LINCOLN — The sponsor of one bill to protect Nebraska businesses, health care providers and other entities from most coronavirus-related lawsuits called the measure a substantial step toward recovery from the pandemic.
But the sponsor of another proposal offering immunity from COVID-19 liability said Thursday that neither bill is needed.
State Sen. Steve Lathrop of Omaha, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he introduced Legislative Bill 52, the immunity proposal, to spark discussion and find out whether legal protections are needed. He concluded a public hearing on the bill by saying he had not heard evidence of a problem.
“There’s a fear of a threat of a possibility” of lawsuits, he said, but no one at the hearing could point to actual COVID-related cases in Nebraska.
People are also reading…
On the other hand, Sen. Tom Briese of Albion argued that his measure, LB 139, is needed to give business owners and other entities the confidence to reopen. Even if lawsuits have not been filed yet, he said, he expects to see them in coming months. He also said the perception of legal risk is a concern.
LB 139 “raises the bar ever so slightly to provide peace of mind to business owners,” he said. “It’s simply a reasonable response to extraordinary circumstances.”
Briese’s proposal would offer legal protection in multiple ways. First, it would bar lawsuits unless someone was hospitalized or died from the coronavirus and would prohibit cases against entities that were following federal and state laws or public health orders and guidance.
The bill would not allow a lawsuit unless an entity had acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct, rather than ordinary negligence. It would raise the standard of proof, making it harder for people to win their cases, and would shorten the time during which lawsuits are allowed after an injury.
The bill also would offer additional protection to health care providers for care given — or not given — because of their response to the coronavirus.
LB 52 would offer even broader protection, barring any civil action for injury or death stemming from exposure to the coronavirus.
Both bills would apply only to events occurring after the measures pass. Lathrop said the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that retroactive protection is not allowed in the state. Neither would affect employees’ ability to seek workers’ compensation for on-the-job exposures.
Briese’s bill drew support from a long list of business organizations, health care provider groups and school officials.
Mark Schorr, testifying for the Nebraska, Omaha and Lincoln Chambers of Commerce, as well as several other groups, said the measure represents a balancing act. It provides protection, but doesn’t completely block lawsuits, he said.
As evidence of the need, he pointed to similar legislation passed by 20 other states and to a wave of notices from liability insurance companies that either exclude coverage for COVID-related risks or raise premiums for that coverage. He also said there have been attorneys advertising around the country seeking to represent people harmed by COVID-19.
Opponents to LB 139 included trial attorneys, labor unions and AARP Nebraska, which represents older Nebraskans.
Todd Stubbendieck, state AARP director, raised concerns about whether the bill would discourage nursing homes from sending people to the hospital to avoid liability. He argued that Nebraska law already provides protections against frivolous lawsuits.
Felicia Hilton, speaking for the Nebraska Labor Unity Council, said it would make it difficult for ordinary citizens to bring a case when they have been harmed.
“It really puts the burden on the average person,” she said.