTC defense from product      25.5
liability for manufacturers of ―light‖ or ―low tar‖ cigarettes.




Provides a rebuttable presumption that a product is not            1
defective if the manufacturer of the product complied with
government standards (i.e. approved by FDA, FAA etc...)
[Product Liability Reform: HB 1741. 1995]




                                                                  50
50




50




50




50
                                                            50




                                                            50




Prohibits lawsuits against drug manufacturers for drugs     1
approved by the FDA unless company intentionally withheld
information or misled the FDA about the drug.




                                                            50
50




50




50




50
                                                                  50




                                                                  50




Provides that a manufacturer or seller in a warning-defect case   1
is not liable if an adequate warning is given. (An adequate
warning is one that a reasonably prudent person in the similar
circumstances would have provided.) Establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a government (FDA) warning is adequate. [SB
2805. 1987]




                                                                  50
                                                                    50




                                                                    50




Provides for an FDA government standards defense to punitive       37.75
damages. [HB1369. 1995]




Establishes a complete defense for manufacturers and sellers       37.75
of ethical drugs and/or devices if they have supplied adequate
warnings to learned intermediaries, unless the FDA requires
additional warnings. Provides that a drug manufacturer shall
not be liable for punitive damages if the drug was approved by
the FDA. [Product Liability Reform: HB 1. 1987] Manufacturers
of over-the-counter drugs and medical devices are not liable for
punitive damages if the FDA approved the product. [SB80.
2004]




                                                                    50
Provides an FDA standards defense to punitive damages. [SB   37.75
323. 1987]




                                                              50




                                                              50




                                                              50
                                                                     50




                                                                     50




Provides for the presumption that a product is not defective if it   1
meets mandatory government standards or was approved or
licensed by the FDA. [Product Liability Reform: HB 4. 2003]
The bill includes a presumptive government standards defense      1
for all products. [Product Liability Reform: Government
Standards Defense: SB 25. 1989]




                                                                  50




                                                                  50




                                                                  50




Health care providers not liable for personal injury caused by   13.25
prescription drug or medical device used in accordance with
FDA regulations. [HB 2011. 2005]
50




50
32. Does the state provide guidelines for general-
                                                       32r.
  manufacturer liability or retailer liability? [15]



                                                       50




                                                       50




                                                       50
                                                                      50




                                                                      50




Prohibits a product liability action from being brought against a     18.5
seller or manufacturer of a product under certain circumstances.
An innocent seller provision is included which prohibits product
liability actions against parties who were not the manufacturer of
the product. The bill also provides that a product liability action
may not be taken if the product was improperly used or if the
product provided warning or instruction that, if heeded, would
have prevented the injury, death, or property damage. [Product
Liability Reform: SB 231. 2003]




                                                                      50
                                                                      50




Establishes a 12-year statute of repose for products with a           39.5
useful life of 10 years or less, unless the product is specifically
warranted a useful life longer than 12 years. Establishes a 20-
year statute of repose for airplanes or vessels in commercial
activity, unless the manufacturer specifically warranted a useful
life longer than 20 years. The reform does not apply to cases
involving improvements to real property including elevators and
escalators, cases involving a latent injury, and cases where the
manufacturer, acting through its officers, directors or managing
agents, took affirmative steps to conceal a known defect in the
product. [Product Liability Reform: HB 775. 1999]




Permits only one award of punitive damages to be assessed             32.5
against any given defendant in product liability cases. [HB 1.
1987]




                                                                      50
                                                                50




                                                                50




Restricts strict liability actions to the manufacturer of the   29
product. [Product Liability Reform: HB 1741. 1995]




Establishes a 15-year statute of repose for product liability   39.5
lawsuits not involving fraud, concealment, latent diseases
caused by harmful materials, or specified products. [Product
Liability Reform: Statute of Repose: HF 693. 1997]
                                                                        50




                                                                        50




Provides that a product may be unreasonably dangerous only              25.5
because of one or more of the following characteristics: (a)
defective construction or composition; (b) defective design; (c)
failure to warn or inadequate warning; or (d) nonconformity with
an express warranty. Provides that a manufacturer of a product
shall not be liable for damage proximately caused by a
characteristic of the product's design if the manufacturer proves
that at the time the product left his control: (a) he did not know
and, in light of then-existing reasonably available scientific and
technological knowledge, could not have known of the design
characteristic that caused the damage; (b) he did not know and,
in light of then-existing reasonable available scientific and
technological knowledge, could not have known of the
alternative design identified by the claimant; or (c) the alternative
design identified by the claimant was not feasible, in light of then-
existing reasonably available scientific and technological
knowledge or then-existing economic practicality. [Product
Liability Reform: SB 684. 1988]



Provides that ―subsequent remedial measures‖ or steps taken             43
after an accident to repair or improve the site of injury are not
admissible as evidence of negligence. [Product Liability Reform:
LD 346. 1996]
                                                                 50




                                                                 50




Provides an absolute defense, where the plaintiff was found to   46.5
be at least 50% at fault due to intoxication or a controlled
substance. [Product Liability Reform: SB 344. 1995]




                                                                 50
Provides that the seller of a product, other than a manufacturer,     1
cannot be held liable unless the seller had substantial control
over the harm causing aspect of the product, the harm was
caused by a seller’s alteration or modification of the product, the
seller had actual knowledge of the defective condition at the
time the product was sold, or the seller made an express
warranty about the aspect of the product which caused the
plaintiff’s harm. [Innocent Seller/Product Liability Reform: H.B.
13. 2004] Requires product liability cases to be based on a
design, manufacturing or warning defect, or breach of an
express warranty, which caused the product to be unreasonably
dangerous. Provides that a product that contains an inherently
dangerous characteristic is not defective if the dangerous
characteristic cannot be eliminated without substantially
reducing the product’s usefulness or desirability and the inherent
characteristic is recognized by the ordinary person with ordinary
knowledge common to the community. Provides that a
manufacturer or seller cannot be held liable for failure to warn of
a product’s dangerous condition if it was not known at the time       50




Provided statutory defenses to product liability claims, including    22
assumption of the risk and misuse of product. [SB 380. 1987]




                                                                      50
                                                                       50




Establishes a right of indemnification for New Hampshire               36
manufacturers from a claim for damages by the original
purchaser of a product, where the product was significantly
altered after it left the New Hampshire manufacturer’s control.
[SB 76. 1993] Establishes a committee to study the impact of
product liability on New Hampshire businesses. [SB 339. 1992]
Provides a state of the art defense for defendants in product
liability cases. [State of the Art Defense: HB 936. 1988]




Excludes product sellers from strict liability in product liability    4.5
actions. [SB 1495. 1995] Provides that a manufacturer or seller
of a product is liable only if the plaintiff proves by a
preponderance of the evidence that the product was not suitable
or safe because it: (1) deviated from the design specifications or
performance standards; (2) failed to contain adequate warnings;
or (3) was designed in a defective manner. Provides that a
manufacturer or seller is not liable if at the time the product left
the manufacturer’s control there was not available a practical
and feasible alternative design that would have prevented the
harm. Provides that a product’s design is not defective if the
harm results from an inherent characteristic of the product that
is known to the ordinary person who uses or consumes it.
Provides that a manufacturer or seller is not liable for a design
defect if the harm results from an unavoidably unsafe aspect of
a product and the product was accompanied by an adequate               50
                                                                        50




Provides that there shall be no strict liability in tort for product     8
liability actions. Provides statutory defenses to product liability
claims, including assumption of the risk. [HB 637. 1995]




                                                                        50




Provided for a ten-year statute of repose for product liability         11.5
actions, with certain exceptions. [Am. Sub. SB 80. 2004]
Provides that a product’s design is not defective if: (1) an injury
occurs due to the inherent characteristics of a product, where
the characteristics are recognized by the ordinary person with
ordinary knowledge common to the community; or (2) an injury
occurs because of a design which is state of the art, unless the
manufacturer acted unreasonably in introducing the product into
trade or commerce. Provides that a product is not defective due
to lack of warnings if the risk is open and obvious or is a risk that
is a matter of common knowledge. [Product Liability Reform: HB
1. 1987]




                                                                        50
50




50




50




50
                                                                    50




                                                                    50




Provides for a 15 year statute of repose for product liability      15
cases. In cases involving latent diseases, the plaintiff must
have been exposed within 15 years of the product’s sale and
must show symptoms more than 15 years after the sale.
Provides for an innocent seller provision which prohibits actions
against non-manufacturing sellers except in specific
circumstances such as if the seller participated in the design of
the product or knew of the defect at the time of the sale.
[Product Liability Reform: HB 4. 2003] Requires proof of an
economically and technologically feasible safer alternative
design available at the time of manufacture in most product
liability actions for defective design. Provides a defense for
manufacturers and sellers of inherently unsafe products that are
known to be unsafe. Establishes a fifteen-year statute of repose
for product liability actions against manufacturers or sellers of
manufacturing equipment. Provides protection for innocent
retailers and wholesalers. [SB 4. 1993]
50




50




50




50




50
50




50
 33. Does the state provide civil-liability exemptions
                                                                     33r.
   for claims concerning junk food or obesity? [2]



                                                                     50




                                                                     50




Exempts from civil liability purveyors of food when the claim is a    1
result from the repeated consumption of a food product that is
not defective and unreasonably dangerous if consumed in
reasonable quantities. Provides that there is no duty to warn
purchasers, users, or consumers, regardless of age, that the
consumption of a food product that is not defective and
unreasonably dangerous may cause health problems if
consumed excessively. Food product is defined as any product
that is grown, prepared, provided, served or sold and that is
primarily intended for human consumption and nourishment.
[Obesity Litigation Reform: HB 2220. 2004]
                                                                      50




                                                                      50




Exempts from civil liability, manufacturers, packers, distributors,   1
carriers, holders, or sellers of food or an association of one or
more such entities when the claim is for weight gain, obesity, a
health condition related to obesity or weight gain, or any other
injury caused by the long-term consumption of food. The
exemption does not apply when the claim is for a material
violation of federal or state composition, branding, or labeling
standards and the injury was caused by the violation. Finally,
H.B. 1150 provides that all proceedings including discovery shall
be stayed during a motion to dismiss. [Obesity Litigation
Reform: HB 1150. 2004]




                                                                      50
                                                                       50




Exempts from civil liability manufacturers, distributors, or sellers   1
of foods or nonalcoholic beverages when the claim is based
upon a person’s weight gain or obesity, or a health condition
related to weight gain or obesity, related to the long-term
consumption of such foods or nonalcoholic beverages. The
liability exemption does not apply if defendant failed to provide
nutritional content information as required by any applicable
state or federal statute or regulation, or provided materially false
or misleading information to the public. [Obesity Litigation
Reform: HB 333. 2004]




Exempted from civil liability manufacturers, producers, packers,       1
distributors, carriers, holders, sellers, marketers, and advertisers
of food (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 321 (f)) or an association of one
or more such entities for claims arising out of weight gain,
obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or
obesity, or other generally known conditions allegedly caused or
likely to result from the long-term consumption of food. The
liability exemption does not apply if the claim is based on a
material violation of a state or federal adulteration or
misbranding requirement. The liability exemption also does not
apply for any other material violation of federal or state law
applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution,
advertising, labeling or sale of food and the violation was
committed knowingly and willfully. Provided that discovery and
all other proceedings shall be stayed during a motion to dismiss.
[HB 196. 2005]



                                                                       50
Provides a civil liability exemption for a manufacturer, packer,         1
distributor, carrier, holder, seller, marketer or advertiser of a food
or beverage, when the claim is for weight gain, obesity, a health
condition associated with weight gain or obesity, or any other
generally known condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely
to result from long-term consumption of food. The liability
exemption does not apply if the claim is based on a material
violation of state or federal law with respect to adulteration or
misbranding. The liability exemption also does not apply if the
claimed injury is for any other material violation of federal or
state law applicable to the manufacturing, marketing,
distributing, advertising, labeling or the sale of food and that the
violation was committed knowingly and willfully. In addition,
provides that discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed
during any motion to dismiss. [Obesity Litigation Reform: HB
590. 2004]



A qualified civil liability action shall not include: (a) an action in   1
which a seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully
violated a federal or State statute applicable to the marketing,
distribution, advertisement, labeling, or sale of the product, and
the violation was a proximate cause of the claim of injury
resulting from a person's weight gain, obesity, or health
condition related to weight gain or obesity; (b) an action for
breach of contract or express warranty in connection with the
purchase of a qualified product; or (c) an action regarding the
sale of a qualified product which is adulterated. [HB 3981. 2004]




Exempted from civil liability manufacturers, producers, packers,         1
distributors, carriers, holders, sellers, marketers, and advertisers
of food (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 321 (f)) or an association of one
or more such entities for claims arising out of weight gain,
obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or
obesity, or other generally known conditions allegedly caused or
likely to result from the long-term consumption of food. The
liability exemption does not apply if the claim is based on a
material violation of a state or federal adulteration or
misbranding requirement. The liability exemption also does not
apply for any other material violation of federal or state law
applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution,
advertising, labeling or sale of food and the violation was
committed knowingly and willfully. [HB 1113. 2006]



                                                                         50
A manufacturer, producer, packer, distributor, carrier, holder,          1
seller, marketer, or advertiser of a food or an association of one
or more such entities, shall not be subject to civil liability for any
claim arising out of weight gain, obesity, a health condition
associated with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known
condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from
long-term consumption of food. Exceptions: a material violation
of an adulteration or misbranding requirement prescribed by
statute or rules and regulations of this state or of the United
States and the claimed injury was proximately caused by such
violation; or any other material violation of the federal food, drug
and cosmetic act as of the effective date of this act or state law
applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution,
advertising, labeling or sale of food, provided that such violation
is knowing and willful and the claimed injury was proximately
caused by such violation. [SB 75. 2005]




Excludes food establishments from civil liability for any claim          1
arising out of weight gain, obesity, a health condition associated
with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known condition
allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from long-term
consumption of food. [SB 103. 2005]




Exempts from liability any manufacturer, distributor or seller of a      1
food or nonalcoholic beverage where liability is premised upon
the individual’s weight gain or obesity. This is the first law
enacted at either the state or federal level that specifically
addresses liability limits for purveyors of food with respect to
obesity lawsuits. [Food Liability Reform: HB 518. 2003]




This bill creates a defense for a person or business entity that         1
serves food from claims of obesity of or excessive weight gain
by consumers as a result of their long-term consumption of food
from that person or entity. Exceptions to this defense are
instances in which food items are altered or misbranded and
certain cases of other knowing and willful violations of state or
federal law. [LD 645. 2005]
                                                                      50




                                                                      50




Law provides immunity from civil liability for certain food-related   1
businesses for personal injury or death arising out of weight
gain, obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or
obesity, or other generally known condition allegedly caused by
or allegedly likely to result from long-term consumption of food.
[HB 5809. 2004]




                                                                      50
                                                                       50




A manufacturer, packer, distributor, carrier, holder, seller,          1
marketer, retailer, or advertiser of a food, as defined in the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, but shall
not include alcoholic beverages, or an association of one or
more such entities shall not be subject to civil liability under any
state law, including all statutes, regulations, rules, common law,
public policies, court or administrative decisions or decrees, or
other state actions having the effect of law, for any claim arising
out of weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with
weight gain or obesity. Exceptions: material violation of an
adulteration or misbranding requirement prescribed by statute or
regulation of the state of Missouri or the United States and the
claimed injury was proximately caused by such violation; or
other material violation of federal or state law applicable to the
manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or
sale of food, provided that such violation is knowing and willful,
and the claimed injury was proximately caused by such violation.
[HB 1115. 2004]



                                                                       50




                                                                       50
50




50




50




50
                                                                        50




                                                                        50




Limited liability for a food producer, manufacturer, packer,            1
distributor, carrier, holder, seller, marketer, trade association, or
advertiser for a claim of injury resulting from weight gain,
obesity, or any health condition related to weight gain. [HB 1241.
2005]




Part of law provides qualified immunity from civil damages for          1
food manufacturers, sellers, and trade associations for claims
resulting from a person's cumulative consumption, obesity, or
weight gain or any health condition related to cumulative
consumption, obesity, or weight gain. [HB 80. 2005]




                                                                        50
Prohibits persons from bringing a cause of action for food-           1
related conditions against those involved with the selling of food.
Provides exceptions for which a cause of action may be brought
by those suffering from food-related conditions. Sets out
pleading requirements for actions regarding food-related
conditions. HB 2591 A defines a food-related condition as: 1)
weight gain; 2) obesity; 3) a health condition associated with
weight gain or obesity; or 4) a generally recognized health
condition alleged to be caused by, or alleged to likely result
from, long-term consumption of food rather than a single
instance of consumption of food. There are exceptions set out in
HB 2591 A that would allow for a cause of action based on
violations of state and federal statutes dealing with adulterated
and misbranded food. There is also an exception for knowing
and willful violations of state and federal laws relating to the
manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertisement, labeling,
or sale of food. [HB 2591. 2005]



                                                                      50




                                                                      50




                                                                      50
Exempts from civil liability manufacturers, sellers, trade             1
associations, livestock producers, or retailers of any food or
drink (as defined in Sec. 201(f) of 21 U.S.C. 321 (f)) when the
claim is based on the individual’s weight gain, obesity, or a
health condition related to weight gain or obesity, and the weight
gain, obesity, or health condition results from the individual’s
long-term consumption of a food or drink. The provisions also
apply to cases that are currently pending. [Obesity Litigation
Reform: HB 1282. 2004]



Exempts from civil liability manufacturers, distributors, sellers or   1
advertisers of food [as defined in Section 201(f) of 21 U.S.C.
321(f)] when the claim is for weight gain, obesity, or other
conditions resulting from the long-term consumption of food.
The civil liability exemption does not apply if the claim is based
on a material violation of state or federal law with respect to
adulteration or misbranding. The liability exemption also does
not apply if the claimed injury is for any other material violation
of federal or state law applicable to the manufacturing,
marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or sale of food and
the violation was committed knowingly and willfully. Provides
that discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during a
motion to dismiss. [Obesity Litigation Reform: SB 2379. 2004]



Exempts from civil liability trade associations, livestock             1
producers, agricultural producers and manufacturers, sellers,
marketers, distributors, and advertisers of food (as defined in 21
U.S.C. 321 (f);(g);(i)) for claims arising out of weight gain,
obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or
obesity, or other generally known conditions allegedly caused by
or allegedly likely to result from long-term consumption of food.
This liability exemption includes actions brought by a person
other than the individual whose weight gain, obesity, or health
condition the action is based. It also includes any derivative
action brought by or on behalf of any individual or any
representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative or
individual. The liability exemption does not apply for a violation
of federal or state law applicable to the manufacturing,
marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling or sale of food and
the violation was committed knowingly and willfully. The liability
exemption also does not prohibit an action from being brought
under Chapter 431, Health Safety Code; or by the attorney
general under Section 17.47, Business & Commerce Code.
Provides that discovery and all other proceedings shall be
stayed during a motion to dismiss. [HB 107. 2005]
Exempts from civil liability manufacturers, packers, distributors,    1
carriers, holders, marketers, advertisers of food, or an
association of one or more such entities when the claim is for
obesity or weight gain resulting from the consumption of food.
The liability exemption does not apply if the claim is based on a
material violation of federal or state adulteration or misbranding
requirements or any other material violation of applicable federal
or state law related to the marketing, manufacturing, distribution,
advertising, labeling or sale of food that was committed
knowingly and willfully. Food is defined as any raw, cooked, or
processed edible substance, beverage, or ingredient for use or
for sale, but does not include tobacco products, alcohol
products, vitamins/dietary supplements, illegal drugs, or
prescription/over-the-counter drugs. Provides for a stay of
discovery during a motion to dismiss. [Obesity Litigation Reform:
S.B. 214. 2004]



                                                                      50




                                                                      50




Exempts from civil liability manufacturers, packers, distributors,    1
carriers, holders, marketers, or seller of food or nonalcoholic
beverages for suits brought by private parties when the claim is
based upon weight gain, obesity, or health conditions related to
weight or obesity resulting from the long-term consumption of
food or nonalcoholic beverages. [Obesity Litigation Reform: SB
6601. 2004]




                                                                      50
Exempted from civil liability manufacturers, producers, packers,           1
distributors, carriers, holders, sellers, marketers, and advertisers
of food (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 321 (f)) or an association of one
or more such entities for claims arising out of weight gain,
obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or
obesity, or other generally known conditions allegedly caused or
likely to result from the long-term consumption of food. The
liability exemption does not apply if the claim is based on a
material violation of a state or federal adulteration or
misbranding requirement. The liability exemption also does not
apply for any other material violation of federal or state law
applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution,
advertising, labeling or sale of food and the violation was
committed knowingly and willfully. [SB 161. 2006]



No manufacturer, seller, trade association, livestock producer or          1
retailer of a qualified product is subject to civil liability for injury
or death in any case in which liability is based on the individual's
weight gain, obesity or a health condition related to weight gain
or obesity, and the weight gain, obesity or health condition
results from the individual's long term consumption of a qualified
product. [HB 170. 2005]
 34. Are state-supreme-court justices appointed or                 35. Does the state have a harmful
                                                        34r.
                    elected? [7]                                         attorney general? [2]



Statewide partisan election                              50




Nonpartisan retention election                       17.33333333




Appointed by governor; retention election            17.33333333
Statewide nonpartisan election                                  25.5




Nominated by governor, confirmed by Commission on Judicial   17.33333333
Appointments; retention election




Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention     17.33333333
election




Nominated by Governor, confirmed by legislature                  1         1. Richard Blumenthal
Nominated by Governor, confirmed by legislature                      1




Merit selection for first term; nonpartisan retention election   17.33333333




Statewide nonpartisan election                                      25.5




Nominated by Governor, confirmed by legislature                      1
Statewide nonpartisan election                                      25.5




Election by district; partisan for first term; nonpartisan for   41.83333333   5. Lisa Madigan
retention




Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention         17.33333333
election




Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention         17.33333333
election
Nonpartisan retention election                    17.33333333




Nonpartisan election by district                     25.5




Partisan election by district                         50




Nominated by Governor, confirmed by legislature       1
Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention   17.33333333
election




Appointed by Governor with assent of Governor's Council        1




Nonpartisan statewide election                                25.5




Nonpartisan statewide election                                25.5
Nonpartisan election by district                              25.5




Merit appointment; retention election                      17.33333333




Nonpartisan statewide election                                25.5




Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention   17.33333333
election
Statewide nonpartisan election                                 25.5




Nominated by Governor, appointed by executive council           1




Nominated by Governor; retention confirmed by legislature   9.16666666




Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention    17.33333333
election
Merit Selection through Nominating Commission       1




Statewide nonpartisan election                     25.5




Statewide nonpartisan election                     25.5




Partisan primary; nonpartisan general           33.66666666




Merit appointment; retention election           17.33333333
Statewide nonpartisan election                                25.5




Statewide partisan election                                   50




Nominated by Governor, confirmed by both the Senate and the    1     2. Patrick Lynch
House




Legislative appointment                                        1
Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention   17.33333333
election




Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention   17.33333333
election




Partisan election by district                                  50
Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention     17.33333333
election




Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retained by   9.16666666    4. William Sorrell
vote of the General Assembly




Legislative Appointment without Nominating Commission;       9.16666666
reappointment by legislature




Nonpartisan statewide election                                  25.5




Partisan statewide election                                      50        3. Darrell McGraw
Statewide nonpartisan election                                25.5




Merit Selection through Nominating Commission; retention   17.33333333
election
35r.                                36. Venue rules [9]                                   36r.




 1     Establishes venue rules to restrict forum shopping. Restricts lawsuit filings      31.625
       against corporations to qualified venues. Specifies venue rules for class action
       lawsuits and actions involving multiple plaintiffs. [Venue Reform: SB 305. 1999]
       Gives judges the authority to refuse out-of-state cases on the basis of
       convenience or inconvenience to parties and witnesses and allows judges to
       transfer cases to the most appropriate court. [Forum Non Conveniens Reform:
       1987]




 1                                                                                         50




 1                                                                                         50
1    Limits venue to the judicial district in which the action occurred, the plaintiff   13.25
     resides, or the defendant resides. [HB 1038. 2003]




1                                                                                         50




1                                                                                         50




50                                                                                        50
1                                                                                            50




1   Established venue reform (for class actions only) to prohibit out-of-state residents    43.875
    from filing lawsuits in Florida courts unless the claim occurred or emanated from
    the state. Required claimants to prove actual damages in order to maintain certain
    types of class actions. Would not preclude the Attorney General from bringing a
    class action to cover statutory penalties. [HB 7529. 2006]




1   In cases involving multiple defendants, if defendants who reside in the county           25.5
    where the action is pending are discharged from liability, the non-resident
    defendant may require that the case be transferred to a county or court in which
    venue would otherwise be proper. Allowed courts to dismiss cases with little or no
    connection to the venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. [SB 3. 2005]
    Provides that Georgia courts may decline jurisdiction of any civil causes of a
    nonresident by considering the following factors: (1) the place of accrual of the
    cause of action; (2) the location of witnesses; (3) the residence or residences of
    the parties; (4) whether a litigant is attempting to circumvent the applicable
    statute of limitations of another state; and (5) the public factor of the convenience
    to and burden upon the court. [HB 792. 2003]




1                                                                                            50
1    50




50   50




1    50




1    50
1                                                                                          50




1                                                                                          50




1   Allows a district court judge to dismiss a civil lawsuit upon a defendant’s request   37.75
    when the act giving rise to the suit occurred outside the territorial limits of the
    state. [HB 858. 1999]




1                                                                                          50
1                                                                                          50




1                                                                                          50




1   Provides venue control in product liability cases. [Product Liability Reform: Venue   43.875
    Reform: HB 4508. 1995]




1                                                                                          50
1   Provides that civil suits may be filed in the county where the defendant resides (in         1
    the case of a corporation, the county of its principal place of business) or in the
    county where a ―substantial alleged act or omission occurred or where a
    substantial event that caused the injury occurred.‖ Plaintiff may file in the county
    where he/she lives if venue cannot be established under above criteria. Provides
    that venue must be proper for each plaintiff. Provides that the trial court shall
    dismiss the claim or action if it would be more properly decided in another state. If
    the claim would be more properly decided in another county, provides the case
    shall be transferred to the appropriate county. Provides that for medical providers,
    venue shall be proper where the act or omission occurred. [Venue Reform: HB 13
    (special session). 2004] Provides that civil actions may be commenced where
    defendant resides or in county where alleged act or omission occurred. Provides
    that civil actions may be commenced where plaintiff resides or is domiciled. In
    defective product lawsuits, provides that non-residents may commence civil
    actions in county where plaintiff obtained product. [Venue Reform: HB 19 (special
    session). 2002] Limits venue in medical liability actions to the county where the
    cause of action occurred. [Medical Liability Reform: Venue Reform: HB 2 (special
    session). 2002]
1   Establishes venue in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the wrongful       7.125
    acts or negligent conduct alleged in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was first
    injured in Missouri. Establishs venue in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was
    first injured outside Missouri: (a) For corporate defendants, in any county where
    the registered agent is located or, if the plaintiff's principal place of residence was
    in Missouri when the plaintiff was first injured, in the county of the plaintiff's
    principal place of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured; and (b) for
    individual defendants, in any county of the defendant's principal place of residence
    in Missouri or, if the plaintiff's principal place of residence was in Missouri when
    the plaintiff was first injured, in the county containing the plaintiff's principal place
    of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured. Specified that in wrongful
    death actions the plaintiff is considered first injured where the decedent was first
    injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in the action. Specified
    that in a spouse's claim for loss of consortium the plaintiff claiming consortium is
    considered first injured where the other spouse was first injured by the wrongful
    act or negligent conduct alleged in the action. Specified that the court must
    transfer venue to the county unanimously chosen by the parties if all parties agree
    in writing to a change of venue. If parties are added after the date of the transfer
    and they do not consent to the transfer, the cause of action will be transferred to a
    county in which venue is otherwise appropriate. [HB 393. 2005]

1                                                                                                50




1                                                                                                50
1   50




1   50




1   50




1   50
1   50




1   50




1   50




1   50




1   50
1                                                                                                50




1     A personal action against a corporation or similar entity may be brought in and           19.375
     only in: (1) the county where its registered office or principal place of business is
     located; (2) a county where it regularly conducts business; (3) the county where
     the cause of action arose; (4) a county where a transaction or occurrence took
     place out of which the cause of action arose; or (5) a county where the property or
     a part of the property which is the subject matter of the action is located provided
     that equitable relief is sought with respect to the property. An action regarding an
     insurance policy may be brought, in addition to the above, in the county where the
     insured property is located or where the plaintiff resides in actions upon life,
     accident, health, or disability, policies or fraternal benefit certificates. Pa. R. Civ.
     P. 2179(a).



50                                                                                               50




1    Specified that claims can only be brought where the most substantial part of the             1
     action arose or in the defendant’s principal place of business. In cases against a
     non-resident defendant, the action must be brought where the most substantial
     part of the cause of action occurred, or where the plaintiff resides at the time the
     action arose. Civil actions against (i) a domestic corporation or (ii) a foreign
     corporation required to possess and possessing a certificate of authority from the
     Secretary of State must be brought and tried in the county where the defendant
     has its principal place of business at the time the cause of action arose, or where
     the most substantial part of the cause of action occurred. Civil actions against a
     foreign corporation that does not possess a certificate of authority from the
     Secretary of State must be brought and tried in the county where the most
     substantial part of the cause of action occurred, or where the plaintiff resides at
     the time the cause of action arose. [H 3008. 2005]
1                                                                                           50




1                                                                                           50




1   Restored the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits with little or no     1
    connection to Texas under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. [HB 755. 2005]
    Provides that every plaintiff must establish venue independently of every other
    plaintiff. Mandates dismissal or transfer of any plaintiff who cannot establish
    venue except upon exception showing. Provides for interlocutory de novo
    appellate review of order granting or denying transfer or dismissal. [Venue
    Reform: HB 4. 2003] Allows a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit where the injury occurred,
    where the defendant resides, or (if none of those apply) where the plaintiff resided
    when the injury or harm occurred. [SB 32. 1995] Provides that the court must
    decline jurisdiction if there is a better forum for the suit. [Forum Non Conveniens
    Doctrine: HB 4. 2003] Restores the common-law doctrine of forum non
    conveniens to allow the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction in an action or
    claim for personal injury or wrongful death that arose outside of the state. [SB 220.
    1997] Reinstates the forum non conveniens doctrine, which permits a court to
    decline to hear a case if justice would be better served by trying the case
    elsewhere. [SB 2. 1993]
1                                                                                            50




50                                                                                           50




1                                                                                            50




1                                                                                            50




50   Sets stricter parameters for non-residents to establish venue in state courts by       19.375
     specifying that a substantial portion of the cause of action had to have occurred in
     the state. In addition, each plaintiff has to establish venue independently. [Venue
     Reform: SB 213. 2003]
1   50




1   50
                                                    Procedural and Structural Institutions as of 2007



 37. What is the standard for scientific review of evidence by expert
                                                                                      37r.
                           witnesses? [4]



Modified Daubert. Turner v. State, 746 So. 2d 355 (Ala. 1998).                     17.33333333




Daubert. State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999).                                     1




Frye. State v. Bible, 858 P.2d 1152 (Ariz. 1993).                                      50
Daubert. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc. v. Foote, 14 S.W.3d 512 (Ark.   1
2000).




Frye. People v. Leahy, 882 P.2d 321 (Cal. 1994).                                 50




Daubert. People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001).                              1




Daubert. State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997).                             1
Daubert. M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999).              1




Frye. Flanigan v. State, 625 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1993).                                  50




Alternative Standard. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. McIntosh, 452 S.E.2d 159   33.66666666
(Ga. 1994).




Alternative Standard. State v. Fukusaku, 85 Haw. 462, 473, 946 P.2d 32 (1997).    33.66666666
Daubert. Kolin v. Saint Luke’s Reg’l Med. Ctr., 940 P.2d 1142 (Idaho 1997).    1




Frye. People v. Basler, 740 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2000).                              50




Daubert. Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. 1995).                       1




Daubert. Hutchinson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa 1994).   1
Frye. State v. Heath, 957 P.2d 449 (Kan. 1998).                                    50




Daubert. Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 993 S.W.2d 931 (Ky. 1999), overruled on other   1
grounds by Fugate v. Commonwealth, 993 S.W. 2d 931 (Ky. 1999)




Daubert. State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 (La. 1993).                               1




Daubert. Green v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 673 A.2d 216 (Me. 1996).                    1
Frye. Hutton v. State, 663 A.2d 1289 (Md. 1995).                                50




Daubert. Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 641 N.E.2d 1342 (Mass. 1994).                 1




Frye. Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 624 N.W.2d 427 (Mich. 2000).   50




Frye. Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 2000).                          50
Daubert. Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003).   1




Frye. Brooks v. SSM Health Care, 73 S.W.3d 686 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).      50




Daubert. State v. Moore, 885 P.2d 457 (Mont. 1994).                      1




Daubert. Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 631 N.W.2d 862 (Neb. 2001).        1
Modified Daubert. Dow Chem. Co. v. Mahlum, 970 P.2d 98 (Nev. 1999).            17.33333333




Daubert. Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 813 A.2d 409 (N.H.       1
2002).




Frye. State v. Kelly, 478 A. 2d 364 (N.J. 1984).                                   50




Daubert. State v. Alberico, 861 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1993).                              1
Frye. Collins v. Welch, 678 N.Y.S.2d 444 (Sup. Ct. 1998).             50




Modified Daubert. Howerton, 597 S.E. 2d at 689.                   17.33333333




Frye. City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1994).        50




Daubert. State v. Martens, 629 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).       1




Daubert. Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003).                 1
Modified Daubert. State v. Brown, 687 P. 2d 751 (Or. 1984). State v. O’Key, 899   17.33333333
P.2d 663 (Or. 1995).




Frye. Commonwealth v. Crews, 640 A.2d 395 (Pa. 1994).                                 50




Daubert. DiPetrillo v. Dow Chem. Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999).                       1




Daubert. State v. Council, 515 S.E.2d 508 (S.C. 1999).                                1
Daubert. State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d 482 (S.D. 1994).                               1




Daubert. McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997).               1




Daubert. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.   1
1995).
Frye. Alder v. Bayer Corp., AGFA Div., 61 P.3d 1068 (Utah 2002).                50




Daubert. State v. Brooks, 643 A.2d 226 (Vt. 1993).                              1




Alternative Standard. Spencer v. Commonwealth, 393 S.E.2d 609 (Va. 1990).   33.66666666




Frye. State v. Riker, 869 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1994).                                 50




Daubert. Wilt v. Buracker, 443 S.E.2d 196 (W. Va. 1993).                        1
Alternative Standard. State v. Peters, 534 N.W.2d 867 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).   33.66666666




Daubert. Wyoming: Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P.2d 467 (Wyo. 1999).                  1
utions as of 2007



             38. Conditions on the use of expert witnesses in medical-
                                                                                        38r.
                             malpractice lawsuits [5]



             Expert witness must be licensed in same specialty as defendant and         13.25
             must have practiced within previous year. [§6.5.548]




             Expert witness must be trained and licensed in defendant's discipline       1
             and certified by a board recognized by state. [§09.20.185. 1997]




             Expert witness qualifications specific to malpractice actions. [SB 1036.   25.5
             2005]
Expert witness must be medical care provider of same type of             25.5
specialty as defendant. [§16-114-206]




Expert witnesses to have pertinent education and training to evaluate    37.75
specifics to claim and case. [Business and Professions §2220.08]




Expert witness must be licensed physician and substantially familiar     25.5
with standard of care on date of injury. [§13-64-401]




Expert witness must be similar health care provider or have sufficient   25.5
training and experience in related field of medicine. [§52-184c. 1986]
Expert witness required to establish deviation from applicable            37.75
standard of care unless panel found negligence to have caused injury;
expert’s knowledge of similar field to testify. [§18.6853-6854. 1976]




Expert testimony by licensed physician in same practice or practicing      1
for 5 years before claim filed. [§766.102. 1988]




In professional malpractice actions, the opinions of an expert, who is     1
otherwise qualified as to the acceptable standard of conduct of the
professional whose conduct is at issue, shall be admissible only if, at
the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred, such expert:
(1) Was licensed by an appropriate regulatory agency to practice his
or her profession in the state in which such expert was practicing or
teaching in the profession at such time; and (2) In the case of a
medical malpractice action, had actual professional knowledge and
experience in the area of practice or specialty in which the opinion is
to be given. [SB3. 2005] Complaint must contain affidavit of expert
stating that facts justify a claim of negligence. [§9.11.9.1]




                                                                           50
Expert witness must have professional expertise, practical knowledge        37.75
of community standards. [§6.1013. 1976]




Expert witness licensed and certified in same medical specialties as         1
defendant, for at least 10 years preceding devoted 75% of time to
practice, teaching or research relating to treatment at issue. [§735 5/8-
2501]




Medical Review Panel findings and testimony qualify as expert                50
testimony. [§34-18-10-22]




Qualifications of expert must relate directly to medical problem or type    37.75
of treatment at issue. [§147.139]
50% of the expert’s professional time over preceding 2 years must   25.5
have been devoted to clinical practice. [§60.3412]




                                                                    50




Expert witness must be licensed physician trained in specialty at    1
question, practicing when claim arose, possess knowledge of
accepted standards of care and treatment. [RS §9.2794]




                                                                    50
Expert witness must have clinical experience, provided consultation          13.25
relating to clinical practice, or taught in defendant’s specialty or a
related field within 5 years of act or omission. Can’t spend more than
20% of time testifying in personal injury cases. [§3-2A-02]




                                                                              50




Expert must be licensed and board certified health professional in            1
practice of similar specialty, in active practice or education during year
preceding action. [§600.2169]




Claimant must file affidavit stating that expert has been consulted.         13.25
[§145.682]
Expert witness must be licensed physician. [§11.1.61. 1990]                   25.5




Court required to dismiss any case filed without affidavit of written         13.25
opinion of negligence. [HB 393. 2005] Affidavit of expert consultation
must be filed within 90 days of beginning action. [§538.225]




Provided that an expert witness: must be a licensed health care                1
provider in at least one state; routinely treat or routinely treated within
the previous five years the subject matter of the malpractice claim;
and demonstrate a familiarity with the standards of care and practice
as related to the subject matter of the malpractice claim. In cases
involving treatment recommended by a physician, an expert witness
may not testify on issues of negligence or standards of care unless
the witness is also a physician. In addition, a witness qualified as an
expert in a medical specialty that is unrelated to the malpractice claim
may only testify if it can be proven that the standards of care and
practice in the two specialties are substantially similar. [HB 64. 2005]




                                                                               50
Affidavit must be filed by medical expert practicing in area similar to    1
defendant, failure to submit results in dismissal. [§41A.071]




Expert witness must be competent and duly qualified to render or          13.25
supervise equivalent care to defendant’s specialty. [§507-C:3]




Expert witness must be licensed and practicing physician in same          13.25
specialty as defendant, authorized to administer treatment in question.
[§2A:53A-41]




                                                                           50
Certificate of consultation of expert submitted within 90 days of filing    50
complaint. [§3012]




Expert witness must testify as to the standard of care used in             25.5
community. Must be licensed physician. [§90-21.12]




Plaintiff must submit expert opinion affidavit to individual medical        1
personnel or facility named as defendant within 3 months of
commencement of malpractice action. [SB 2199. 2005] Expert
testimony limited to licensed physician or surgeon who devotes 3/4
time to active clinical practice or teaching. [N.D. Cent. Code 2743.43.
1975]



Expert testimony limited to licensed physician or surgeon who devotes      13.25
3/4 time to active clinical practice or teaching. [§2743.43]




Expert witness must be licensed to practice medicine or have other         13.25
substantial training and experience in area of health care relevant to
claim; actively practicing or retired from services relevant to claim.
[§63-1-1708.1I]
                                                                             50




Attorney’s signature on a complaint certifies that attorney has              50
consulted an expert who will attest to position. [§40.1301.821-A]




Expert witness qualifications are training/education levels. [§9.19.41]     37.75
Statements in published material, as found by court to relevant and
that author is recognized as expert, are admissible as evidence.
[§9.19.30]




In an action against a professional (such as physicians, medical             1
professionals, architects, CPAs, etc.), increased the standard for
admitting expert witness testimony by defining an expert witness as
one who: (1) is qualified as to the acceptable standard of conduct of
the professional whose conduct is at issue; (2) is licensed by an
appropriate regulatory agency; (3) is board certified; and (4) has actual
professional knowledge based on active practice for at least three to
five years, has taught for at least half of his professional time for at
least three to five years, or any combination thereof for at least three
to five years. In such actions against a professional, the plaintiff must
file an affidavit of an expert witness which specifies at least one
negligent act or omission and the factual bases for each claim, unless
the basis of the claim does not require specialized knowledge or
experience to evaluate the conduct of the defendant. Provided that in
any other civil action, expert witness is defined as one who has
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge which may assist
the trier of fact in understanding evidence and determining a fact or
issue in the case. [S83. 2005]
                                                                        50




Expert witness must be licensed in state or contiguous state and       13.25
practice in corresponding specialty for one year preceding date of
injury. [§29.26.115. 1975]




Expert witness must be licensed physician practicing medicine and/or   13.25
with knowledge of accepted standards of practice. [§74.401]
                                                                         50




                                                                         50




Expert witness certification of deviation from care standard required   13.25
before malpractice lawsuit can be filed. [SB 1173, HB 2659. 2005]
Expert witness must be licensed and have active clinical practice in
defendant’s field or related specialty. [§8.01-581.20]




                                                                         50




Expert witness must be currently trained and licensed to practice in    13.25
same or similar specialty as defendant, must devote at least 60% of
professional time to clinical practice or teaching at accredited
university. [§55.7B.7]
50




50
                                                                           40. Size of juries in general-jurisdiction
  39. Statute of limitations on medical-malpractice
                                                                   39r.    courts multiplied by the percentage of
                      lawsuits [5]
                                                                            jurors needed to reach a verdict [10]



A wrongful death action must be brought within two years after      1                         12
the decedent's death. [§§ 6-2-38 and 6-5-410. 1993] 2 years
from date of injury or 6 months from discovery. No suit may be
brought 4 years after date of injury. Minors under 4 by age 8 if
statute would have otherwise expired by that time. [§6.5.482.
1975]




2 years from discovery of injury. [§09.10.070. 1962]               37.75                      10




2 years after cause of action, and not afterward for personal       1                          6
injury and wrongful death. [§12-542. 1985]
2 years from date of injury. Foreign objects: 1 year from               1      9
discovery. Minors: before age 9, until age 11. [§16-114-203.
1979]




3 years after injury or 1 year after discovery, whichever is first.    13.25   9
No more than 3 years after injury unless caused by fraud,
concealment, or foreign object. Minor under age 6: 3 years or
before age 8, whichever is longer. [Civil Procedure §340.5.
1975] Physician must have 90 days notice of action to
commence. [Civil Procedure §364]




2 years from date of injury, no more than 3 years from act.             1      6
Foreign objects: 2 years from discovery. Minors under age 6:
before age 8. [§13-80-102.5. 1988]




2 years from date of injury, but no later than 3 years of the act or    1      6
omission. [§52-584. 1969]
2 years from injury; 3 years from discovery if latent injury. Minor:   25.5    12
age 6 or same as adult. [§18.6856. 1976]




2 years from injury or discovery, no more than 4 years from            37.75   6
injury. Minors: age 8. If fraud, concealment of injury or
intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery within 4-year
period, 2 year limit from discovery, not to exceed 7 years after
the act. [§95.11. 1980, 1972]




2 years from injury or death; in no event longer than 5 years           1      12
from act or death. Foreign object: 1 year from discovery. Minors:
2 years from age 5 if action arose before 5th birthday. [§9.3.71-
73. 1987, 1976]




2 years from discovery, not to exceed 6 years from act. Minors:        37.75   10
age 10 or within 6 years, whichever is longer. [§657.7.3]
Arbitration tolls statute until 60 days after panel’s decision is
delivered. [§671.18]
2 years from injury. Foreign object: 1 year from reasonable             1      7
discovery or 2 years from injury, whichever is later. [§5.219.
1971, 1981]




2 years from discovery but not more than 4 years from act.             25.5    9
Minors: 8 years after act but not after age 22. [§735 5/13-212]
Wrongful death: 2 years if limitation on personal injury still valid
at time of death. [§740 180/2]




2 years from act, omission, or neglect. Minors: under age 6 until       1      6
age 8. [§34-18-7-1]




2 years from reasonable discovery but not more than 6 years            37.75   7.5
from injury unless foreign object. Minors under age 8: until age
10 or same as adults, whichever is later. Mentally ill: extends to
1 year from removal of disability. [§614.1. 1986]
2 years from act or reasonable discovery, but can be up to 10       50     8
years after reasonable discovery. [§60.513. 1987, 1965]




1 year from act or reasonable discovery, but not more than 5       13.25   9
years after act. [§413.140. 1974]




1 year from act or date of discovery, but no later than 3 years     1      9
from date of injury. [RS §9.5628. 1987, 1975] Wrongful death: 1
year from death. [CC §2315.2]




3 years from cause of action. Minors: 6 years after accrual or     13.25   6
within 3 years of minority, whichever is first. Foreign objects:
accrue from reasonable discovery. [§24.2902. 1985, 1977]
5 years from act or 3 years from discovery. [§5-109. 1987, 1975]   37.75   6




3 years from injury and no more than 7 years, unless foreign       37.75   10
object discovered. [§260.4. 1986] Minors: before age 6 until age
9, no longer than 7 years from injury. [§231.600. 1986]




2 years from injury. [§600.5805] 6 months from reasonable          37.75   5
discovery. No more than 6 years from injury. [§600.5838a]
Minors under age 8: 6 years or age 10, whichever is later.
Reproductive injuries until age 13. [§600.5851]




4 years from injury or termination of treatment. [§541.076]        25.5    5.5
Disability extends limitation to 7 years. [§541.15]
2 years from act or reasonable discovery, no more than 7 years.    37.75   9
[§15.1.36. 1976]




Specified that actions against physicians and other health care     1      9
providers for malpractice must be brought within two years of a
minor’s eighteenth birthday. [HB 393. 2005] 2 years from act.
Foreign object: 2 years from discovery. Minor under 8: until age
20, or 10 years from 20th birthday. In no event longer than 10
years from injury. [§516.105. 1976]




3 years from injury or discovery, no more than 5 years from act.   37.75   8
Minors under age 4: age 11 or death, whichever occurs first.
[§27.2.205. 1971]




2 years from act or 1 year from reasonable discovery. [§25.222.     1      11
1996]
Question 3, Passed. Amends NRS Ch. 41A.097. 4 years from              13.25   9
injury or 2 years from reasonable discovery if injury or wrongful
death prior to Oct. 1, 2002. If after Oct. 1, 2002, 3 years from
injury or 1 year from discovery. [Nevada Ballot, 2004 Election]




2 years from injury or 2 years from discovery. Minors under age       25.5    12
8: until age 10. [§507-C:4]




2 years from accrual of claim or discovery. Minor from birth: until   37.75   7.5
age 13. [§2A:14-2]




3 years from injury. [§41.5.13. 1976]                                 13.25   10
2 1/2 years from injury, 1 year from discovery. [§214.A. 1975]        13.25   5
Minors: statute tolled until disability ceases, not to exceed 10
years. [§208]




3 years from act or 1 year from reasonable discovery, not more        13.25   12
than 4 years after injury. Foreign object: 1 year from discovery
but not more than 10 years. Minors: until age 19. [§1-15.17.
1979]



2 years from act or reasonable discovery but not more than 6          37.75   7.5
years after act unless concealed by fraud. [§28.01.18. 1985-
1975] Minors: 12 years [§28.01.25]




1 year from act, no more than 4 years from discovery. Foreign         37.75   6
object: 1 year from discovery. Minors: 4 years from act.
[§2305.11-13. 1990]




2 years from reasonable discovery. [§76-18. 1987] Minors under        37.75   9
12: 7 years. Minors over 12: 1 year after attaining majority but in
no event less than 2 years from injury. [§12-96. 1987]
2 years from injury or reasonable discovery, not more than 5        37.75   7.5
years from act. [§12.110. 1987, 1975]




2 years from injury or discovery. [§42.5524] Minor: 2 years after   37.75   10
age of majority. [§42.5533]




3 years from injury, death or reasonable discovery. [§9.1.14.1.     37.75   12
1988, 1976] Minors and incompetents: 3 years from removal of
disability. [§10.7.2]




3 years from act or omission, or 3 years from discovery. not to     37.75   12
exceed 6 years. Foreign object: 2 years from discovery. Minors:
tolled for up to 7 years while a minor. [§15-3-545. 1988, 1977]
2 years from act or omission. [§15-2-14.1. 1977]                 1    10




1 year from injury or discovery, no more than 3 years from act   1    12
unless foreign object. [§29.26.116. 1975]




2 years from occurrence, no more than 10 years. Minors under     50   10
12: until age 14. [§74.151]
2 years from discovery but not more than 4 years from act;         25.5    6
foreign object or fraud: 1 year from discovery, applies to all
persons regardless of minority or disability. [§78.14.4]




3 years from incident or 2 years from discovery, whichever is      37.75   12
later. No later than 7 years. Fraud: no statute of limitations.
Foreign object: 2 years from discovery. [§12.521]




2 years from occurrence, no more than 10 years unless under         50     6
disability. Foreign object: 1 year from discovery. [§8.01-243]




Reenacted the eight-year statute of repose for medical liability    50     7.5
cases. [HB 2292. 2006] 3 years from injury or 1 year from
discovery, whichever is later. No more than 8 years after act.
[§4.16.350]




2 years from injury or reasonable discovery, no longer than 10      50     6
years after injury. Minors under 10: 2 years from injury or age
12, whichever is longer. [§55.7B.4]
3 years from injury or 1 year from discovery, not more than 5          37.75   5
years from act. Foreign object: 1 year from discovery or 3 years
from act, whichever is later. Minors: by age 10 or standard
provision, whichever is later. [§893.55]




2 years from injury or reasonable discovery. Minors: until age 18      37.75   9
or within 2 years, whichever is later. Legal disability: 1 year from
removal. [§1.3.107]
                                                     U.S. Tort Liability
               41. Does the state have a
   40r.                                       41r.   Index, 2008 Score
              complex-litigation court? [2]



    1                      No                 50         27.76153846




11.88888889                No                 50         12.30769231




39.11111111                No                 50         25.37692308
17.33333333   No    50   24.34615385




17.33333333   Yes   1    25.81538462




39.11111111   Yes   1    28.30000000




39.11111111   No    50   26.76153846
    1         Yes   1    22.24615385




39.11111111   Yes   1    38.16923077




    1         No    50   22.69230769




11.88888889   No    50   18.92307692
33.66666667   No   50   22.38461538




17.33333333   No   50   33.72307692




39.11111111   No   50   21.60769231




28.22222222   No   50   13.61538462
22.77777778   No   50   22.46153846




17.33333333   No   50   24.45384615




17.33333333   No   50   23.03076923




39.11111111   No   50   17.46153846
39.11111111   Yes   1    25.99230769




11.88888889   Yes   1    27.94615385




    50        Yes   1    23.00000000




44.55555556   No    50   21.06923077
17.33333333   No   50   17.06923077




17.33333333   No   50   29.75384615




22.77777778   No   50   31.61538462




6.444444444   No   50   20.73076923
17.33333333   Yes   1    26.07692308




    1         No    50   19.53846154




28.22222222   Yes   1    36.54615385




11.88888889   No    50   14.61538462
    50        Yes   1    34.63846154




    1         Yes   1    12.84615385




28.22222222   No    50   11.23076923




39.11111111   Yes   1    17.91538462




17.33333333   Yes   1    20.92307692
28.22222222   No    50   24.53076923




11.88888889   Yes   1    30.07692308




    1         No    50   30.03846154




    1         No    50   18.83076923
11.88888889   No   50   18.23076923




    1         No   50   18.00000000




11.88888889   No   50   20.38461538
39.11111111   No   50   15.60769231




    1         No   50   22.07692308




39.11111111   No   50   14.00000000




28.22222222   No   50   26.30000000




39.11111111   No   50   27.76923077
    50        Yes   1    20.15384615




17.33333333   No    50   16.76923077
U.S. Tort Liability Index,   Monetary Tort Loss   Monetary Tort Loss
                                                                       Litigation Risk Score
     2008 Ranking                  Score              Ranking




            39                   34.11111111              45                13.47500000




            2                    15.11111111              4                  6.00000000




            33                   32.88888889              42                 8.47500000
30   28.22222222   33   15.62500000




34   24.77777778   25   28.15000000




42   32.22222222   39   19.47500000




38   29.00000000   36   21.72500000
24   22.66666667   18   21.30000000




50   39.55555556   50   35.05000000




27   24.77777778   24   18.00000000




15   24.11111111   20   7.25000000
25   26.55555556   30   13.00000000




47   32.55555556   40   36.35000000




22   24.66666667   23   14.72500000




4    15.77777778   6    8.75000000
26   24.66666667   22   17.50000000




31   28.33333333   34   15.72500000




29   20.77777778   13   28.10000000




10   21.55555556   15   8.25000000
35   27.55555556   31   22.47500000




41   27.77777778   32   28.32500000




28   24.22222222   21   20.25000000




21   25.00000000   27   12.22500000
9    19.77777778   11   10.97500000




43   34.22222222   46   19.70000000




46   37.77777778   48   17.75000000




19   21.88888889   17   18.12500000
36   33.44444444   44   9.50000000




16   25.33333333   28   6.50000000




49   37.88888889   49   33.52500000




6    17.22222222   8    8.75000000
48   35.44444444   47   32.82500000




3    14.33333333   3    9.50000000




1    13.88888889   2    5.25000000




11   17.55555556   9    18.72500000




20   21.88888889   16   18.75000000
32   29.77777778   37   12.72500000




45   32.00000000   38   25.75000000




44   33.33333333   43   22.62500000




14   20.00000000   12   16.20000000
13   21.00000000   14   12.00000000




12   24.00000000   19   4.50000000




18   15.22222222   5    32.00000000
7    16.88888889   7    12.72500000




23   25.77777778   29   13.75000000




5    13.22222222   1    15.75000000




37   32.88888889   41   11.47500000




40   28.88888889   35   25.25000000
17   24.88888889   26   9.50000000




8    19.55555556   10   10.50000000
Litigation Risk                           Input-Variables
                  Input-Variables Score
    Ranking                                  Ranking




      21               31.61041548              26




       3               30.10972222              16




       7               30.88194444              21
24   30.94215805   22




44   34.78455763   40




34   20.97410131   1




38   32.86944564   33
37   31.83749881   27




49   27.4558415    6




30   26.23382353   4




5    34.63962537   39
20   28.52904412   10




50   36.53750119   46




23   27.2118464    5




9    34.37161067   37
28   30.35155229   17




25   33.39730392   34




43   28.3377451    8




6    32.14027659   28
39   37.38819444   47




45   31.2388877    24




36   28.0629902    7




17   34.88202495   41
14   31.21495098   23




35   28.87389587   11




29   32.48194444   31




31   32.47164914   30
12   30.75098039   18




4    29.11249881   14




48   28.90506417   12




8    35.95139008   44
47     37.9875     48




11   31.36715686   25




2    30.85604694   20




32   26.03083912   3




33   28.91740315   13
19   35.49428105   42




42   36.5184232    45




40     39.675      50




27   30.80318746   19
16   34.27687789   36




1    28.46642038   9




46   22.84893672   2
18   29.83954248   15




22   38.94583333   49




26   34.61576797   38




15   32.68717201   32




41    35.720056    43
10   34.26396821   35




13   32.42965686   29

								
To top