House diverges from Senate on COVID liability bill

The Missouri House is forging its own path on a bill designed to protect businesses from COVID-19 liability. 

Representatives gave first-round approval to measures that would bar criminal or civil liability “in any action alleging exposure to a contagious disease” on the premises of the business, unless the defendant exposed someone knowingly and purposely and the exposure caused the person to actually become sick.

The language was added on April 28 to House Bill 682, which began as a bill to forbid colleges from forcing students to live on campus but was recast as a wider measure to restrict governmental authority during emergencies. The following day, the House also endorsed HB 1358, a standalone COVID liability bill with similar language. The measures will need final votes before they can move to the Senate.

The votes came just days after the House Rules Committee, which reviews legislation before it goes to the House floor, voted down a COVID-liability bill that previously cleared the Senate. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, said his bill was “born out of frustration” with that legislation.

The two chambers have until May 14 to work out their differing approaches, though Baker said he believes his version has a “clear path in the Senate as well.”

The Senate bill passed in February following an all-night debate. That bill would protect businesses and health care workers from personal injury lawsuits stemming from exposure to COVID-19, unless the plaintiff can show clear and convincing evidence of recklessness or willful misconduct.

It also would protect manufacturers of items used to combat COVID-19 from products liability suits. The protections would apply to companies that don’t normally make the product, as well as those whose manufacturing process had to be modified during the emergency or whose products were used in a different fashion than normal.

The bill got an OK from the House’s Special Committee on Litigation Reform, but it then sat in the Rules Committee for a month before it was voted down. It’s still possible for it to be brought back in some form, and the Rules Committee is scheduled to reconsider the matter on May 3. 

The House approach is shorter and more targeted to small businesses. As Rep. Justin Hill, R-Lake St. Louis, put it: “It’s nice and short and simple, and everyone in the state understands this version of a COVID-liability bill.” 

The bill drew bipartisan support. Rep. Wes Rogers, D-Kansas City and an attorney, said it was needed to protect small businesses, and that the language was an “evolution” worked out in committee.

“My uncle, as your constituent, will be happy that I finally agree with you on something,” Rogers told Baker. 

Although both bills call themselves a “True COVID Liability Act,” their language is not identical. The version passed as part of HB 682 requires the offending business to have acted “with malice.” 

But during debate on the standalone bill on April 29, Rep. John Black, R-Springfield and a lawyer, said that standard would make a lawsuit almost impossible. He successfully offered an amendment to delete that phrase from HB 1358. The two bills also use different definitions of contagious disease.