Kentucky Lawmakers Push New “Tort Reform” Bill

When individuals or families suffer injuries due to the negligence or intentional wrongdoings of others, the civil justice system is often their only avenue for obtaining fair compensation and holding the responsible parties accountable. At Barsumian Armiger Injury Lawyers, we fight every day to ensure our clients are treated fairly under the law. However, a new legislative push in Kentucky threatens to significantly change tort law in favor of insurance companies and large corporations. Senate Bill 195, a comprehensive “tort reform” bill introduced by State Sen. Craig Richardson, aims to place new restrictions on the rights of injured Kentuckians to sue and collect damages in court.

While proponents of the bill (backed heavily by business groups, hospitals, and the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce) argue that it will “modernize” Kentucky’s legal liability system and contain insurance costs, organizations like the Kentucky Justice Association warn that the legislation will create additional procedural requirements shifting the burden away from wrongdoers and onto injured victims and taxpayers. Here is a closer look at what SB 195 proposes and how it could severely impact your rights if you are injured in the Commonwealth.

Eliminating Accountability Through Changes to Comparative Fault 

Kentucky has long followed a pure comparative fault system. Under that framework, fault is apportioned precisely. A plaintiff who is 10% at fault recovers 90% of their damages. A plaintiff who is 70% at fault still recovers 30%. The guiding principle is straightforward: each party pays for the harm they caused.

That structure reflects a policy choice. Kentucky law recognizes that accidents are often messy. Multiple actors can contribute to an event. Under pure comparative fault, the focus remains on proportional responsibility rather than all-or-nothing outcomes.

SB 195 would replace that approach with a modified comparative fault bar. If a plaintiff is found 50% or more at fault, recovery would be eliminated entirely. This would fundamentally alter the structure of liability in Kentucky. In close cases that threshold creates a cliff effect. A single percentage point can mean the difference between substantial recovery remedying negligence found by a jury and no recovery at all. Kentucky’s current system promotes personal responsibility by ensuring you fix exactly what you break. 

Across the river in Indiana, under IC 34-51-2-6, if an injured individual is more than 50% at fault, they are unable to recover any damages whatsoever. If SB 195 were to be enacted, it would actually be slightly stricter than Indiana’s system in that under a 50% bar, even where a defendant is equally responsible for causing the harm, the plaintiff would recover nothing. And, interestingly, in such a case of equal fault where both drivers are suing one another, neither party owes the other anything and the liability insurers do not have to pay any judgment for either. 

The Kentucky Justice Association has illustrated the danger of the shift from pure comparative to modified comparative with this example: imagine a drunk driver runs a red light and crashes into your spouse, causing a totally disabling, lifelong injury. If your spouse happened to be traveling 60 mph in a 55-mph zone, a jury might split the fault 50/50. Under SB 195, the wrongdoer who chose to drive drunk and run a red light could avoid financial responsibility despite being equally responsible for the collision. This undermines accountability.

The “Empty Chair” Defense: Scapegoating Non-Parties 

Kentucky already allows juries to apportion fault among multiple parties under KRS 411.182 and Hilen v. Hays. In a negligence case, a jury may assign percentages of fault to the plaintiff, the defendant, and even certain properly identified non-parties. Each defendant then pays only the percentage of damages corresponding to their share of fault. This system reflects Kentucky’s shift away from joint and several liability and toward proportional responsibility.

However, Kentucky’s current framework requires that non-party fault be properly raised and supported by evidence. It operates within established comparative fault principles and existing case law.

SB 195 appears to broaden that structure in important ways.

Under the proposed bill, defendants could potentially ask juries to assign fault to third parties who cannot be sued or held financially responsible — including immune government entities, bankrupt companies, or other legally protected actors. While this may reduce a defendant’s percentage of fault on paper, the injured person may have no practical way to recover the portion attributed to that third party.

The practical result is significant. If a jury assigns 40% fault to a defendant and 60% to an immune entity, the defendant pays only 40%, and the plaintiff absorbs the remaining loss. In effect, liability is reduced without a corresponding source of compensation.

Supporters argue this promotes fairness by ensuring defendants pay only for their share. Critics respond that expanding third-party apportionment shifts financial risk from negligent actors to injured individuals.

Regardless of perspective, SB 195 represents a meaningful change to Kentucky’s existing comparative fault system that could materially affect how fault is allocated and how much compensation injured Kentuckians are ultimately able to recover.

“Healthcare Premium Theft” and Protecting Insurance Profits 

If you pay your hard-earned money for health insurance premiums, you expect those benefits to protect you. Under SB 195, defendants and their liability insurers would be the ones reaping the benefits of your foresight. Unfortunately, Indiana already allows this under the case of Stanley v. Walker, which allows the introduction of the billed amounts and paid amounts, allowing the jury to determine the reasonable value of services. SB 195 appears to limit recoverable medical expenses to amounts actually paid or owed, rather than the full value of the services rendered, intentionally ignoring the premiums and out-of-pocket costs the plaintiff has already paid themselves. Furthermore, it prevents juries from knowing the actual charges billed by doctors and hospitals. Even Indiana courts allow the introduction of billed charges, allowing the jury to exercise discretion. The Kentucky Justice Association refers to this as “Healthcare Premium Theft,” noting that previous attempts to pass similar measures were struck down by courts as unconstitutional.

The bill also makes it significantly harder for injured plaintiffs to pursue “bad faith” claims against insurance companies that unreasonably delay or deny legitimate payouts. All of this comes at a time when national statistics indicate that property and casualty insurance companies made staggering profits in 2024. According to an industry analysis by Verisk and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the U.S. property and casualty insurance industry generated roughly $170 billion in net income nationwide in 2024, making 2024 one of the highest profit levels ever recorded.

“Gotcha” Red Tape Designed to Dismiss Cases 

Perhaps one of the most concerning parts of SB 195 is the creation of complex, detailed new procedures for initiating and pursuing lawsuits. The bill mandates written notifications to defendants, full explanations of damages, signed authorizations for paperwork, and strict, unforgiving deadlines. According to Maresa Fawns, chief executive of the Kentucky Justice Association, this is nothing more than “gotcha red tape”. The underlying goal is not to seek the truth or promote fairness, but to trap plaintiffs in technicalities. If an injured person misses a notice deadline or fails to check a specific box, their entire case could be dismissed before a jury ever hears a single piece of evidence. This represents a significant procedural departure from existing Kentucky practice, as Kentucky already requires a lawsuit in non-MVA cases to be filed in one year and requires loss of consortium claims to be filed in one year. There can be little rational reason for such a provision other than simply hoping wrongdoers can avoid responsibility by running out the clock.

The Myth of the Litigation Crisis in Kentucky 

Supporters of the bill, including lobbyists for hospitals and corporate businesses, argue that the legislation is necessary because Kentucky allegedly ranks 40th nationally for its legal liability climate. However, this ranking is based entirely on subjective surveys of corporate in-house lawyers. These are the very individuals whose primary job is to avoid paying for corporate liability.

The actual numbers tell a very different story about the state of litigation in Kentucky. According to recent statistics cited by the Kentucky Justice Association, despite there being 139,663 traffic collisions in 2024, only 2% of those crashes resulted in a circuit court case filing. Similarly, out of approximately 12 million healthcare encounters annually, a mere 0.002% result in a medical negligence lawsuit.

Proponents also claim that every Kentucky family pays $2,800 a year in a “tort tax,” but this figure misleadingly lumps in insurance company profits, CEO compensation, advertising, and payouts for unrelated property issues like weather damage. Ironically, proponents’ own data reveals that this $2,800 figure makes Kentucky the third lowest among surrounding states for these costs, sitting well below neighbors like Illinois ($4,200) and Missouri ($3,400). The Kentucky Justice Association notes that the push for this bill is so corporately driven that its supporters are utilizing a 501(c)(4) dark-money fund to solicit anonymous contributions to push the legislation through the General Assembly. As critics point out, if this bill were genuinely good for Kentucky families, it wouldn’t require secret money to sell it.

Ultimately, the Kentucky Constitution clearly guarantees its citizens access to the courts when they are harmed and expressly prohibits the legislature from limiting the amount recovered for injuries or death. SB 195 attempts to circumvent these constitutional protections to the detriment of ordinary citizens.

SB 195’s Procedural Roadblocks: Destined to be Ruled Unconstitutional?

While proponents of SB 195 claim it merely updates the legal system, many of its provisions appear destined for a constitutional challenge, much like previous “tort reform” efforts in the Commonwealth. As we noted eight years ago in our blog, in 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Commonwealth v. Claycomb, striking down a state law that mandated medical review panels for malpractice claims. The reasoning in that decision provides a clear blueprint for why the procedural hurdles in SB 195 may also be deemed unconstitutional.

Kentucky’s founders explicitly protected citizens’ rights to the civil justice system. 

Article I, Section 14 of the Kentucky Constitution guarantees that “All courts shall be open,” and that every person who suffers an injury shall have a remedy by due course of law, with justice administered “without sale, denial or delay”. In Claycomb, the Kentucky Supreme Court emphasized that the right to access the courts for a remedy is “possibly the most important” right guaranteed by the state’s Bill of Rights. The Court found that forcing injured individuals through a mandatory medical review panel process before filing a lawsuit was an unconstitutional “mandatory process” that created an unlawful delay in accessing the courts.

SB 195 attempts to implement similar roadblocks under the guise of detailed new procedures for initiating lawsuits. The bill mandates written notifications to defendants, full explanations of damages, signed authorizations, and strict, unforgiving deadlines. If an injured person misses a tight deadline or fails to check a specific box, their entire case could be dismissed on a technicality. Just as the medical review panels forced a mandatory delay on claimants, SB 195’s “gotcha red tape” creates technical trapdoors that delay justice and threaten to deny it altogether.

Furthermore, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted in Claycomb that the constitutional guarantee of open courts restricts both the judiciary and the legislative branch. Section 28 of the Kentucky Bill of Rights explicitly states that these constitutional rights “shall forever remain inviolate” and that any laws contrary to the Constitution are void. According to this precedent, the legislature may not enact laws that conflict with constitutional guarantees of open courts.

If SB 195 passes, its intricate procedural requirements and “gotcha” dismissals will likely face immediate legal scrutiny. Under the strong precedent set by the Kentucky Supreme Court, citizens should be assured that legislation placing arbitrary roadblocks in the way of an individual wanting to seek redress in court “without delay” should continue to be found unconstitutional. Reasonable people can debate how to balance business costs and civil accountability. But when proposed reforms alter long-standing constitutional protections, careful scrutiny is warranted. You may read SB 195 here.

Barsumian Armiger Injury Lawyers is Here to Help 

At Barsumian Armiger Injury Lawyers, Todd Barsumian is licensed to practice in Kentucky and proudly serves clients throughout Indiana and Kentucky, including Henderson, Owensboro, and Madisonville. He understands the tactics used by insurance companies to deny liability and minimize payouts and remains committed to fighting for the maximum compensation our clients deserve, regardless of legislative hurdles.