Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Efforts to rewrite rules of civil litigation and shrink Indiana’s government footprint advanced Monday after the House approved two Republican-authored bills — one that would dissolve or restructure dozens of state boards and another to strictly limit certain lawsuits in Hoosier courts.
House Bill 1417, a civil litigation rewrite authored by Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, passed on a 61-34 vote that included five Republican no votes.
And House Bill 1003 — a 456-page House GOP priority measure overhauling Indiana’s boards, commissions and councils — passed on a 67-29 vote, with only Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany, breaking ranks to join Democrats in opposition.
Both bills now head to the Senate.
Tort reform, public nuisance limits
The chamber took action on House Bill 1417, which Lehman described as a narrow attempt to “find balance” between preserving access to courts and discouraging what he called abusive lawsuits.
“This is a very watered-down version of what was filed,” Lehman said. “Trying to find balance between keeping courts open while at the same time keeping courts clear of excessive lawsuits.”
Among the provisions that were previously removed from the legislation was one that would have provided immunity for transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft.
Lehman said the current bill has two major focus areas. First, it limits public nuisance lawsuits by restricting when governmental entities can bring such actions and what damages they may recover. Under the bill, governments could generally seek prospective injunctive relief and damages “reasonably necessary to abate” a nuisance — but not damages tied to potential future harm.
The bill additionally raises the limit on attorney’s fees and costs that can be awarded against a plaintiff who rejects a qualified settlement offer and then receives a less favorable judgment at trial — increasing the cap from $5,000 to $100,000.
Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, argued the changes would tilt the legal system toward insurers and large corporations, particularly in personal injury cases.
“This is in favor of the insurance companies,” DeLaney said. “We’re going to shift it in one direction, toward the insurance company.”
DeLaney warned that the higher fee cap would pressure plaintiffs to accept settlements even when they believe offers are too low, out of fear that rejecting them could expose them to massive financial risk.
“If we guess wrong and you decline a settlement offer, you could be out $100,000,” he said. “This is totally not even-handed.”
Other Democrats raised alarms about how the effects of the public nuisance provisions on major litigation.
Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, specifically cited cases against opioid manufacturers and emphasized that the bill would make such large-scale nuisance lawsuits “impossible” and shield corporations from accountability.
But Republicans supporting the bill countered that the current system encourages unreasonable litigation and discourages good-faith settlement negotiations.
Rep. Greg Steurewald, R-Avon, described cases in which he said insurers refused to make reasonable offers, forcing costly litigation.
“At no time could I get any kind of reasonable offer,” Steurewald said, arguing the bill would push parties back to the negotiating table.
Five Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the measure: Reps. Becky Cash of Zionsville, Cory Criswell of Middletown, Matt Hostettler of Patoka, Ethan Manning of Logansport and Jennifer Meltzer of Shelbyville.
Supporters outside the Legislature praised the bill as a step toward reshaping Indiana’s legal climate.
“It clarifies that Indiana’s public nuisance law applies only to illegal conduct, ensuring that lawful businesses are not targeted through improper litigation intended to set statewide policy … and it encourages both plaintiffs and defendants to evaluate seriously settlement offers and promotes more efficient and timely dispute resolution,”said Steve Wolff, executive director of the Indiana Alliance for Legal Reform, a business-backed coalition lobbying for the bill. “Both reforms begin to balance and modernize Indiana’s legal system and reinforce our state’s commitment to attracting investment and job creation.”
Boards and commissions overhaul
Rep. Steve Bartels, R-Eckerty, said his House Bill 1003 represents the culmination of “several years of working on trying to streamline the government.”
The approach “to making government more efficient and effective is through renewing, merging, consolidating, and otherwise modifying various boards and commissions and other government bodies,” Bartels told lawmakers on Monday. He said the bill mirrors other legislative efforts to specifically roll back Indiana’s education regulations.
“Very few of these entities are actually just being repealed,” Bartels continued. “Most of these are actually the new responsibilities being transferred to another board or agency.”
The proposal repeals, merges or restructures 63 boards, commissions, committees and councils; alters administrative rulemaking requirements; and makes significant changes to professional licensing oversight and building codes.
Among the most contentious changes in the bill is a repeal of the Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission, transferring its responsibilities — including building and safety codes — to the Indiana Department of Homeland Security.
Opponents have pointed, as well, to the bill’s elimination of the Natural Resources Commission. Under the bill, duties of the body with citizen involvement that has historically overseen environmental and land-use policy in Indiana duties would shift to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. A Democrat amendment to restore the commission was rejected by the House last week.
Another sticking point for critics is the bill’s consolidation of four existing cultural commissions into a new 15-member Indiana Cultural Commission, replacing bodies that currently include more than 60 members combined.
Democrats repeatedly raised concerns that the consolidations would dilute the voices of communities that previously had dedicated, focused panels.
Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, who recalled authoring the legislation creating the Commission on the Social Status of Black Males in the 1990s, argued that folding multiple cultural commissions into a single entity risks erasing hard-won focus on distinct issues.
“Each of the groups that are being eliminated — Native Americans, Hispanics, and then African American males, the Women’s Commission — all have different focus areas,” Smith said. “For one commission to be responsible for all these areas — it’s just not going to happen.”
He pushed back, too, on arguments that some commissions were expendable because of attendance or quorum issues, saying the Commission on the Social Status of Black Males, for example, had historically drawn strong participation and bipartisan support when it was created.
“Let’s take the politics out of this situation,” Smith said. “When we passed the commission, it wasn’t just done by the Democrats.”
Bartels maintained that the cultural groups would retain distinct identities under the new structure, however.
“Every one of these subcommittees … will have a separate identity,” he said. “They’ll just fall underneath that cultural commission.”
Rep. Sue Errington, D-Muncie, questioned Bartels specifically about the Indiana Recycling Market Development Board, which is also slated for elimination or restructuring under the bill.
“I don’t see why it would need to be eliminated because I think they’ve been doing a good job,” Errington said, noting she has attended meetings and seen the board’s grant-review process firsthand.
Bartels responded that the board’s duties would be transferred to state agencies rather than erased outright. He said lawmakers were exploring whether the same work could continue while reducing costs to taxpayers.
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: [email protected].
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.