New Alliance Supports Bill Reshaping Civil Lawsuits, Limiting Jury Awards
Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne. Photo by Monroe Bush, Indiana Capital Chronicle.
By Casey Smith
Indiana Capital Chronicle
INDIANAPOLIS — A newly formed lobbying group backed by Indiana’s major business organizations is pressing lawmakers to pass a civil justice bill that would cap non-economic damages, restrict public nuisance lawsuits and shield businesses from certain liability claims.
Democrats have already criticized the bill as solving problems Indiana does not have while limiting the rights of injured Hoosiers.
The Indiana Alliance for Legal Reform, announced late last month, is endorsing House Bill 1417, filed last week by Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne.
Lehman said he authored the bill after identifying what he views as weaknesses in Indiana’s civil justice system that expose businesses and property owners to liability even when they’re not negligent.
The bill bundles several proposals aligned with the alliance’s goal of curbing what the group describes as frivolous lawsuits and excessive jury awards against Hoosier businesses.
The alliance counts the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Manufacturers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Indiana Motor Truck Association and Indiana Bankers Association among its supporters, said executive director Stephen Wolff. Former Senate President Pro Tem David Long has been retained to assist with government and media outreach.
Wolff said the group formed amid growing concern among business leaders about national litigation trends and a desire for what he has described as “common-sense reform” of Indiana’s civil code that would balance the system while preserving the state’s business climate.
But Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, a longtime attorney, said the proposal reflects a misunderstanding of Indiana’s legal system.
Limits On Civil Cases
House Bill 1417 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Jan. 15 but has yet to get a hearing date.
The proposal would cap non-economic damages – such as pain and suffering – at $1 million in all civil cases. Judges and juries would still calculate non-economic damages without regard to the cap, but courts would be required to reduce awards exceeding $1 million and allocate the capped damages proportionally among defendants based on fault.
Current Indiana law does not impose a general cap on compensatory damages in civil cases against private businesses.
Stephen Wolff
Limits do exist for punitive damages, however – capped at three times compensatory damages or $50,000, whichever is greater – as well as in medical malpractice cases and lawsuits against government entities.
The bill would also substantially narrow public nuisance claims.
Language in the measure defines a public nuisance as an “ongoing and unlawful condition” that interferes with an “established public right” and is expressly prohibited by state or federal law. Activities permitted by law, ordinance or court order could not be considered public nuisances.
Government entities would be limited to seeking court orders to stop or fix an unlawful condition and would be barred from recovering monetary damages or costs tied to potential future harm. Private individuals could still seek compensation, but only under more limited circumstances.
Another provision would prohibit lawsuits against property owners, business owners or third-party business operators for criminal acts committed by someone else on their property or premises. The bill would also bar claims brought by individuals who committed the criminal act themselves.
The bill would additionally prohibit transportation network company riders – such as users of ride-hailing services like Uber or Lyft – from bringing claims against the company, or TNC, for injuries caused by a driver or occurring during a ride.
Need ‘More To Sue A Business’
Wolff said the alliance is focused on limiting what it views as expansions of liability that go beyond illegal conduct and expose businesses to unpredictable and substantial legal risks.
He cited lawsuits targeting manufacturers over products that criminals find easy to misuse.
Court actions against automakers such as Hyundai and Kia have become a frequent example cited by tort reform advocates.
Cities, including Indianapolis, joined a federal lawsuit alleging the companies should be held liable for vehicle thefts because certain models lacked industry-standard anti-theft technology, even though the vehicles complied with existing federal safety and manufacturing requirements at the time they were sold. The lawsuit was eventually settled last fall.
Other reforms lobbied for by the alliance are aimed at lawsuits involving criminal activity on private property.
On damages, Wolff emphasized the alliance is not targeting compensation for medical bills or lost wages.
“We are not talking about set costs, such as medical bills or lost wages, which are compensatory,” he said. “We are talking about undefined damages.”
Pushback From Democrats
DeLaney said he believes the bill addresses problems Indiana does not have – while undermining the core principles of tort law. He was particularly critical of the non-economic damages cap.
ep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, speaks at the annual Dentons Legislative Conference on Thursday, Dec. 18, 2025. Photo by Leslie Bonilla Muñiz, Indiana Capital Chronicle.
“You can completely destroy my life, put me on a pump for the rest of my life, make it so I’m a quadriplegic and I can only get my medical bills paid,” he said. “I can’t get non-economic damages. I can’t for the pain, the suffering, the misery imposed upon me and my family.”
He also questioned the provision shielding transportation network companies from liability.
“If the Uber company is aware that the driver that they’ve contracted with has got all kinds of problems, has a criminal record and so forth, and then injures me, they’re not liable,” DeLaney said. “I cannot think that that’s in the public interest.”
DeLaney added that Indiana courts already have tools to address lawsuits involving crimes on private property and to limit excessive verdicts.
“We already have both common law and statutory law in this state that covers these issues,” he said. “This is what I call a lobbyist bill.”