Reducing the Statute of Limitations

Empty Chair Defense

Regulation of Litigation Financing

Collateral Source Reform

HOUSE

SENATE

Reducing the Statute ​of Limitations

H.B. 1964

S.B. 853

Currently, legal actions for the following ​situations must be brought within five years ​from the date that the injury occurred:

• Personal injury
• Bodily injury
• Relating to uninsured motorist coverage
• Relating to underinsured motorist ​coverage

H.B. 1964 would have reduced the time frame ​to two years from when the injury occurred, ​creating a more efficient legal system and ​discouraging potential lawsuit abuse.

Class Action Reform

S.B. 1509

S.B. 1509 would have made ​state judicial rules mirror the ​federal class action rules, ​creating a more predictable and ​uniform legal environment for ​class actions in Missouri.

Empty Chair Defense

S.B. 1201

S.B. 1201 would have ensured that multiple ​defendants cannot be held more than ​100% at fault in the aggregate.

This would have discouraged lawsuit abuse ​by ensuring defendants are only held ​responsible for their fair share of damages, ​ultimately creating a more balanced and fair ​legal environment.

Regulation of ​Litigation Financing

S.B. 977

S.B. 977 would have ensured that ​lawsuits are primarily driven by ​domestic interests and genuine ​grievances, rather than being ​influenced or manipulated by ​foreign entities with potentially ​conflicting agendas.

This change would have had several key benefits:

• Preserve National Interests & Judicial Independence: It would prevent foreign ​entities from potentially influencing or manipulating U.S. legal proceedings to ​advance their own agendas or strategic interests that may be contrary to U.S. ​national security or economic interests.
• Increase Transparency: The change would make it clearer who is actually behind a ​lawsuit, reducing the potential for hidden foreign influence in the U.S. legal system.
• Maintain Litigation Integrity: It would help ensure that lawsuits are driven by ​genuine grievances of U.S. parties rather than by foreign financial interests.
  
• Protect Vulnerable Plaintiffs: The change could prevent exploitation of U.S. ​plaintiffs by foreign funders who may have different motives or ethical standards.
  
• Level the Playing Field: It would ensure that both parties in a lawsuit are operating ​under the same rules and financial constraints, without one side having access to ​potentially unlimited foreign resources.
  
• Reduce Potential Conflicts of Interest: By limiting foreign funding, it would help ​prevent situations where the interests of foreign funders might conflict with those of ​the plaintiffs or the broader public interest.
  

Collateral Source Reform

H.B. 1965

H.B. 1965 would have ensured ​that only the actual amounts paid ​or owed for medical bills are ​considered in personal injury ​cases, rather than the often ​inflated initial charges by a ​medical provider that were never ​paid nor owed by a plaintiff.

This change would have had several key benefits:

• Prevent Inflated Damages: By allowing only the actual paid or owed amounts, it ​would have prevented plaintiffs from claiming artificially high medical expenses ​based on initial billings that were never actually paid.
• Reflect Real Costs: This change would have ensured that damages awarded reflect ​the true economic impact of the injury, not hypothetical or marked-up charges.
• Reduce “Phantom Damages”: It would have eliminated the practice of seeking ​compensation for medical expenses that were never actually incurred or paid by the ​plaintiff.
• Promote Transparency: This would have encouraged a more transparent process in ​calculating damages, based on real financial impacts rather than theoretical charges.