Liability Reform Coalition issues warning
on egregious liability proposals
pending before the Washington Legislature

Passage of bills will benefit trial lawyers at taxpayer expense

SEATTLE—Saying the price is too high and the main recipients will be trial lawyers who paid big bucks to help elect sympathetic lawmakers, the Liability Reform Coalition (LRC) today took aim at the top five issues being considered in the 2009 Washington Legislature that pose the most egregious attempts to expand liability.

One of the bills will add $7.5 million to the taxpayer tab each and every biennium, while another bill expands recovery of damages by a whopping 750 percent, said Dana Childers, LRC executive director.

Childers said these bills, if passed, ultimately will line the pockets of trial lawyers while costing Washington taxpayers millions more per biennium.

“It’s ludicrous to propose legislation that will impose more liability costs onto state and local governments, particularly when our state and our cities are pedaling fast just to find enough revenue to cover basic services,” said Childers. “I wouldn’t want to be a lawmaker trying to explain why tax rates must be increased so trial lawyers can make more. That’s pork at the public expense, plain and simple.”

While there are more than 60 bills in the legislative pipeline that would expand liability for both governments and businesses, the LRC has honed in on the top five egregious issues:

• SB 5531 / HB 1683 – these similar bills increase the damages available under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by a staggering 750 percent (from $10,000 to $75,000 per violation) and make it significantly easier for a private plaintiff to bring a lawsuit for a single instance rather than a pattern of violations.


• SB 5144 – this so-called “false claims” bill allows bounty hunters and contingent fee attorneys to dig through public records and file a complaint against a state contractor for improper billing. The Office of Financial Management reports that this bill will cost taxpayers $7.5 million per biennium. The state Attorney General’s Office says the bill is not cost effective, and will literally cost the state more than it will recover.


• HB 1393 – this bill provides for expanded construction liability, which will increase home building costs. With a crumbling housing market, it seems odd that lawmakers would consider legislation that would make it even more cost prohibitive for those in the home construction business.


• SB 5886 – this measure regulates legal proceedings involving public hazards and lowers the threshold for bringing such cases.  The real intent of this bill is to limit confidentiality agreements in legal matters, providing trial lawyers all the information they need to bring even more lawsuits.


• HB 2054 / SB 5964 –these companion bills are an end-run around two recent Washington Supreme Court decisions which held that makers of nonhazardous component parts, such as pipes or valves, have no duty to warn ultimate users about asbestos products made by others and attached to those components post-sale.  Many people see these bills as an effort on the part of trial lawyers to create new defendants in asbestos cases because most manufacturers that used asbestos products have already filed for bankruptcy.

Ms. Childers pointed out that these bills impose tremendous financial pressure not only on governments but also on businesses across the state that are already reeling from the effects of the current economy.

Childers is particularly concerned about proposed liability expansions to the Consumer Protection Act as contained in the similar bills offered in the Senate (SB 5531) and the House (HB 1683). These bills provide for recovery of damages that far outpaces the rate of inflation. In addition, these bills alter the intent of the Consumer Protection Act by allowing private plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit without requiring a public interest element in the claim, overturning 23 years of case law. 

Another expensive bill for taxpayers is SB 5144, which allows private citizens to file a complaint against a state contractor for improper billing.  The state Attorney General must then pour resources into following up on each complaint and pay a fee to the person who brought the complaint if the AG is successful at trial or reaches a settlement.  According to estimates by the state Office of Financial Management, SB 5144 will add an additional $7.5 million per biennium to the taxpayer burden, Childers said. “It makes no sense to impose such burdens in good times, let alone in the current economic climate when lawmakers are scrambling to balance the state budget.”

In addition to the increased taxpayer burden, Childers is equally fearful of the impact of expanded liability on businesses, particularly small businesses, and their ability to even survive in the current economy, let alone to expand and hire more employees.  This concern is especially true with HB 1393, which exposes home builders to more liability, making it all the harder for that industry to recover from its near-collapse. 

 “The additional operating costs to cover the liability exposure from these bills may make the difference in whether a company can hire new employees or will need to lay off valued talent. That’s a curious position for a legislature faced with escalating unemployment numbers. You’d think lawmakers would be doing everything possible to keep regular folks employed.”

Ms. Childers noted that the major beneficiaries of these liability bills are trial lawyers, who, as a group and individually, gave record numbers of contributions to 2008 legislative races. 

The LRC is comprised of 70 business, government and nonprofit entities dedicated to stemming the tide of runaway liability costs that stifle economic vitality and access to needed social services. The Liability Reform Coalition is on the Web at www.walrc.org.

Simonetta v. Viad Corp ___ Wn. ___, 197 P.3d 127 (December 11, 2008) and Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings ___ Wn. ___, 198 P.3d 493 (December 11, 2008)

##