NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Governor Bill Haslam's tort reform bill (HB1993/SB2001) has passed the key Senate Judiciary Committee and will now go on to the House and the floor of the Senate. The bill sets arbitrary caps on damage awards.

But opponents say the panel only got half the truth and the measure, in effect, values a Tennessean's life at only $750,000. Supporters of the bill pointed to "big verdicts" in some tort cases as a justification.

Phillip Miller, president of the Tennessee Association for Justice, says the Senate panel was fed information about cases such as one involving a jury award of $34 million for what was referred to as "just a broken hip." But Miller says what the panel didn't hear were the details of the 16 months of abuse, untreated pain, and the eventual death of an elderly man. Miller says the case wasn't about money, but about what happened to a loved one.

"And when the jury returned this verdict, what they were trying to do and what they wanted to do, was to send a message that this is so outrageous that the only way we can make this corporation understand how bad this is, is to return a big verdict, and that's what they did."

Miller says this bill, which would impose an arbitrary cap of three-quarters-of-a-million dollars on damages a jury may award for pain, would also take away the power of juries.

Miller says it's hard to put a price tag on what is lost if a loved one is hurt or killed.

"This bill says, 'Well, you can get their lost wages and for everything else, all the important stuff like not having someone to walk you down the aisle, not having someone to talk to when you break up with your boyfriend, all that other stuff, the stuff that's really important, that's worth $750,000.'"

Miller says the bill includes caps for non-economic damages and gives a jury very limited power in punishing a company that has acted irresponsibly.

Supporters of the bill say it fixes a flaw in the Tennessee civil justice system that puts the state at a competitive disadvantage for attracting new businesses and jobs.

Miller says there's no problem with runaway jury verdicts, adding that the system isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. He says the average verdict in the state is $400,000.


get more stories like this via email

Millions of Americans with student loans are anxious to hear if the Supreme Court will uphold President Joe Biden's plan to offer up to $20,000 in student debt relief.

Conservative groups are challenging the program, claiming it unfairly favors people who went to college, and arguing the president cannot offer debt relief without the consent of Congress.

In the meantime, financial experts have some tips on what to do while waiting for a ruling.

Jaylon Herbin, director of federal campaigns at the Center for Responsible Lending, said borrowers need to stay in constant contact with their loan servicer, which may have changed.

"During the beginning of 2022, federal student aid took on new contracts for servicers," Herbin pointed out. "It used to be Navient and Sallie Mae. So you should have been receiving those emails. Some of them may have come from Aid Advantage who took on the Navient contract. Mohela as well."

People can sign up to receive updates from the Department of Education to keep tabs on the status of the program. The administration is not taking any more applications until the case is resolved. The high court hears opening arguments on Feb. 28 and will rule by June.

During COVID, the administration paused payments on federal student loans. Herbin noted people who voluntarily made payments during the pause should know they are eligible to get the money back.

"If they just had extra money, and they wanted to get ahead of these payments, then they can receive a refund," Herbin explained. "They just have to write to their servicer and request that refund."

However, if the program is struck down, the entire loan, including the refund, will have to be repaid. In California more than 2.3 million borrowers applied or were deemed eligible for a refund and almost 1.5 million were approved before the program was frozen by the court.

Critics of a proposal in the Iowa Legislature to broaden the Iowa Attorney General's authority say it could inject politics into the historically nonpartisan office.

Right now, county attorneys in Iowa can ask the state Attorney General for help investigating cases if they need it, and cooperation was long-standing under former Attorney General Tom Miller.

Sen. Nate Boulton, D-Des Moines, said a new GOP-backed proposal would allow the new Attorney General, Republican Brenna Bird, to reach into local jurisdictions to investigate criminal and election-related cases regardless of whether county attorneys want assistance.

"What it has the potential to do here is disrupt that spirit of cooperation, and start setting out turf wars and an adversarial relationship between the state and the county, in terms of prosecuting crimes," Boulton pointed out. "That's what we really don't want to see."

Boulton argued it could be part of Republican efforts to reorganize state government. In her Condition of the State address, Gov. Kim Reynolds said Iowa government is operating inefficiently. She has proposed consolidating the number of state agencies from 37 to 16, merging state and local corrections departments, social services and more.

Typically, smaller counties call in the state Attorney General when they don't have the resources to investigate. Critics said giving the state the power to step in at any time appears to be politically motivated, especially in election-related cases. Boulton thinks it would set a dangerous precedent for an office which has put bipartisanship first.

"What starts to become a problem is, if we have more and more politically motivated election prosecutions," Boulton contended. "And in a state like Iowa, where we've handled this issue very well -- we've seen misconduct, and it has been prosecuted -- we don't need to be realigning that process and potentially getting abuses in the system."

An Iowa voter was convicted of a felony after attempting to cast two ballots for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election and was fined $750. The draft bill has not yet been introduced, and the Attorney General's office has declined to comment until it is filed.

Kentucky food banks say the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons, currently under review by the Federal Trade Commission, could trigger an increased demand for services at a time when inflation, gas prices and the end of pandemic-era supports are squeezing household budgets.

Vincent James, president and CEO of the Dare to Care Food Bank in Louisville, said a merged Kroger and Albertsons, along with Walmart, the nation's largest grocer, could force more farmers out of the market and raise consumer prices, which send more folks to their local food bank.

"All of these things have created this sort of perfect storm for folks that were caught in the middle," James explained. "Where they are actually on the benefits cliff where they make too much to get SNAP benefits, but they're not making enough to purchase food."

In a news release, Kroger said its acquisition of the Idaho-based chain will expand customer reach and improve access to affordable food to approximately 85-million households. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to make a decision on the sale sometime next year.

James added a merger could impact both companies' levels of community engagement, noting retailers are a major player in the food-distribution ecosystem.

"Whether through programming or providing food, I think Kroger is really uniquely positioned to make a huge impact by continuing to support food banks in more innovative ways and equitable ways," James emphasized.

Rural Americans increasingly lack an affordable and nearby store to buy fresh foods. Between 1994 and 2019, the overall number of grocery operations nationwide declined by 30%, according to Food and Water Watch.