This week, tort reform again took center-stage in the Missouri Senate. With the passage of SB237 and the completion of SB45, the vise-like grip of trial attorneys on Missouri's business climate has been loosened a bit. Loosening this grip, particularly when that grip has been aided and validated by a sympathetic judiciary, is not easy, nor does it occur without wailing and gnashing of teeth in the form of half-truths and predictions of doom by beneficiaries of the status quo.
In 2005, under the leadership of Gov. Matt Blunt, the Legislature made sweeping and long-overdue reforms to Missouri's tort laws. These reforms had the immediate effect of improving Missouri's business climate and reducing frivolous lawsuits. In turn, businesses prospered and the state's economy grew. These 2005 reforms also rocked the gravy train of trial attorneys for whom Missouri's improved business climate was decidedly contrary to their business model of preying upon the success of businesses via frivolous and reckless lawsuits. Fast forward to 2008 and the election of a new governor of a different political philosophy, one that was decidedly anti-business. Between 2009 and 2017, the previous governor's policies and a complicit judiciary eroded, and at times sabotaged, the critical reforms implemented in 2005 such that Missouri is now known for its anti-business climate. St. Louis in particular has been labeled a "judicial hell-hole" where unscrupulous attorneys and courts cooperate to bring flimsy and expensive lawsuits against businesses. The net result of these lawsuits is two-fold: It increases the cost of doing business in Missouri and it prevents new businesses from coming to Missouri.
Opponents to tort reform in Missouri argue that efforts to improve Missouri's business climate eliminate liability for these businesses. The notion that consumer protection and an attractive business climate are mutually exclusive is both intellectually dishonest and politically short-sighted. Efforts to limit frivolous lawsuits and to quickly facilitate the airing of grievances do not limit consumer protections. Similarly, Missourians of all political parties and all economic levels ultimately pay the higher costs of Missouri's poor business climate, as the cost of potential litigation is factored into the cost of all goods and services sold in the state. To go after the big, bad businesses for purely political purposes takes money out of the pockets of Missourians and limits the opportunity for Missourians to work at those same companies.
Then, on Thursday, I listened to members of the minority party make claims that the legislation considered this week denies access to the courts for sexual harassment, exonerates hospitals and other health facilities from negligence and intentional wrong-doing, are unconstitutional and are part of the most expansive anti-court agenda ever seen. On the face, and in fact, each of these claims are preposterous.
SB237 limits liability to the party responsible for malpractice. This prevents trial attorneys from weaving a tale of fiction to sue parties at the periphery, not those responsible, simply because they have deeper pockets. SB45 ensures that workplace arbitration agreements are not hijacked by the courts. Simply put, employers and employees that have arbitration agreements should allow their grievances to, in fact, be arbitrated rather than being forced into the courts. Neither bill denies access to the courts, exonerates employees at the outset or is part of a vast anti-court agenda. Each of these bills recognize the significant impact of litigation on Missouri's business climate and address these impacts responsibly.
I would also encourage you to visit our new blog: https://mosenatesidebar.wordpress.com/. Here you will be able to find more information about the bills in progress as well as watch videos and read some news.
State Sen. Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, represents Missouri's 6th District, and shares his perspective on statehouse issues each week.