S.B. 227 Punitive Damages Amendments

What this bill does

This bill would bar insurers from covering punitive damages or counting them when setting premiums for businesses. It would let punitive damages still be awarded against a company or its managing agent only if they knew about, allowed, or condoned the harmful conduct.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 4 yes, 2 no, 2 absentSenate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 4, 2026Who voted how
• yes, undefined noSenate vote to change the bill · Feb 23, 2026
• 24 yes, 1 no, 4 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 23, 2026Who voted how
• 26 yes, 0 no, 3 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 24, 2026
• 10 yes, 0 no, 6 absentHouse Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 56 yes, 12 no, 7 absentFinal House vote · Mar 5, 2026
• 28 yes, 1 noSenate vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Mar 6, 2026

Hearings and debates

• Feb 4, 2026 Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (28 turns)

  1. Committee chair (presiding)36:09

     Senate Bill 2 27. Senator Winterton.

  2. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton36:30

     I thought this was a simple bill. There's no simple bills. This is a second bill. This session that I'm learning from the attempt is, is that, um, I've got a lot of, uh, people in in the basin that make their living with trucking and they're small operators and their insurances have gone sky high. They're trying to survive out there. And, uh, this was an attempt to try to help them. And I know that I'm not there. I know that I'm learning on this process and, and so, uh, we've defined very small. We're trying to limit the p damages that, uh, are being assessed. Uh, and conversations today, tell me, I'm, I'm in the wrong area, but I want to hear from, from some of those that have showed up today to see and give me directions to further this bill. So with that, I'm open to questions or we could go to public comment. Yes, Sir.

  3. Committee chair (presiding)37:40

     The questions to this bill saying none. Let me go to the public. Who here would like to address this bill? We have looks like three, if you'll come up and identify yourself and if you represent an organization.

  4. Rick Clasby, Utah Trucking Association37:59

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Rick k Clasby, the executive director of the Utah Trucking Association. We very much appreciate, uh, Senator Winterton and his efforts on this matter. Um, I can tell you that over the last several years, the American um, transportation Research Institute has done a study across the nation, uh, primarily or with motor carriers. And one of the top industry concerns each of those years has been lawsuit and, and the, um, the expansion or the, the amount of damages that we're having to, uh, pay or the insurance premiums. Uh, this last year, this issue ended up being the number two issue on that study, it closely followed by number three, which was insurance premiums. Um, so from a trucking perspective, we are, we are highly supportive of, of lawsuit predictability, the ability to maintain, um, reasonable costs. Uh, we want to make sure that, that we're treating folks fair and we see that this is an opportunity to do all of those things. So, Senator Winterton, we, we support your effort and, and appreciate what you're doing here.

  5. Committee chair (presiding)39:29

     Next, make sure you sign in,

  6. Jake Lee, Utah Association for Justice39:34

     Uh, Mr Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jake Lee. I am the chair of the legislative committee for the Utah Association for Justice. And I wanna focus briefly on three points. First, punitive damages cannot be paid by insurance in the State of Utah. Section 31, a dash 20 dash 1 0 1 specifically prohibits insuring against punitive damages and insurance policies uniformly exclude them. Um, punitive damages are not a cost that gets spread across policy holders, and so they are paid personally by the bad actor, and that's by design. The cap proposed in this bill does not protect premiums or insurers. It protects reckless individuals from consequences of their own conduct. Secondly, Utah already has a very specific and carefully balanced punitive damages statute under Utah Code 78 B dash eight dash 2 0 1. Any punitive damages award over $50,000 are split evenly between the injured person and the state of Utah. That means punitive damages don't just benefit a private plaintiff. They directly benefit the public because of that structure. A cap on punitive damages provides no benefit to the public. The only people who benefit are the wealthiest wrongdoers. Those whose conduct is so egregious that punitive damages are even at issue and punitive damages are very rare. It's so rare in fact that this bill carries no fiscal note related to the state's collection of punitive damages. Third, and perhaps most importantly, from a practical standpoint, the attorney fee cap will dramatically reduce the number of punitive damages cases that ever make it to trial. Punitive damages are never resolved through negotiation. They require a full trial, extensive discovery, expert testimony, and significant out-of-pocket expenses and hundreds of hours of work by an attorney. When punitive damages over 50,000 are already split between the state and attorney fees are capped, very few lawyers will be able to take these cases all the way through to trial. The result is not fewer bad acts, it's fewer consequences for bad actors. Now, having said that, my understanding about this is that the primary concern is driving up insurance premiums. So we've had an opportunity to talk with Senator Winterton and explain to him that because the statute prohibits, um, insurers from insuring punitive damages, it wouldn't make any sense for them to be able to drive up premiums or use punitive damages as a reason to increase premiums. So we've come up with a solution and we think what the solution is, is to amend the statute that deals with that. So it specifically says that punitive damages can't be used as a reason to increase premiums. Um, we think that solution will solve the problem that everybody's concerned about, which is rising costs of insurance. And if, um, if that change were be were to be made, we would be in support of this bill instead of opposed to it. Thank you.

  7. Committee chair (presiding)42:33

     Thank you very much. Next.

  8. Mike Sonntag, American Property Casualty Insurance Association42:43

     Thank you Mr. Chair. Mike Sontag. I represent, um, American Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Uh, thank you for your time. So, punitive damages are not paid by insurance companies. However, one of the problems we have in the area of insuring truck, especially in finite areas like the basin, is unpredictable costs. And while punitive damages aren't paid by insurance, the extreme exposure of driving in these enclosed areas, insurance costs become less predictable and it drives it up. We feel like putting some predictability and parameters around punitive damages will also trickle down into putting some predictability in the insurance area too. Costs are going up. We, uh, there's lots of legislation this year being pro proposed by the Senate to grab hold of some of those costs that are driving insurance premiums really high. And this is just one small step to corral an area where our members are clients are purchasing insurance and predicting punitive costs associated with accidents that may arise. But underlying all that are insurance costs. So we urge you to support this bill and, and we may need to do some structuring and refiguring, but Okay, thank you.

  9. Committee chair (presiding)44:02

     Alright, I'm gonna go to the one person online if you'll Steve Sullivan. Sullivan, excuse me. And welcome. I'm sorry, did you have a question, Senator Riebe? Oh, I do. Yeah, go ahead.

  10. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe44:22

      So my question is, if we are trying to bring predictability to the payouts for punitive damages, and we are saying that in punitive damage, this wouldn't solve that problem, how would we solve that problem? Would it be to increase the fines for nefarious characters? I mean, where is this money coming from and how do we actually target where this money needs to be spent? Because you're saying that people that are insurance, the cars shouldn't have higher premiums to pay out the punitive damages. And then we're saying that even if we do raise the costs, we're not getting at the root of where the punitive damages is coming from. So how do you increase that fund to pay out for punitive damages if we're not going to increase premiums? That's the crux of this bill. So this doesn't answer the question that you're asking us to answer. Right? I realize that now. Okay. So do we need to increase the fines for Senator Winterton? Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Well, There's some good points that's been brought up, but if the state is enjoying revenue from, from these cases, why isn't it showed shown here? And why don't we have, because the physical note on this is zero. And and so do we have some escape revenue that we're not tracking or not getting reported and, and then they've offered some language to, to try to get to the core of this, which, uh, I haven't seen the language. I know that we've kind of got a consensus of where we're headed with this, but until I actually see the language, I'm not gonna prepare the draft. And so I'm just kind of here. I I appreciate those being at the table and trying to help me work through what is the crutch of this. Okay,

  11. Committee chair (presiding)46:27

      Let me, let me go and finish public comment if that's okay. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Sullivan, go ahead.

  12. Steve Sullivan, Utah Association for Justice46:33

      Thank you Mr. Chair. Steve Sullivan. I'm with the Utah Association for Justice as well. I think it's important to, um, understand of course, the difference between punitive damages and compensatory damages. Um, medical bills, lost wages, those are economic losses suffered by the injured person. Um, general damages including pain and suffering type losses. Also, those are designed or meant to compensate the injured person. Now, punitive damages are not designed to compensate the injured person, but instead to, to deter conduct to frankly penalize the wrongdoer. And for that reason, punitive damages are only allowed. They're reserved only for cases where the wrong doer's conduct is terribly egregious. Um, you must show a reckless disregard for the safety of others that, or intentional conduct, it has to rise to that kind of level before punitive damages would be available. So it's a very specialized tool to try to deal with folks who have unfortunately generated terrible or egregious conduct. And specifically in the auto accident arena, of course we're talking about drunk drivers. Uh, we're talking about people who are driving impaired from drugs. We're talking about folks who are through road rage incidents, um, you know, causing horrible injuries to, uh, Utahans and, and families. Uh, we're talking about those people that are because of being drunk, they drive down the wrong side of the road as we've seen in the last two months. Uh, it's that kind of, uh, conduct we are trying to deter. Um, by putting a cap on punitive damages. The thing we're accomplishing is simply providing some get out of free type cards for those who are well off. That is in order for punitive damages to work, they have to staying the wrong door. It's, they're not covered by insurance. And so the wrongdoer has to understand that his, his or her conduct must be de mu is will be deterred by the punitive damage award. So the assets of the wrongdoer come into play, no doubt about it. Under Utah law, uh, person's assets are not given to the jury until a, uh, punitive damage award is provided by the jury in the initial trial. So it's a post-trial evidentiary hearing where punitive damages are even discussed. So to modify this tool to cap this tool, we are not providing good public policy, in my opinion. Instead, we're simply providing folks who are driving irresponsibly with, uh, a little bit of a tempered ability to continue that kind of conduct. Um, we believe punitive damages are very important to public policy. We do not see a reason to cap them because they are not going to achieve the goal of changing or limiting insurance premiums. And therefore the language that, uh, has been brought out here this afternoon, we believe is a more pragmatic way to attack the problem of insurance premiums.

  13. Committee chair (presiding)49:32

      Thank you. Thank you. There we go. That can no one else online? Correct. Okay. Alright. Uh, let me bring it back to the committee. Senator Kwan.

  14. Sen. Karen Kwan49:44

      Thank you Mr. Chair. I I have a, a question based on, uh, some of the public testimony. Um, well, first of all, let me, let me preface the question. And that is that it seems that the, uh, bill was to address, uh, something with, and I'm not sure if I'm saying this right, apportioned vehicles or commercial vehicles, maybe not commercial trucks. Commercial trucks. But the problem for me is that it would impact all cars and all, um, accidents and all, you know, problems. And, um, and I think that's a whole different thing. Uh, I do have a concern about, uh, people who, um, have, you know, drive reckless, um, and, and hurt people or, or DUIs right. And hurt people. And, uh, this I think, um, puts put some caps on there that may not, um, make sense for that population. So my question, Mr. Chair, is, uh, whether or not we can, um, be very specific in this space and, and can it be carved out, um, the, the two Senator Winterton I'm learning and yes, it, it seems like there is a way, and I appreciate Mr. Sullivan's, uh, remarks because he he's exactly right and, and we need to punish and keep that there. But the real concern is, is that you own one or two vehicles in a commercial operation, you have a safety rating. The more trucks, more equipment you're on the road, the higher your risk is. Now you may have the best drivers in the world, and yet if they're in an accident that dings a safety record, you get too many of them. And all of a sudden they say, you guys are a risk. And, and so the insurance rates continue to increase. It's making it impossible for an operator of one, two, up to 10 trucks to stay in business because again, they're, they're about safety and they can't control somebody coming at 'em. And when, when attorneys go after that, well, I've always been told big trucks big bucks and they're at fault and they're the ones that are paying for this and we've gotta stop that. Or we're not gonna have our livelihoods in the basin. I mean, we probably have somewhere around the neighborhood of about seven thou, 7,000 trucks out there that is their livelihoods. And when people can't get insurance, then what are we gonna do? We need to fix the problem. And this was the first attempt. I'm not an attorney, and if I was, I wouldn't be running this bill because people would say that that's self-serving. But I'm not, I think that I can put this in a good place for everybody to see. We have a problem. We need to address it. We need to keep costs at an affordable rate, whether that's the insurance companies and they're, they're saying, oh, it's this guy, or, or the attorney's saying something else somewhere. We're gonna be at the table and we're gonna figure this out. That's my commitment because I, I realize after putting this out there, this is the only way you're gonna get 'em to come to the table and talk. And there's a lot of things that's been brought out today that I think we've gotta address them. Yeah. Thank you Senator Ipson. Thank you.

  15. Sen. Don L. Ipson53:29speaker not certain

      Oh, things that, that we're not thinking about is how runaway juries hand these judgements out. And that's juries scare me. 'cause they don't know, they, they perceive a trucking company, for example, has large assets. So the punitive damage may or may not be true and you're depending on that jury to decide. And I think somehow I, I applaud Senator Winterton for trying to corral this because juries need to be, sometimes they really overreact. Thank you, Senator Winterton.

  16. Committee chair (presiding)54:23

      Do you want to hold this bill and continue working it or what?

  17. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton54:28

      Well, I have two thoughts. That's one I'd like to correct it before it gets to the floor, but I don't want people walking away from the discussion. And if I hold it, then they think, whew, We've got it off. I, I would make a motion that we approve this with the, with a commitment for myself that I'll keep 'em there and we'll come to a resolution on this because it's not something that we can just wave off another time. I mean, I've seen what basin trucking companies have gone through this last year to 18 months and they're just hanging on. And so I, I'm committed to try to figure out what we can do to help 'em out. So I would make a motion that we forward this to the Senate floor with a commitment that we will have a, a substitution coming at that time. Okay.

  18. Committee chair (presiding)55:27

      To that, uh, motion Senator Riebe.

  19. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe55:31

      Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. So my understanding is that punitive damages should not be reflected in our premiums 'cause this is hurting our truckers. Yeah. But if you were the person that got hurt and your family got hurt, you would want to have some kind of benefit from your insurance. So that's the question we're trying to answer. I I respect that we should not be overly burdening our premiums for truckers, but, um, maybe we have to look at the safety rating and dealing with that. Uh, maybe it's not in where we're capping our punitive damages, but how we're doing our safety ratings that would bring our premiums into align with the activities. Uh, I don't think this is just affecting you into basin. No, I think this is affecting many areas, but to your point, uh, the answer's not here, but I'm not really sure where the answer would be right now. So, um, yeah. Thanks. That's my thank you

  20. Committee chair (presiding)56:33

      For the discussion, Senator Kwan.

  21. Sen. Karen Kwan56:35

      Thank you Mr. Chair for letting me, uh, ask another question here. I'm confused by the formula that's in here. Um, damages may not exceed an amount equal to the greater of the sum of two times the amount, um, an amount equal to 750,000 for non-economic damages or 200,000. Could you explain that a little bit more for me?

  22. Committee chair (presiding)57:02

      Senator Winterton? Go ahead.

  23. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton57:06

      The idea was let, let's cap what can be awarded and what is the baseline, because you're right, I mean, they should be getting something, but if we say, well, you can't prove it, but you are awarded something that, that is my understanding is that that would be the minimum.

  24. Committee chair (presiding)57:27

      I'm sorry. Oh, thank you. Go ahead.

  25. Sen. Karen Kwan57:29

      A follow up, so just, just so that I can figure this out, is the top the cap two times the amount of economic damages or 750,000 or 200,000?

  26. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton57:48

      The way I look at it is the base is 200,000 with a seven 50 cap. And, and economic wise, you're gonna have to have prove to the jury or the judge, here's the damages economically, okay? If, if a person's outta work or you know, can't, or say, you took my truck out and I can't provide a living. Now, what are those economic, that is why that formula's in there is at a reasonable time. What is that two times what you've lost or not. It, this is the first attempt to try to wrangle this issue in.

  27. Sen. Karen Kwan58:32

      Thank you. And thank you for the explanation. And, uh, thank you Mr. Chair. I am still thinking about, you know, the family who may have lost a family member because of really bad behavior, um, you know, A-A-D-U-I or road rage. And, you know, if we're looking at somebody who, a punitive damage is supposed to really sting somebody, if we have somebody who makes a lot of money, I mean, is 750,000 going to do it for the life of, of a person? I mean, that is a lot of money for most of us, but for some gazillionaires, which we do have in Utah, and I'm not saying that they're bad people, uh, I'm saying that perhaps the the cap, uh, may constrain, uh, a judge from, um, uh, making a punitive damage, uh, that would really make a difference for, for that person who really, you know, harmed or again, um, the loss of a, of a person. So I I, I appreciate the work that, uh, the good senator has does and has done on this. Um, it's, I think, um, really needs, we really need to think about and continue to talk about how we can separate what he, what he wants to do from, um, the issues that, uh, are on, you know, any, any person driving, not just with the commercial, uh, truckers and to really talk about and really figure out how we do that. I think that is a valid issue that we need to figure it out. But I would really like to slow the process down and allow, um, Senator Winterton to work on that. And I, I do respect what he's saying is, uh, this puts a little urgency on on the stakeholders. I, I get that. But, uh, anyways, that's, that's, uh, I, I'm gonna oppose the motion because of that and not because I don't think it's a good bill. I mean, a good issue. Thank

  28. Committee chair (presiding)1:00:48

      You. Further discussion saying none all in favor of favorably passing out Senate Bill 2 27 to the floor with a commitment from the sponsor that he'll continue working with the stakeholders. Say aye. Aye. A Any opposed? No, I'll rule that passes. What was your vote? Four to two with Senator Vickers Juab and Rebe being negative. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, Senator Millner,

• Feb 23, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (17 turns)

  1. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:44:54

     and, uh, I started in a space I didn't know anything about, but it's been back and forth. Uh, I need to move, uh, the second substitute and also the amendment.

  2. Presiding officer1:45:07

     Okay. So you move, substitute, Substitute two Two. Mm-hmm. Motions, delete and title embody Senate bill 2 27. Replace it with second substitute Senate Bill 2 27. Discussion. That motion seeing then all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'll rule that passes the bill's substituted. Now you have an amendment on that one as well.

  3. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:45:33

     Yes. And that is amendment number one? Yes. What that does is refer us back to a code that the division of, uh, government ops and also our state risk manager wanted in there just to reference. And they were good with the bill after we did that.

  4. Presiding officer1:45:53

     Okay. Thank you. Discussion. The motion to adopt amendment number one saying none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? I rule that passes The bill is further amended now to the amended substituted bill.

  5. Unknown speaker1:46:06speaker not certain

     Okay. So let's simplify this for me since I I'm very simple minded here. Uh, insurers can't factor in the punitive damages risks when setting policies, uh, and the prices and then it limits the employer or say the bosses or principles, uh, that they can be hit with something, with something that their employees did. So you have to prove that they knew about it and that's the extent of it. It should be one that, uh, be simple enough to, to execute.

  6. Presiding officer1:46:42

     Okay. Discussion of the bill. Senator Weiler. Thank

  7. Sen. Todd Weiler1:46:45

     You. I appreciate the, the sponsor's, um, work on this. Um, wondering if he'll yield to a a, a nice question. Senator. Will, will you Yield? I opened it up. I I'm just wondering what, what stakeholders you know, have, has he been working with on the sub and the amendment? Senator

  8. Presiding officer1:47:02

     Winterton, I

  9. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:47:03

     Worked with the trial li lawyers to the insurance, uh, attorneys, the insurance, uh, side of it. And then, um, I had the trucking association that was worried about this. I also had the DE State risk manager and the Department of Government ops on it.

  10. Presiding officer1:47:22

      Thank you. Further discussion to the bill saying none to Senator Winterton back to you for summation or a motion.

  11. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:47:29

      I'll wa and call the question.

  12. Presiding officer1:47:30

      And the question is, shall second substitute Senate bill 2 27? Be read for a third time. Roll call vote.

  13. Clerk (roll call)1:47:35

      Senator Ipson Spry Lein Bramer bus Comore es Camilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Aye. Harper. Aye. Hankins. Ipson Aye. Johnson. Aye. Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Aye. Owens Aye. Pitcher. Lum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Vickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton, president Adams

  14. Presiding officer1:48:34

      Second substitute Senate Bill 2 27 Have received 2048 votes. One a votes vote four being absent will be read for a third time. Senator Wilson.

  15. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:48:47

      Thank Commissioner President Pro tempt, uh, motion to encircle. Which bill number? Uh, Well do you need that? Would that help That? Sorry about that. That's very helpful. Yes, it is Senate bill two 40. First substitute The motion to UNC circle first substitute Senate bill two 40 higher education institutional governance.

  16. Presiding officer1:49:09

      Discussion. That motion saying none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any postal rule that passes the bill is Uncircled.

  17. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:49:15speaker not certain

      Senator Wilson. Thank

• Feb 23, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (13 turns)

  1. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:46:15

     risks when setting policies, uh, and the prices and then it limits the employer or say the bosses or principles, uh, that they can be hit with something, with something that their employees did. So you have to prove that they knew about it and that's the extent of it. It should be one that, uh, be simple enough to, to execute.

  2. Presiding officer1:46:42

     Okay. Discussion of the bill. Senator Weiler. Thank

  3. Sen. Todd Weiler1:46:45

     You. I appreciate the, the sponsor's, um, work on this. Um, wondering if he'll yield to a a, a nice question. Senator. Will, will you Yield? I opened it up. I I'm just wondering what, what stakeholders you know, have, has he been working with on the sub and the amendment? Senator

  4. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:47:02

     Winterton, I Worked with the trial li lawyers to the insurance, uh, attorneys, the insurance, uh, side of it. And then, um, I had the trucking association that was worried about this. I also had the DE State risk manager and the Department of Government ops on it.

  5. Presiding officer1:47:22

     Thank you. Further discussion to the bill saying none to Senator Winterton back to you for summation or a motion.

  6. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:47:29

     I'll wa and call the question.

  7. Presiding officer1:47:30

     And the question is, shall second substitute Senate bill 2 27? Be read for a third time. Roll call vote.

  8. Unknown speaker1:47:35speaker not certain

     Senator Ipson Spry Lein Bramer bus Comore es Camilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Aye. Harper. Aye. Hankins. Ipson Aye. Johnson. Aye. Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Aye. Owens Aye. Pitcher. Lum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Vickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton, president Adams Second substitute Senate Bill 2 27 Have received 2048 votes. One a votes vote four being absent will be read for a third time.

  9. Presiding officer1:48:43

     Senator Wilson.

  10. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:48:47

      Thank Commissioner President Pro tempt, uh, motion to encircle.

  11. Presiding officer1:48:52speaker not certain

      Which bill number? Uh, Well do you need that? Would that help That? Sorry about that. That's

  12. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:48:58

      very helpful. Yes, it is Senate bill two 40. First substitute The motion to UNC circle first substitute Senate bill two 40 higher education institutional governance.

  13. Presiding officer1:49:09

      Discussion. That motion saying none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any postal rule that passes the bill is Uncircled. Senator Wilson. Thank

• Feb 24, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton15:08

     It, um, helps tell insurers what they can and can't do when they're, they're factoring in your rates. It limits their unity damages and it also protects the employers, uh, that, uh, to a certain degree they can't be held liable for what their employees do as long as the employees acted on their own. And that's the gist of this Bill. Thank you. Seeing no discussion of the bill, I'm gonna go to you for action.

  2. Senate President (presiding)15:37

     Call a question. The question is, shall second substitute Senate Bill two twenty seven pass, roll call vote.

  3. Unknown speaker15:42speaker not certain

     Senator Vickers Baldry Lewin Brammer Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musman Owens Aye. Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Stratton Thickers Blue and Eye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye.

  4. Senate President (presiding)16:34

     Co Moore President Adams Aye. Second substitute Senate Bill 2 27. Having received 26 sha votes to zero na votes, three being absent passes, this body will be sent to the house for their consideration. First substitute Senate bill two 41st substitute Senate bill two 40, higher Education Institutional Governance. Senator Wilson. Thank you Senator Wilson.

  5. Sen. Chris H. Wilson17:05

     Thank you Mr. President. Uh, we talked yesterday about this bill. This bill is an answer to the audit that was just performed on Utah State University. Um, trying to work on some of the issues that they found at Utah State. We've been working with the Attorney General's office with the higher ed commissioner and the board, um, and also President Mortenson. Basically it just helps strengthen and refines the roles and responsibility of the board of trustees that have the independent staff to staff the board of trustees. It also designates the board as the internal audit committee and notify the board about the president's expenditures. So that's what the bill does. And happy to answer any questions Mr.

  6. Senate President (presiding)17:46

     President? Thank you, Senator. So no questions going to, to you for a motion.

  7. Unknown speaker17:50speaker not certain

     A motion, Mr. President, that, uh,

• Feb 27, 2026 House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (30 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:30:26

     Okay. So, Senator Winterton iss here to talk about SB 2 27 second substitute punitive damages amendments. Go ahead when you're ready, se Senator.

  2. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:30:36

     Well, thank you for having me. Uh, this bill is, uh, I've learned a lot on it. I'm not an attorney, so I've been being schooled and we have worked back and forth with, uh, four different parties for the last, what, five weeks. And, uh, I thought we were in a good place. And I had a, a fifth one show up the other night and would like to make some changes. But you're gonna get presented the bill that I passed out of the Senate with and just know that there might be a sub coming for the house if we can come to terms. But right now, the bill that you have in front of you is the second sub 2 22 or 27. And this bill just clarifies the punitive damages that they cannot be insured and prevents the insurers from raising the premiums based on punitive damage exposure. And it keeps the, the punishment where it belongs on the person who did the wrongdoing. It, it helps keep the insurance premiums fair. And because insurance companies shouldn't increase costs based on what if scenarios, uh, this one maintains a high legal standard, p damages still remain, uh, valuable and, and available in serious cases. So we're not trying to punish the employer, but the bad actors if we have an employee or something like that, that's what this bill does, is tries to accomplish and draw the lines. That's still there. We, we actually, uh, one of the drafts, we capped it and we've come and we've taken that completely off. So this is defining the lines of where they can go.

  3. Committee chair1:32:15

     Great. Thank you. Does that conclude your presentation?

  4. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:32:18

     Yes, it does. Thank you. Okay.

  5. Committee chair1:32:19

     We'll bring it to the, uh, committee for clarifying questions.

  6. Unknown speaker1:32:26speaker not certain

     Senator, I have a question. Um, the, uh, amendment that you're talking about, is it close or,

  7. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:32:35

     I just got the language at noon today and still talking to drafting attorney. It's not gonna make any really, it's gonna be another definition of our interpretation probably to go, uh, under number three there at the back of the bill. Uh, the second sub came as a result of having the Attorney general review this and also had the state risk management, uh, Rachel Terry weigh in on this and, and she included some language and Nick Meekum from the Department of Government Ops. So that's where the second sub came to. We got to that point. Uh, we'll see what the language they want. They just wanted to more definitions and I don't know that's gonna change the bill at all.

  8. Committee chair1:33:19

     Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Representative Burton.

  9. Rep. Burton1:33:24

     Thanks, Mr. Chair. Real quick, I just wanna make sure I understand this. So, so, uh, you, you've got on lines, uh, 73 and four and then again on down on 80 to 82, uh, limits. I think you're looking at the wrong bill. 'cause I only have 50. So you took away the limits. I'm, I only have 55 lines on the paper I'm looking at. Okay. So my, my, no, we're on sub two, but I'm asking then, Senator,

  10. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:33:47

      did you take away the limits? Yes, In They're gone.

  11. Rep. Burton1:33:51

      Okay. That's what's gone. The difference between, uh, one And two. Okay. That was a little problematic for me, so thank you. Alright. Thank you Mr. Chair.

  12. Committee chair1:33:58

      Thank you Representative Ivory.

  13. Unknown speaker1:34:01speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm curious how this bill came about. What were the facts that brought it to you? And is it limited to only an employment setting or is it any No

  14. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:34:11

      Settings. It could be applied across the board.

  15. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:34:14

      It came as a result of, of, um, out in the basin, we have a lot of trucking companies, and over the last 18 months, most of the smaller trucking companies can't find insurance. Can't find somebody to write insurance for. And, and when they did, it was almost double what they were accustomed to. And, and so it was kind of, how do we prevent that? And then they were talking about the punitive damages are, are being assessed. They wanted that touch, but I've learned that, no, I'm not gonna touch that. And, and if this can drive the insurance companies that they can't raise rates because of maybe the risk or your safety rating, something like that. That's how they justify when, when some of these companies had excellent safety ratings and yet they couldn't get insurance. So that's what started this off. And then after that, um, we, we've gone around, but, uh, there were, we're not trying to target any particular industry, trying to, to save our residents some money when it comes to insurance,

  16. Unknown speaker1:35:22speaker not certain

      If I may, Mr. Chair, has this been done in any other states that you know, and has it had an impact on insurance rates?

  17. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:35:29

      It has. Uh, I didn't bring that with me. I think there's eight states that have this right now, and it has helped their residents.

  18. Committee chair1:35:40

      Great. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any other lights. We'll open it up to the public. Anybody in the room that would like to speak to this bill? Okay. Nobody in, in the room. Uh, we do have one person online. Kara North. Kara, uh, turn on your video. Please identify yourself and your location and your organization. You'll have two minutes. Care, Kara, 10 more seconds. Nobody. Okay. Alright. Uh, I, I guess we've lost Kara. Okay. So if there's no other people, we will bring it to, we'll close public comment, bring it back to the committee for, uh, further discussion and, and any action. Representative Ivory.

  19. Rep. Ken Ivory1:37:01

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we need to make an amendment then?

  20. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:37:05

      No. Uh, you be on the floor. You guys will probably see, see it, but I, I don't, like I say, I don't know what it's gonna be for sure.

  21. Committee chair1:37:14

      Okay. So we're ready for a motion on this as it is.

  22. Rep. Ken Ivory1:37:16

      Alright. Yeah. Let's, I'll be happy to make the motion that we pass out Senate bill 2 77, second substitute with a favorable recommendation.

  23. Committee chair1:37:24

      Okay. That, uh, motion is in order. The motion is to pass with a favorable recommendation, SB 2 27, second substitute punitive damages amendments. Uh, would you like to,

  24. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:37:39

      I'll waive. I appreciate your time.

  25. Committee chair1:37:41

      Okay. So any discussion on that motion? Okay. We'll go back to the maker of the motion. Yeah,

  26. Unknown speaker1:37:48speaker not certain

      I think it sounds intriguing. I'm impressed the sponsor found that brought us.

  27. Committee chair1:37:53

      Okay, great. So the motion is to pass with a favorable recommendation, SB 2 27, second substitute punitive damages, amendments. We'll take a, uh, roll call. Vote. Representatives Ballard? Yes. Burton? Yes. Ivory? Yes. Matthews? Yes. Winn? Yes. Peterson? Yes. Sawyer? Yep. White. Yes. Chair Malloy? Yes. Chair. Kyle? Yes. Okay. The, uh, bill passes unanimously.

  28. Committee chair1:38:29

      So you'll keep working on that amendment? Yeah.

  29. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:38:32

      Yeah. We'll, we'll push it. I think I have Representative Jack that will have this in the house, so it'll be in his name if we get it done.

  30. Committee chair1:38:41

      Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for being here, Senator. Okay. Uh, Senator Colemar. Is he here? No. Senator Kwan, you're up.

• Mar 5, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (13 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker2:11:19

     Second substitute Senate bill 2 27 Punitive damages amendments by Senator Winterton. This bill was heard in Business and Labor with a vote. 10 0 6. The House sponsors Representative Jack.

  2. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)2:11:30

     Representative Jack.

  3. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:11:32

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I would like to move the adoption of the fourth sub of SB 2 27.

  4. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)2:11:43

     That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  5. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:11:46

     Yes. Thank you. What, what this does, and I'll talk about the bill in a moment. Uh, but, uh, as we negotiated this bill with the insurance companies, uh, they wanted us to include a term management man, managing agent, which wasn't actually yet in code. So we've added the term managing agent and found its use in court cases. And so we've added that definition into code and added managing agent to the bill.

  6. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)2:12:24

     Thank you Representative Jack. Further discussion to the motion. See none back to you for summation.

  7. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:12:32

     I'll waive

  8. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)2:12:38

     Place the motion. I'll place the motion. The motion is to adopt fourth substitute SB 2 27. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'll rule that. Motion passes. Go back to Representative Jack. Back to Representative Jack.

  9. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:12:56

     Okay, now talking to the full bill, including managing agents. But, uh, what this does is it clarifies when an insurance company is assessing insurance premiums on a business, particularly small businesses, uh, that they should not be, uh, factoring in things like punitive damages. And so, uh, not, not to the company. And so because that is making insurance unattainable for a lot of small businesses where they're saying, well, worst case, you know, if you're a trucking company, worst case you have an accident or something besides the actual damages, there could be punitive damages, which could be who knows how much. Uh, so therefore you can't be insured. This says don't include punitive damages to the company. It does, however, still allow punitive damages to be assessed, but not against the company unless the company is shown to have, uh, allowed the behavior known about the behavior, condoned the behavior. And that's where we added in, uh, the managing agent. Whether the owner or the managing agent is, uh, is dealing with anything the willful, malicious, reckless disregard. So then the employee who caused that, uh, problem, they could be held for that, but then the company or its managing agent would only be held liable for that if they in fact allowed it, condoned it or let it happen. Um, so that would make, uh, insuring company, uh, small companies, uh, more affordable. And, uh, with that Mr. Speaker Pro Tim, I would yield back to last three and a half, uh, the last six and a half minutes.

  10. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)2:15:06

      Thank you Representative Jack discussion to the bill. Seeing none back to you for summation.

  11. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:15:14

      Thank you. I'll waive Summation has been waived.

  12. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)2:15:18

      The vote is now open on fourth substitute SB 2 27 punitive damages. Amendments Ready is tell Vote yes. Seeing all present having voted voting is now closed. Full substitute SB 2 27 passes this body with 56 yes votes, 12 no votes will be sent to the Senate for further consideration. Representative Malloy.

  13. Rep. A. Cory Maloy2:16:33

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a motion to encircle third substitute Senate Bill 1 22.

• Mar 5, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (9 turns)

  1. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)2:11:36

     the adoption of the fourth sub of SB 2 27. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  2. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:11:46

     Yes. Thank you. What, what this does, and I'll talk about the bill in a moment. Uh, but, uh, as we negotiated this bill with the insurance companies, uh, they wanted us to include a term management man, managing agent, which wasn't actually yet in code. So we've added the term managing agent and found its use in court cases. And so we've added that definition into code and added managing agent to the bill.

  3. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)2:12:24

     Thank you Representative Jack. Further discussion to the motion. See none back to you for summation.

  4. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:12:32

     I'll waive

  5. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)2:12:38

     Place the motion. I'll place the motion. The motion is to adopt fourth substitute SB 2 27. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'll rule that. Motion passes. Go back to Representative Jack. Back to Representative Jack.

  6. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:12:56

     Okay, now talking to the full bill, including managing agents. But, uh, what this does is it clarifies when an insurance company is assessing insurance premiums on a business, particularly small businesses, uh, that they should not be, uh, factoring in things like punitive damages. And so, uh, not, not to the company. And so because that is making insurance unattainable for a lot of small businesses where they're saying, well, worst case, you know, if you're a trucking company, worst case you have an accident or something besides the actual damages, there could be punitive damages, which could be who knows how much. Uh, so therefore you can't be insured. This says don't include punitive damages to the company. It does, however, still allow punitive damages to be assessed, but not against the company unless the company is shown to have, uh, allowed the behavior known about the behavior, condoned the behavior. And that's where we added in, uh, the managing agent. Whether the owner or the managing agent is, uh, is dealing with anything the willful, malicious, reckless disregard. So then the employee who caused that, uh, problem, they could be held for that, but then the company or its managing agent would only be held liable for that if they in fact allowed it, condoned it or let it happen. Um, so that would make, uh, insuring company, uh, small companies, uh, more affordable. And, uh, with that Mr. Speaker Pro Tim, I would yield back to last three and a half, uh, the last six and a half minutes.

  7. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)2:15:06

     Thank you Representative Jack discussion to the bill. Seeing none back to you for summation.

  8. Rep. Colin W. Jack2:15:14

     Thank you. I'll waive Summation has been waived.

  9. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)2:15:18

     The vote is now open on fourth substitute SB 2 27 punitive damages. Amendments Ready is tell Vote yes. Seeing all present having voted voting is now closed. Full substitute SB 2 27 passes this body with 56 yes votes, 12 no votes will be sent to the Senate for further consideration. Representative Malloy.

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Senate President (presiding)34:25

     Well, motion to Concur again saying No discussion. I'll place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes? You wanna explain the changes before we vote on it?

  2. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton34:38

     Sure. Uh, when I presented to the house standing committee on this, after that, uh, I indicated there might be changes. There was another party that wanted to change or add a definition in, in that. So we made a substitute and they adopted over there. That's what we're doing. Here is concurring with that substitute.

  3. Senate President (presiding)34:58

     Thank you. So the question four, substitute Senate Bill 2 22 27 has been read three to times. The question is, shall it pass? Roll call Vote. Senator Baldy Aye. Luin Aye. Brammer Aye. Bus. Aye. Palmore Escamia Aye. Fillmore Aye. Rover. Aye. Harper Kins Ipson. Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebi Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton Aye. Vickers Bier Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Aye. Four substitute Senate Bill 2 27, having received 28 yay votes, one nay vote, zero being absent, passes his body and will be returned to the house for the signature of the speaker.