A new means of seeking changes to the bill emerged with the creation of the Lone Star Economic Alliance (LSEA). Its launch was spearheaded by Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR), which is not a new organization but created the LSEA specifically to seek tort reform through changes in HB 19, with trucking being the pivot of his efforts.

LSEA’s nominees to speak to the media about its efforts include not only trucking industry executives, but also high-profile individuals. That list included John Esparza, CEO of the Texas Trucking Association; Jerry Maldonado, president of the Laredo Motor Carriers Association and director of Warren Transport operations in Mexico and Laredo; and Adam Blanchard, co-owner of Double Diamond Transport.

LSEA’s launch presentation doesn’t even mention trucking except in the biographies of board members with a connection to the new group.

So far, previous changes haven’t helped

But sources close to the group, who requested anonymity, make it clear that the lingering threat of nuclear verdicts in the state, which were supposed to be reduced in the wake of HB 19, has brought trucking back into the battle as a key focus of the LSEA’s efforts.

Discussions with these trucking industry executives, as well as a review of online comments on the original lawyer-written wording of HB 19, focused on the “bifurcation” of the original legislation as the key to protecting businesses trucking and other defendants in huge jury verdicts.

Bifurcation involves a concept known as the “rule of admission.” It is described as a long-standing part of Texas common law, but as one attorney said, Texas judges have ignored it in recent years.

“It basically says that if I, as an employer, agree to accept responsibility for the actions of my employees that may have caused the injury, that is supposed to make the lawsuit easier,” said Lee Parsley, general counsel for TLR , to FreightWaves describing the admission rule. The company being sued, by admitting this, is saying, “I’m responsible for these damages,” Parsley said.

Admitting things helps, doesn’t hurt

While it may seem odd that such a direct admission would be viewed as a positive by potential defendants, Parsley said it means “you don’t have to go down the rabbit hole to figure out things like hiring careless and negligent training. This is supposed to simplify things so that at trial you only focus on who actually caused the accident and what the damages are at this point.

In a online comment on the bill After its passage, the law firm Doyle & Seelbach quoted HB 19’s lead author, state Rep. Jeff Leach, as saying it would “protect commercial vehicle operators from unfair and excessive lawsuits.”

Although the interpretation of the law is complex, it boils down to the assumption that the rule of admission would expose a trucking company to damages related to the actual injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the accident that gave rise to the suit, as long as the trucking company had admitted it.

Even if the admission is made, there may still be a second part of the trial to determine punitive damages, hence the term “bifurcation.” But under HB 19’s rules, the trucking company’s admission in the first part of the trial limits much of the discussion of its practices during the punitive part of the trial, which would tend to limit the extent of damages -punitive interests.

What impact would this have had on the great Werner’s verdict?

No discussion of the Texas nuclear verdicts goes very far without mentioning the Werner affair. The truckload carrier is fighting a judgment that dates back to 2019 and was originally worth just under $90 million, but now totals more than $100 million with interest. (The Werner case is on appeal to the state Supreme Court, which I accepted it for review.)

Werner’s case was decided well before HB 19 was passed, so the law had no impact on how the trial proceeded. But Doyle & Seelbach explains how differently the case might have played out if HB 19 had been in effect.

“A key reason for this huge verdict was likely the fact that the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to present company-wide evidence about practices spanning more than a decade, including the company’s high turnover rate and mass hiring of new and inexperienced drivers,” the law firm wrote. “Had HB 19 been in effect, the jury likely would not have heard this evidence during the first phase of the trial.”

Given that the accident at issue in the Werner case involved a personal vehicle crossing a median and striking a Werner truck head-on during an ice storm, Werner’s ability to invoke the rule of admission would have kept out of scope part of this testimony on Werner’s practices. the courtroom, according to Doyle & Seelbach. The law’s goal, according to the firm, “appears to be to limit evidence to violations that have a reasonable connection to the accident in question.”

But according to lawyers linked to the LSEA, last-minute amendments to the bill created a “Frankenstein monster” that complicated HB 19 so much that, as Parsley said, “defense lawyers don’t know not how to use it.” As a result, he said, “they’re not using it and it hasn’t made the difference that it should have made.”

So the goal of the LSEA is to go to the Texas Legislature and remove some of the amendments that it considers problematic. Many involve introducing federal trucking rules into the bill, and Parsley said the amendments had a negative impact on raising the admissions rule in HB 19.

On the other side of the divide may be the Texas Trial Lawyers Association.

Asked to comment on the LSEA’s efforts to amend HB 19, a spokesperson noted that the group has not yet seen specific legislation that would take such action and that any comment would be “premature.”

“Regardless, we believe the safety of Texas drivers should be paramount as lawmakers consider any proposed changes to current law,” the spokesperson said in an email to FreightWaves. “Our members regularly help Texans who have experienced horrific accidents involving commercial vehicles. So we look forward to working with members of the House and Senate to ensure Texas drivers are protected from bad actors who drive dangerously on our roadways.

More articles from John Kingston

Another nuclear verdict in trucking: $160 million against Daimler

Missouri court upholds nuclear verdict, criticizes carrier’s safety practices

NFI’s Brown calls for dismissal of New Jersey case, cites minor role in dispute