A new vehicle to seek changes to the bill emerged in the creation of the Lone Star Economic Alliance (LSEA). Its launch was led by Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR), which is not a new organization, but formed the LSEA specifically to seek tort reform through changes in HB 19, with the truck as a fulcrum in its efforts.

LSEA’s nominees to speak to the media about their efforts include not only trucking executives, but prominent ones. The list included John Esparza, CEO of the Texas Trucking Association; Jerry Maldonado, president of the Laredo Motor Carriers Association and director of Warren Transport’s Mexico and Laredo operations; and Adam Blanchard, co-owner of Double Diamond Transport.

LSEA’s launch presentation doesn’t even mention trucking, except for biographies of board members with ties to the new group.

So far the previous changes have not helped

But sources close to the group, who request anonymity, say the continued threat of nuclear verdicts in the state, which were supposed to be reduced as a result of HB 19, brought the truck back into the fray as a primary focus of LSEA’s efforts.

Discussions with those trucking executives, and a review of online comments about the original attorney-written wording of HB 19, focused on the original legislation’s “bifurcation” as key to protecting trucking companies and other defendants from huge jury verdicts .

Bifurcation involves a concept known as the “admission rule”. It’s described as a long-standing part of Texas common law, but, one lawyer said, Texas judges have ignored it in recent years.

“It’s basically saying that if I, as an employer, agree to accept responsibility for the actions of my employees that may have caused the injury, it should simplify the process,” TLR general counsel Lee Parsley told FreightWaves. in the description of the admission rule. The sued company, acknowledging that, says, “I’m in trouble for these damages,” Parsley said.

Acknowledging things helps, not hurts

While it may seem odd that such an initial admission would be viewed by potential defendants as positive, Parsley said it means “you don’t have to go down the rabbit hole of finding things like negligent hiring and negligent training. It should simplify so that in the trial you only focus on who actually caused the accident and what the damages are at that time.”

IN A online comment on the bill after it passed, the law firm Doyle & Seelbach quoted HB 19’s key author, state Rep. Jeff Leach, as saying it would “protect commercial vehicle operators from unfair and excessive lawsuits.”

Although the interpretation of the law is complex, it boils down to the assumption that the admission rule would put a trucking company at risk for damages related to actual injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the accident giving rise to the lawsuit, so long as the trucking company had made that admission .

Even if admission is made, there may still be a second part of the process to determine punitive damages, hence the term “bifurcation.” But under the rules of HB 19, the trucking company’s admission in the first part of the trial limits much of the discussion of its practices during the punitive part of the trial, which would tend to limit how much punitive damages could increase.

How would it have affected the verdict of the great Werner?

No discussion of the Texas nuclear verdicts gets very far without bringing up the Werner case. The trucker is fighting a judgment that dates back to 2019 and was originally just under $90 million, but now totals more than $100 million with interest. (The Werner case is on appeal to the state Supreme Court, which has I accepted it for review.)

The Werner case was decided long before HB 19 passed, so the law had no impact on the course of the trial. But Doyle & Seelbach discuss how different the case might have been had HB 19 been in place.

“A primary reason for the huge verdict was likely the trial court allowing the plaintiffs to introduce company-wide evidence of over a decade of practices, including the company’s high turnover rate and extensive hiring of new and inexperienced drivers “, the law firm wrote. “Had HB 19 been in place, the jury likely would not have heard this evidence in the first phase of the trial.”

Given that the accident at issue in the Werner case involved a personal vehicle crossing a median and striking Werner’s truck head-on during an ice storm, the fact that Werner was able to invoke the admissions rule would have kept some of that testimony about Werner’s practices outside the courtroom, according to Doyle & Seelbach. The purpose of the law, according to the firm, “seems to be to limit evidence to those violations that have a reasonable connection to the accident in question.”

But according to LSEA-affiliated attorneys, last-minute changes to the bill created a “Frankenstein’s monster” that complicated HB 19 so much that, as Parsley put it, “defense attorneys don’t know how to use it.” . As a result, he said, “I don’t use it and it hasn’t made the difference it’s supposed to.”

Therefore, LSEA’s goal is to go into the Texas Legislature and remove some of those amendments that they find problematic. Many involve bringing federal transportation rules into the bill, and Parsley said the changes had a negative impact on the increase in admissions rule in HB 19.

On the other side of the divide might be the Texas Trial Lawyers Association.

Asked to comment on the LSEA’s efforts to amend HB 19, a spokesperson noted that the group has yet to see any specific legislation that would take such a step and that comment would be “premature.”

“Regardless, we believe the safety of Texas drivers should be paramount as lawmakers consider any proposed changes to current law,” the spokesperson said in an email to FreightWaves. “Our members routinely assist Texans who have experienced horrific wrecks involving commercial vehicles. So, we look forward to working with members of the House and Senate to ensure that Texas drivers are protected from the bad actors who drive unsafely on our roads.”

More articles by John Kingston

Another nuclear verdict in trucking: $160 million award against Daimler

Missouri Court Upholds Nuclear Verdict, Reveals Carrier’s Safety Practices

NFI’s Brown seeks dismissal of New Jersey case, cites minor role in dispute