The state House Judiciary Committee advanced a package of bills that are counter to the kind of commonsense legal reform that is needed in Pennsylvania. All four bills have the backing of - and greatly benefit - the Trial Bar.

The bills approved by the committee include:

House Bill 2123 - This bill would be a radical departure from decades of state and federal policy favoring the use of arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs, the bill would increase litigation costs for both consumers and providers and ultimately the entire health-care system. ADR is a useful tool in resolving claims by providing quicker resolution to disputes and compensation to consumers without unnecessary trial costs for either party.

House bills 1095 and 2202 - this legislation seeks to expand the types of damages and expand those who are eligible to recover in wrongful death actions. This would lead to larger awards that provide no value to consumers, but would be worth millions to trial lawyers at the expense of Pennsylvania businesses.

House Bill 1444 - this bill would be another attempt to drive up jury awards by allowing trial lawyers to quantify damages by arbitrarily suggesting lump sum figures to a jury, thereby tainting the discretion of a jury and injecting confusion into the deliberation process.

PA Chamber members oppose the legislation and had urged lawmakers on the committee to vote "no" on the four-bill package.

Evidence has shown that tort and business liability reforms enacted over the past 20 years have created jobs, lowered consumer costs, reduced insurance costs and increased business investment and innovation. Large jury awards dramatically impact businesses in this state and across the nation. Such awards lead to loss of jobs, reduction in economic status for employees, and reduced retirement assets for Pennsylvania employees. These bills depart from long-standing practices and aim to greatly increase awards in civil cases. As a long-time proponent of meaningful legal reform and long-range systemic changes to the state's judicial system, the PA Chamber views these bills as a move in the opposite direction.

The case for reform:

Several recent studies show why the House Judiciary Committee's actions are so concerning to lawsuit abuse reform advocates.

According to the Boardroom Guide to Litigation: An Analysis of the Legal Climates in all 50 States, Pennsylvania ranked dead last. The study considered rule of law (meaning that a state's Supreme Court majority or attorney general respects the will of the legislature and resists legislating from the bench or regulating through litigation); punitive damages; non-economic damages; economic damages; statutes of repose; insurance loss ratios; litigation risks; and monetary tort losses. Pennsylvania - which dropped further from the prior year's 47th ranking - was singled out for its poor performance. The authors specifically note that the Commonwealth's liability climate strongly discourages job creation and growth, and shows no sign of improvement in the near future.

Pennsylvania also slipped four spots from an already lackluster 32nd ranking to 36th in the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform's most recent "Lawsuit Climate: Ranking the States" study.

That study highlighted the best and worst liability climates in the country. The survey of in-house counsel and senior litigators at America's largest employers is the pre-eminent standard by which companies, policymakers and the media judge the legal fairness of a state.

The bad news doesn't end there. Pennsylvania scored a dismal 45th among the rest of the nation for its relatively high monetary tort losses and/or high litigation risks, according to the Pacific Research Institute's U.S. Tort Liability Index: 2008 Report.

To read more about the PA Chamber's lawsuit abuse reform priorities, click here.