Louisiana’s Republican-controlled House pushed forward a wide-ranging tort reform package this week, showing a decisive move backed by Governor Jeff Landry (R) to reshape Louisiana’s legal landscape in hopes of lowering its soaring auto insurance rates.
The legislative push contrasts sharply with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ (R) approach to tort reform, which focused on select legal changes while avoiding broad caps on damages.
In Louisiana, the House passed multiple Republican-led bills targeting personal injury lawsuits. Among them, House Bill 34 would allow juries to consider actual medical costs rather than billed amounts, which Rep. Brian Glorioso (R) said are often inflated in cooperation with attorneys.
House Bill 435 capped general damages, including in wrongful death cases, at $5 million, despite critics noting that insurance payouts already seldom exceed that threshold.
“This cap is the opposite of pro-life,” said Rep. Edmond Jordan (D).
Governor Landry has signaled full support for the reforms, which include House Bill 450. The bill would repeal the Housley presumption that injuries stem from an accident if the plaintiff was previously healthy. That measure failed in years past but now has executive backing, and Governor Landry’s ties to the insurance defense industry further solidify his stance.
In contrast, Governor DeSantis of Florida has pursued a different tort reform agenda, passing legislation in 2023 that reduced the statute of limitations and changed comparative fault rules, but avoided hard damage caps and maintained certain patient protections. The governor framed the reforms as being consumer-focused, steering clear of sweeping limits on legal recovery.
In Louisiana, House Bill 436 sparked immigration controversy by denying undocumented immigrants general damages in auto accident claims, while House Bill 443 would force plaintiffs to notify defendants of lawsuit intentions within 10 days of retaining counsel.
Governor Landry has maintained his intent to deliver quickly on a pro-business agenda even if it attracts criticism from some who argue that it places corporate interests over plaintiffs’ rights.
