Texas Jury Orders Johnson & Johnson to Pay More than $1 Billion

Texas Jury Orders Johnson & Johnson to Pay More than $1 Billion

Pinnacle Hip Implants Found to Be Defective

On December 1, 2016, a federal jury in Dallas returned a verdict against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, DePuy Orthopaedics, holding that the company’s Pinnacle hip implant was negligently designed, that the company knew of risks associated with the product, and that the company failed to adequately warn consumers of those risks. The jury awarded six plaintiffs damages in excess of $1 billion-$32 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. Johnson & Johnson had rejected a $1.8 million dollar settlement offer before trial.

The plaintiffs, who are California residents, say they suffered serious injury after receiving the DePuy product, including bone erosion and tissue death. They allege that Johnson & Johnson and DePuy falsely advertised that the Pinnacle hip implant, with its metal-on-metal design, was more durable and had a greater life than competing products that use plastic or ceramic parts.

Though plaintiff’s attorneys laud the verdict as a “loud and clear” message that Johnson & Johnson needs to address the legal issues related to the Pinnacle implant, most legal experts don’t see any movement any time soon. Attorneys for both companies say they will appeal the verdict and will ask the appeals court to suspend any further trials related to the hip implant.

The company faces more than 8,000 lawsuits tied to the device, all of which have been consolidated in the federal court in Texas. Last week’s verdict was the third “test case” regarding liability for the Pinnacle. Johnson & Johnson were found not liable in the first case, but were hit with a $500 million jury award in the second trial. That verdict was subsequently reduced to $151 million, based on Texas law.

Contact Us
At the law office of Bailey & Galyen, we provide a free initial consultation to every client. To set up an appointment with an experienced Texas personal injury attorney, contact us by e-mail or call our offices at one of the convenient locations listed below. We will take your call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Huge Verdicts Won’t Spur Settlement Talks In J&J Hip MDL

By Jess Krochtengel

Law360, Dallas (December 2, 2016, 9:52 PM EST) — Although a Texas federal jury hit Johnson & Johnson with a more than $1 billion verdict in the latest bellwether trial over the company’s Pinnacle hip implants, fruitful settlement talks aren t likely to happen before the Fifth Circuit weighs in on J&J’s lengthy list of complaints about trial rulings, MDL experts say.

Pressure on J&J to find a way out of the thousands of remaining cases in the multidistrict litigation may be mounting after a jury on Thursday hit J&J and subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. for a total of more than $1 billion in punitive damages and more than $32 million in compensatory damages to six hip implant recipients and some of their spouses. That followed a $502 million verdict in the second bellwether, later reduced to about $150 million, after a defense win in the first bellwether trial.

Yet a global settlement in the MDL is unlikely because J&J doesn t think the bellwether trials have given it a fair estimate of what each plaintiff’s case is worth, lawyers say. J&J has said the verdicts in the two latest trials provide “no guidance on the merits of the overall Pinnacle litigation” because of what it has argued are deeply flawed and unfair procedural and evidentiary rulings from the MDL judge.

“It seems like a situation where you couldn t be farther away from the parties both being in a position to have productive settlement discussions,” said John Sullivan of Cozen & O Connor LLP. “I can t imagine a less likely scenario for settlement than here.”

About 9,300 lawsuits involving the Pinnacle hip system’s Ultamet metal-on-metal implant have been filed in state and federal courts around the country, most of which are consolidated in an MDL presided over by U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade in Dallas.

Plaintiffs generally allege DePuy and J&J pushed to market a poorly designed product that injured them after friction between the device’s metal socket and metal ball head caused microscopic particles of metal to shed into their bodies. J&J has maintained it acted appropriately and responsibly in the development, testing and marketing of the Ultamet product.

The first bellwether trial, involving a single plaintiff from Montana, ended in a defense win. The second bellwether consolidated five plaintiffs from Texas, who won a $502 million verdict that was later reduced to about $150 million under a Texas law that caps punitive damages.

In the third bellwether, jurors deliberated for less than a day following a two-month trial before awarding each of six California plaintiffs between $4 million and $6 million in actual damages. The jury also found each plaintiff entitled to $84 million from DePuy and $84 million from J&J, bringing the total damages award to more than $1.04 billion.

Diane Lifton of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP said her immediate reaction to hearing about the $1 billion verdict or any verdict of comparable size is to look to see what evidence was in front of the jury and what the companies concerns are about that evidence.

“It suggests to me that there may be evidentiary concerns about what went before the jury,” Lifton said.

In both the second and third bellwether trials, evidentiary rulings prompted multiple mistrial motions from J&J and DePuy, which have suggested to the Fifth Circuit that Judge Kinkeade allowed a virtual free-for-all in the second trial, allowing in prejudicial and inflammatory evidence. The plaintiffs have told the Fifth Circuit the verdict in the second trial was a reflection of a jury holding companies accountable for prioritizing profits above patient safety, not the result of a flood of prejudicial evidence.

In July, the Fifth Circuit rejected J&J’s request for an expedited appeal of the second bellwether and the appellate court also declined J&J’s request to stop the MDL court from holding the third trial while the appeal was pending.

“I think until the appellate issues are resolved with respect to the evidence presented to the jury, it will be difficult to reach a global resolution of the cases,” Lifton said.

In the third trial, controversial evidence included the mention of an $84 million deferred prosecution agreement J&J entered to end an investigation into alleged kickbacks. That piece of evidence and a witness subsequent testimony that J&J paid the settlement to make a “headache” go away played a central role in the plaintiffs closing argument and appears to be directly reflected in the jury’s $84 million-per-plaintiff punitive damages award.

Sullivan said before it considers settling the MDL, J&J will want the Fifth Circuit’s take on whether evidence like the deferred prosecution agreement can be admitted during trial. The company has a valid concern that prejudicial evidence without a tangible relationship to the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs could unduly ratchet up a jury verdict, he said.

“It’s just a concern when you see a $1 billion verdict,” Sullivan said. “It’s hard not to seriously consider whether those issues did affect the verdict.”

Max Kennerly of Kennerly Loutey LLC, who represents plaintiffs in product liability and medical malpractice cases, brushed off the complaints about the bellwether trials as “bluster” from J&J that won t ultimately stop the parties from settling the MDL. Even if it genuinely believes it was prejudiced at the bellwethers, the company should still act rationally, as it did when it reached a $2.5 billion global settlement related to DePuy’s ASR line of hip implants, he said.

“Johnson & Johnson always has an excuse for why they can’t begin reasonable settlement discussions,” Kennerly said. “They have an excuse for why they can’t settle the Ethicon mesh cases, an excuse for why they can’t settle the Risperdal cases and now an excuse for why they can’t settle the Pinnacle cases. It’s all bluster. At some point, they’ll either come to their senses, or their shareholders will make management come to their senses.”

Lawyers say even taking the splashy punitive award out of the picture, the jury verdict in the third bellwether still won t serve as a strong platform to launch settlement talks.

The jury awarded $4 million to plaintiffs who had one hip implant, plus their individual medical bills, and awarded $6 million plus medical bills to plaintiffs who had two implants.

Lifton said that kind of result makes it impossible to discern which aspects of the plaintiffs individual circumstances affected the jury, so it’s difficult to use them as a basis for valuing the thousands of remaining cases.

“Another concern one might consider with these verdicts all being the same size is that a case involving more challenging facts can affect the outcome of a case with less significant damages they all get taken along for the ride and it’s impossible to tease out what the jury’s reaction was to each part of the case and each scenario,” Lifton said. “That’s why you ll hear arguments among the defense bar against these kinds of consolidated trials.”

Yet Michael Walsh of Strasburger & Price LLP said that although the compensatory damages awards to each plaintiff were probably too high, they are not so unreasonable that they can t be the basis for the beginning of a settlement discussion so long as the punitive awards remain off the table. The MDL docket is so massive, he said, the defense has to face the question of at what point do they try to clear it out and leave trials for cases they have a better chance of winning.

“Perhaps the prudent thing to be looking at is, it’s a big monster litigation and the numbers are huge but this is not the first time we ve seen this,” Walsh said. “I don t know that the compensatory damages are so completely out of whack that there’s no expectation meaningful progress can be made in getting rid of some subset of cases.”

Still, the punitive damages award is part of the case, and juries in two trials have decisively found the companies liable for wrongdoing, Walsh said. With the punitive awards what they are, even if the trial judge did pare back the verdict before entering judgment, Walsh said, he “can t see that there’s any number that would lead to settling the docket.”

While the gears of the appellate process grind, the parties are facing their next trial date. Judge Kinkeade set the fourth bellwether for September and has named 10 plaintiffs, each from New York, whose cases should be prepared for the trial.

J&J has said it will “continue to urge that no further trials be conducted until we receive appellate court guidance.”

But because the Fifth Circuit rejected the company’s request after the second bellwether, lawyers are skeptical the $1 billion plaintiffs verdict is enough to change the appellate court’s mind about putting future trials on ice.

“If the Fifth Circuit didn’t intervene before this trial, I see no reason why they would intervene after it either,” Kennerly said. “This trial didn’t raise any issues substantially different from the first trial. In my opinion, the size of the verdict doesn’t change that analysis.”

Walsh said he thinks the verdicts are sizable enough that they should have gotten the Fifth Circuit’s attention about potential problems with the bellwethers, but doesn t expect to see the court stop future trials.

“If $500 million didn t get their attention, $1 billion isn t going to get their attention,” he said. “If it were $1 trillion, maybe.”

The patients are represented by W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm, Richard Arsenault of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, Jayne Conroy of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC and Khaldoun Baghdadi of Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, among others.

DePuy and Johnson & Johnson are represented by Steve Quattlebaum of Quattlebaum Grooms Tull & Burrow PLLC, John Anderson of Stoel Rives LLP, Dawn Estes of Estes Thorne & Carr, Michael Powell and Seth Roberts of Locke Lord LLP and Stephen J. Harburg, John H. Beisner, Jessica Davidson Miller and Geoffrey M. Wyatt of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

The MDL is In re: DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:11-md-02244, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

–Editing by Mark Lebetkin and Jill Coffey.

View original article »


New England Journal of Medicine op-ed: Don’t repeal the medical device tax

The following important and revealing article is provided as written from the Mass Device website (http://www.massdevice.com/), which provides its subscribers with “News and information for the medical device industry and the companies that drive it.”

April 25, 2013

A pair of Harvard Medical School physicians weighs in on the medical device tax in the New England Journal of Medicine, casting doubt on opponents’ arguments and saying it shouldn’t be repealed.

A pair of Harvard Medical School physicians say the medical device tax should not be repealed, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday that it’s an important bulwark of the healthcare reform law.

In an op-ed piece for the medical journal, the doctors say the arguments for repealing the tax that it will drive medtech investment offshore, cost American jobs and stifle innovation are largely without merit. And even if some of those arguments prove valid, Kramer and Kesselheim argue, the benefits of healthcare reform far outweigh any damage from the tax.

“Losing the revenue that would have been provided by the medical device excise tax would not by itself cause the [Affordable Care Act] to crumble, but it would send a powerful signal to other groups and their lobbyists about the law’s vulnerability to piecemeal erosion. Resolving the conflict over the device tax, then, may either strengthen the ACA and its laudable push toward universal health care or weaken both before progress really begins,” write Drs. Daniel Kramer and Aaron Kesselheim, whose disclosure forms reveal grants from the FDA’s Center for Devices & Radiological Health, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Harvard Catalyst Clinical & Translational Science Center.

Kramer and Kesselheim argue that the $2 billion to $3 billion in annual revenue from the 2.3% levy on U.S. sales of medical devices is an important part of the funding for the healthcare reform law, estimated at $100 billion annually also the annual sales estimate for the device industry cited by the authors. Dire predictions from the industry about the effects of the tax, especially claims by national lobby AdvaMed, about its impact on medtech employment, small- to mid-size companies and innovation, are unproven, they write.

“Although some of these claims may prove valid, predictions regarding the tax’s harmful effects on the device industry rest on several unproven assumptions. Decisions regarding layoffs are difficult to trace to single policy changes. With regard to off-shoring, it is unclear how the tax would provide an incentive to move production abroad, since it applies to domestic sales irrespective of the site of manufacture. And since international sales remain unaffected by the tax, the competitiveness of U.S. companies abroad should not be impeded,” Kramer and Kesselheim write. “In addition, individual companies’ profits may be preserved by shifting costs to consumers, a tactic that will be aided by the expansion of insurance to millions of new patients.

“The argument that the excise tax would harm innovation is perhaps the most difficult to prove or debunk, because the relationship between profits and innovation is not straightforward. Certainly, a company’s revenue funds its research and development, but there is no evidence that a tax would affect these investments,” they write.



FDA stands for Food and Drug Administration. While most Americans view the FDA as the country’s drug enforcement arm, it does so much more and its responsibilities are wide and varied. It deals with human and animal food, drugs, medical devices, radiation emitting devices, vaccines, blood and biologics, cosmetics, and tobacco. The majority of what the FDA does do is not what we think it spends its time on.

The FDA reported that for the first 3 months of 2013, it has recalled 46 human food products. That is 3 times the number of animal & veterinary food products it recalled and 4+ times more than the drugs it has recalled. Further, it is 23 times higher than the medical devices it has recalled.

FDA RECALLS AND WITHDRAWALS January 1, 2003 – March 26, 2013

Clearly, each of these responsibilities it important for human health and safety, save and except the animal & veterinary arm. It is amazing that the FDA has to devote so much time, energy and resources to making sure our food supply is safe, not to mention the number of recalls it has to initiate to keep it that way. By simple extrapolation, it could be expected that by the end of 2013, the FDA will have recalled 184 food products, 40 drugs, 8 medical devices and 56 animal & veterinary products. No one should believe that this means that drugs are safer than food. Rest assured that they are not. Remember that all drugs have side effects. The FDA gets involved when it receives information that a particular drug is causing side effects not disclosed to the FDA in the approval or post-approval process, or when the reports of know side effects are more than represented by the drug’s manufacturer.

Let’s put this into perspective:
1. The FDA issued 10 recalls and withdrawals in the first 3 months of 2013.
2. The FDA issued 13 safety alerts for human medical products and 12 for medical devices for that same period.
3. The FDA has taken some action 35 times in 2013 on drugs and/or devices. That is only 5 actions less than it took on food products.
4. The FDA likely watches a hundred thousand more food products than drugs and devices.
5. The numbers of recalls, withdrawals and safety alerts on drugs and devices is far greater than any other action the FDA takes on it other areas of responsibility.

The importance of each of the FDA’s functions cannot be overstated in its responsibility for protecting and advancing public health.


Texas™ 83rd Legislative Session is Underway, and You Aren’t Safe

It is commonly known that when the Texas Legislature is in session, no one is safe. Texas 83rd legislative session is well underway, and that saying is as true as ever. The legislature is taking aim at Texans through laws it hopes to pass that attack insurance policyholders rights. That’s right, attacking the policyholders who pay the premiums and protecting the insurance companies that delay and deny claims and force Texans to hire trial lawyers to get their claims paid. Further, it is not just one or two laws it wants to pass. As of the day before the March 8, 2013, deadline to file bills, over 400 insurance bills had been filed in the Texas Legislature. Rest assured that none of them are consumer friendly. Here are some low-lights and an explanation why they hurt Texans:
1. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will prohibit recovery of non-economic and punitive damages by uninsured drivers except in very limited circumstances. The Texas legislature previously succeeded in capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, and has capped punitive damages in all cases. Non-economic damages are compensation for an innocent victim’s pain and suffering. Texas laws should never punish innocent victims of someone else’s negligence and gross negligence by denying them compensation for their pain and suffering and capping punitive damages. It should punish the wrongdoer who caused the damages, injuries and losses with uncapped punitive damages.
This bill would prohibit the recovery of non-economic (pain and suffering) damages and punitive (to punish and deter similar, future conduct) damages by someone who for whatever reason is driving without insurance when they did absolutely nothing to cause the collision or their injuries. Texas should be fully able to hold wrongdoers responsible and Texas legislators should strive to preserve innocent victims access to the courts and rights to be compensated. If the innocent victims were negligent and caused some or all of their own damages, Texas law already provides a remedy by which the jury and judge can proportionately reduce any such award. If the party seeking compensation’s comparative or contributory fault the equals or is greater than 50%, that person will not be compensated.
All Texas drives should follow the law and have auto liability insurance. Many do not, mostly for economic reasons. Their inability to afford auto insurance should not be used to deny them just compensation when they are injured through no fault of their own in the incident.

2. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will eliminate post-judgment interest on judgments involving Medicare, including when the defendant appeals. Texas legislators want to be paid interest on their campaign accounts, their personal accounts and their investments. They do not, however, want innocent victims to receive interest on the money they are entitled to for the 2 4+ years it takes to get the case to trial and through the inevitable appellate process.
Post judgment interest is important to behoove those found by the court and/or jury to be at fault from delaying and denying the compensation to which innocent victims that the judicial system has said they are entitled. Post judgment interest and prejudgment interest are important check and balances to keep and protect innocent victims right to be compensated after a trial by jury or judge.
If passed, this bill will protect those that need prosecution (the insurance companies) and not those who need protection (the innocent victims).

3. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will allow EMS providers to receive direct access to policyholder’s PIP and MedPay. The medical profession can make applications for patients PIP (Personal Injury Protection) and MedPay. It should not be mandatory, however. The legislature recently passed a law that punishes innocent victims when they pay their medical bills prior to the resolution of their case. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 41.0105, limits the recovery of medical expenses to the amount actually paid or incurred. The exact language of the statute is as follows:
In addition to any other limitation under law, recovery of medical or health care expenses incurred is limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant. (Emphasis added.)
By codifying medical professionals ability to make PIP and MedPay applications, innocent victims lose the ability to preserve the value of their personal injury claim. Understand that if the medical professional makes the PIP and MedPay application and received the money, that bill (or portion thereof) is paid, and cannot be used to determine the value of a claim for personal injuries and pain and suffering. If this practice is not mandatory, then the innocent victim can choose not to pay the medical professional until the case is resolved, thereby preserving the dollar amount of medical care incurred. The higher the amount of the incurred medical bills is, the higher the potential value of the case. Conversely, the more of that medical that is paid, the less left unpaid for determining the potential value of the case, and the lower that value will be.
This is nothing more than another assault on innocent victims that they will not even know about until it is too late.
The innocent victim would be better served and protected legislation that requires that all Texas Auto Insurance policies have PIP (Personal Injury Protection) and/or MedPay. This is extremely affordable coverage and goes a long way to helping innocent victims receive the medical care and lost wages they need. Legislation should also require underinsured and uninsured coverage for those times when the injuries and damages suffered are greater that the coverage available and when the wrongdoer does not have insurance. The legislature should focus on protecting all innocent victims of someone else’s negligence and gross negligence, not special interests.

4. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will create a mandatory Appraisal process requiring appraisal for most insurance disputes on amount of accepted coverage in homeowner policies. Standard operating procedure for insurance companies and especially with regard to homeowner’s policies – is to delay and deny paying claims. Passage of this law would legalize and endorse that standard operating procedure. Requiring an appraisal process for most insurance disputes for a claim on homeowners policies will increase costs of the innocent victim and further delay their receiving just compensation. This bill does nothing to help the insured paying the premiums or the innocent victims of the insured’s negligence or gross negligence. We have procedures in place to verify claims before as well as after a lawsuit is filed for damages or injuries that would be covered by any kind of insurance policy. These procedures involve both the insurance companies and the innocent victims using experts, and a mediator, judge or jury making decisions if the parties cannot reach agreement. This appraisal will do nothing do preserve innocent victims rights and access to the courthouse to redress wrongs.

5. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will eliminate existing remedies and policyholder protections for unfair insurance practices and prompt payment violations.
This bill would remove the insured’s right to bring suit against their own insurance company for not paying THEIR own claim on THEIR insurance policy when the insurance company does not timely and fairly pay your claim. Unfair insurance practices and prompt payment violation provisions exist to regulate trade practices in the business of insurance by defining, or providing for the determination of, all such practices in this state which constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices and by prohibiting the trade practices so defined or determined. The current statutory provision can be found in the Texas Insurance Code Chapter 542, Subchapter A is entitled, Unfair Claim Settlement Practices has the same purpose of preventing unfair claim settlement practices. Again, if passed, this bill will protect those that need prosecution (the insurance companies) and not those who need protection (the innocent victims).

6. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will allow insurers to cancel policies after a reduced number of claims, including claims caused by natural causes. Insurance companies do not like paying claims. This bill would allow the insurance companies to accept Texans premiums and then cancel the policies when a claim is made that the insurance company thinks amounts to too many by the insured. This bill protects the insurance companies who already have all of the power and money. An insurance policy is a contract, and this law will simply give the insurance companies another out in your time of need. After a devastating loss, you will find a cancellation notice in the mailbox. Then when you try to bring a lawsuit against the insurance company for bad faith, that right will have been eliminated by the bill discussed above.

7. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will subject disputed claims to the appraisal process with severe limits on attorney fees. Every time the legislature has passed any tort reform measure it has made it more difficult for Texans to hold wrongdoer accountable. In medical malpractice law reform, for example, the legislature put caps on non-economic and punitive damages and severely restrict the ability to hold emergency room facilities and staff responsible for the injuries and death caused by their medical errors. Since trial lawyers who handle these cases only get paid if there is a recovery, when the case costs more to develop that the expected recovery, the case becomes non-economical. That means that the lawyers’ share of the reduced recover does not justify the lawyer’s six-figure investment in the case. It follows then, that if the legislature reduces attorneys fees on cases no matter how they do it it will reduce the innocent victims™ ability to hire a lawyer to hold wrongdoers accountable. Limiting attorneys fees on any kind of cases is not in the innocent victims’ best interest and only serves the special interests who want to run lawyers out of business. Rest assured that there is no do-it-yourself guide to handing your own personal injury or business litigation case. You need a lawyer.

8. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will remove adjusters employed by an insurer or agent from regulation (licensing, examination, continuing education, and enforcement related requirements). This is stupid. Why would we remove examination, licensing, continuing education and enforcement related requirements for any professionals. Is the legislature going to next remove these requirements for lawyers and doctors? Would you go to a lawyer or doctor who did not have to take and examination to prove his knowledge and worthiness, get licensed to show he has met the minimum requirements to hold himself out as a professional in that field, take continuing education to keep up on all of the latest developments in that field, and be subject to enforcement related requirements to make sure the professional always abides by the rules and standards that guide that profession? No one would, and the legislature should not pass insurance-favored legislation that prejudices their insureds.

9. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will abolish Office of Public Insurance Counsel.
Why would the legislature do this? The answer is found in the Mission Statement of the Office of Public Insurance Counsel:
Our Mission
The mission of the Office of Public Insurance Counsel (OPIC) is to represent the interests of consumers in insurance matters. This means promoting public understanding of insurance issues, advocating fairness and stability in insurance rates and coverage, working to make the overall insurance market more responsive to consumers, and striving to ensure consumers receive the services they have purchased. (Emphasis added.)
OPIC represents consumers! OPIC advocates for Texas insurance consumers primarily before the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI). OPIC is an irritant to The Texas Department of Insurance and the legislators pushing its agenda regarding self serving rate increases, rules, and forms. These issues affect Texans’ property and casualty, life, accident, and health insurance coverage and rates.
If the Texas Department of Insurance can eliminate OPIC, it eliminates much of the opposition to its agenda.

10. One of the laws the legislators want to pass will give insurers ability to require claims be made within one year.
Texas already has laws that state the length of time one has to make a claim by filing a lawsuit. It is called the Statute of Limitations. For Bad Faith claims, there is a 2 year statute of limitations, and for Breach of Contract the statute of limitation is 4 years. The legislature wants to reduce the time allowed to file all claims against an insurer to 1 year to reduce the number of claims made against it and the amount of money the insurance companies have to pay out on claims. This is a very anti-consumer bill that, again, protects the insurance companies and not the innocent victims and consumers.
Do not let your elected Texas Senator and Representative pass laws that restrict your right and ability to hold wrongdoers accountable and be compensated by insurance. We Texans who have insurance do so to protect ourselves in the event we are injured or damaged through no fault of our own, or if we injure or damage another person. If you do not speak up, these new laws will injured and damage you through your own fault. You may have elected these folks to the legislature because of their party affiliation, but understand that the debt they owe to special interests is adverse to and far outweighs your interests and what benefits and protects you.

1 2 3