H.B. 553 Dog Attack Amendments: transcript

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Committee. Um, I have a co-presenter, um, online. Uh, Jake, uh, is he online and good to go, panelists. Okay, great. Um, uh, this is actually another, um, simple bill. HP 5 53 makes two practical targeted fixes to Utah's civil, uh, justice system. Number one, align the statute of limitations for dog biting cases to four years consistent with most other personal injury claims. And then number two, it raises the arbitration cap from $50,000 to $75,000 reflecting inflation and rising medical costs. So this is a technical cleanup, uh, bill that promotes fairness and efficiency. It does, um, not expand liability, um, creates new cause of action or increases damages. So, issue number one, uh, the statute of limitations for dog biting cases is not necessarily treated the same as other personal injury cases. Under Utah law, a person typically has four years from the date of injury occurs to file a lawsuit for negligence, slip and fall injuries, general bodily injury claims assault and battery wrongful death. However, when liability is created by statute, an exception reduces the statute of limitations to three years. So Utah's dog bite statute imposes automatic liability on dog owners, and because of that, the liability is statutory and dog bite victims fall into the shorter three year deadline. So this technical trap has caused valid claims to be dismissed and left injured victims without compensation. Um, so there is no policy reason dog bite victims should have less time than other injured utahans. So the fix HB 5 53 aligns dog bite claims with the standard four year statute of limitations creates uniformity in the code and prevents dismissals based on technical distinctions. Issue number two is the outdated arbitration cap. So arbitration is designed to be faster and less expensive than trial. Um, the current $50,000 cap has not kept pace with rising, um, medical costs. Cases worth 60 to $70,000 are now forced into full jury trials. So this increase increases court congestion as well as litigation costs in 2023. Um, our body, um, the legislature raised, um, the car accident bodily injury arbitration cap to $75,000. That was under, um, Senate bill 1 93. So the fix for this in HB 5 53 is raises the general arbitration cap to $75,000, keeping moderate value cases in arbitration and reducing pressure on courts and modernizing an outdated threshold. So, um, uh, with that, um, I would, uh, maybe yield, uh, an additional minute or two to, to Jake who's online. As an additional panelist.

Hello, members of the committee. Uh, grateful to be here with you guys today. Uh, Representative Thompson has done an outstanding job, uh, explaining what this bill does, what the two issues are, primarily the statute of limitations in the arbitration cap. And so I don't really have anything to add to that, but I'm happy to answer any questions that the panel may have, excuse me, that the committee may have.

The issue isn't necessarily, um, that there's 10 million dog bites out there. It's that most lawyers get stuck on this issue. Uh, they think that the statute of limitations is four years because it falls under the general statute of limitations for general liability, general negligence issues. But because, um, liability in this case is created by statute, there's a technical buried in the code section that says that the statute changes to three years. And so a lot of people get tripped up on this and they miss the statute of limitations 'cause they think it goes to four years when it's actually three. So in order to prevent that and make sure that these victims get taken care of, we're just trying to make sure that the code remains consistent so that this can be avoided.

There's not a whole bunch of them because the state hasn't created tons of automatic liability situations. I can't even come up with another great example of one for you.

Okay. This is one Mr. Chair, where it's just outside. It, it, it's just one that, um, for other personal injury and bodily injury, it falls under the four year. But because the state created a liability for, um, dog biting, it, it now statutorily goes to the

No, I understand that. I, what I'm struggling with here is why in the world we aren't just fixing that. Why are we creating different standards to begin with? And how many other things are out there that just 'cause the right attorney didn't bring it up right. That we're, we're leaving hanging. So, um, I don't know that I'm opposed to making this uniform, but I am opposed to a situation where we're just fixing like one piece of it and then we're gonna have like seven more that we find, or we have some kind of weird automatic setup. So I'd, I'd rather we fix that if we can on the floor. Maybe if we pass this out today. Um, the arbitration piece, I think I've, I think I understand. I mean, trial attorneys, they like to raise those. Um, my concern with that is just that we tend to raise those to where the cap is and cases tended to get really close to that. Um, but, uh, I don't know that I have any questions about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, I guess, I guess I'm trying to figure out too, why does it really take four years to know if there was an injury from a dog bite? I'm, I'm like, I'm really struggling with that. Um, can,

Can I respond to that Representative Hall? Sure. So the primary issue here is we can't even start to negotiate it on these cases until treatment is complete. And so if treatment takes one year or two year or three years, we can't start negotiating until that treatment is complete. So what happens is, is once treatment is complete, then we round up all of the bills and records and we begin the negotiation process. And that statute of limitations acts as a stick for both us and for the insurance companies to try to work something out so that we don't have to go into litigation. And so when the statute of limitations is shorter, many times treatment hasn't even completed yet. And so we can't even begin those negotiations and we're forced into litigation without the complete information to really be able to work on the case together. So by moving that back, we're able to solve a number of those problems and instead of pushing everything into the court, we're able to resolve them pre-litigation, I'd say maybe 85% of the time. So it's not necessarily do I know I was injured is it's as my treatment complete and have I been able to get everything together so that we can start meaningful negotiations with the insurance company.

Thank you. And I just wanted to add some clarity there as well. Um, I, I handle a few of these cases in my practice. Um, the last couple I've handled are minors. And so with the minors, a lot of times you wanna wait the maximum amount of time just to see what the lasting damage is. Um, you know, the last one I had was some long lasting. It was a really, really deep bite mark to the thigh and it was causing a lot of gait issues. And so we wanted to see if that was something that would resolve itself over time or not. Um, same thing with scarring. The one I handled before that was a, a facial bite that was really horrific. And so you want to give that the maximum amount of time to heal so that you can request an, you know, appropriate treatment. And so yes would love it if every case would resolve quickly, but you wanna let these things heal before you know what you're asking for.

Uh, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Dave Callis. I'm here representing the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. Uh, just wanted to share, um, our concern with the bill. Uh, the last year we spent a lot of time here at the legislature because, um, some folks had been trying to deal with the cost of insurance premiums. And so we went through a big process, um, on HB 48, trying to deal with, in particular homeowners insurance issues. Um, this brings us back to the same points we've raised in the past, is that these decisions, raising limits, you know, that just, just passed on in, in the form of premium pricing. So when you raise the limit, insurance is based on two things, capital availability in the market and the, uh, the payout on losses. So expected, we call that expected future loss. So when, when limits are raised, expected, future loss will change and that will be calculated into next time a policy is renewed or updated. So that will impact the premiums for homeowners. So just share that concern and for that we reason we would oppose changing the limits. Thank you.

I asked that same question and they, I I did not get an average cost, but they said that the limit is usually sufficient for what they've seen, what their payouts are. So they're the majority, they said the majority of what they're seeing is within the limit. That's all I can answer. I can't give you a specific, you know, this dollar amount. I don't know. Um, but the, uh, the other thing to note is that when a, a person does have a case that goes beyond that, this is just their insurance limit, then they're, they do have personal liability on themselves. After they've reached their insurance limit, the insurance will pay out up to the limit. And then not beyond that. Meaning the home homeowner's insurance typically.

Hello. Um, what limit or what level of protection do most homeowners carry On dog bite For homeowners insurance?

I, I don't know. I don't know the, the total amount.

Alright. Um, and, and I ask that because I think most people don't have dog bite claims made against them. Um, but in my, in my experience, most homeowner policies are several hundred thousand dollars of worth of coverage. So raising the cap here, it's not like you're saying these people are going to be responsible to pay the amount. It's just saying the insurance might have to pay more if the damages are more. So I just wanted to point that out.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I would move that we favorably recommend HB 5 53.

I would, thank you. Um, I agree on the issue of statutes of limitations. Um, just a quick look through the code, they're all over the place. It would be nice to have them more in line. So if that's something you're willing to look at, I think that would be really good. Um, this bump is in line with what we did for our auto injuries. Uh, a lot of these dog bite cases, people are taken to an er. Um, those who work in the medical field work with hospitals are familiar or even have kids know how expensive that is. And a lot of times these, um, you know, initial visits are in the tens thousand plus range, and these damages are very high. We want to encourage all options to be able to make sure that people are able to resolve these cases without having to go through a full trial, which is costly and takes a long time. So I, I think the bump up into the $75,000 is, uh, absolutely needed and, uh, would ask for your support.

Yes, I, I agree because I think if we're gonna look at all of the statute of limitations, it's gonna be a much bigger lift. And I think may, that could be something that our committee could consider, uh, during the interim. But, uh, for right now, I think it's, it's good to make sure that this one's put there. So thanks.

Yeah. Th thank you. I, I thank you for the, thank you for the motion. Um, you know, when you, you sit and look at what $50,000 is today and how much that was back in 2005, I can't find my reverse calculator, but my, my guess would be it would be somewhere in the $30,000 range. Um, healthcare costs have climbed exponentially. Um, I do have a personal experience of, um, of, of a very close friend whose daughter, um, was, was bit in the face and was ripped from just below the eye, through the nose, down through the lip, um, multiple plastic surgeries. Um, this is, this is very real. I do think there's an element of, of, Hey, let's get as many of these worked out as possible through the arbitration process. Keep it out of courts, keep it from going to trial. Um, so, uh, with that I would, I would, um, uh, request the support, um, of the committee. My, my co-presenter. Jake also had a, a quick closing comment as well, if that's okay. Mr. Chair? Uh,

Yeah. Um, this is, I think good policy. Um, we really should make the law more accessible to everyone. And I think unifying statutes of limitations and, uh, making our alternative dispute resolution policies more friendly is, is a good thing to do for our state and for our constituents.

You Mr. Speaker. Uh, motion to circle.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt amendment one. Uh, in my name.

Yes. This, uh, amendment, um, is an amendment that we were able to come up with working with, uh, rural Utah and concerns that, um, uh, that rural Utah would have. Um, and we feel like we've addressed those items and got 'em to a good place.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, HB 5 53, um, is, uh, a bill that this body has seen before. Um, it is, uh, um, a bill addressing, um, two elements of dog biting claims. Uh, the first is the statute of limitations, and then the second is the arbitration cap. Uh, for most, um, um, personal injury cases in the state of Utah, um, you'll have a four year statute of limitations. Um, for those cases, however, with dog biting bills, because liability for a dog biting bill is explicitly stated in our code, um, that sets it to a default of a three year statute of limitations. So what HB 5 53 would do would, would increase the statute of limitations to four years to be in line with other, um, personal injury type cases. The second thing that HB 5 53 will do will, it will raise the arbitration cap from $50,000 to $75,000. Uh, this ar uh, arbitration cap, I believe has been in place for, uh, around 18 years. Um, and we've had a lot of inflation and medical costs have gone up exponentially in that time period. Uh, furthermore this body in 2023, the legislature raise the car accident arbitration cap to $75,000 for $75,000 for auto cases, recognizing this same issue. So with that Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to take any questions.