Proponent Testimony on SB 120
Before the House Civil & Commercial Law Committee

Presented by
Andy Doehrel
President and CEO of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Andy Doehrel, President and CEO of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. I am appearing today as a proponent of SB 120 on behalf of the Ohio Alliance for Civil Justice.

The Alliance is compromised of representatives of more than 200 trade and professional associations, small and large businesses, medical groups, farmers, non-profit organizations and local government associations for a combined representation of more than 300,000 individuals and businesses.

Here with me today are the leaders from a number of the key organizations in the Alliance, and I would like to acknowledge their presence. (Introduce each -- see attached list.)

Why is it significant that we are here today? This is important because it goes to the very “heart” of the debate on SB 120. The concept of joint and several liability touches every entity in Ohio – schools, churches, municipalities, social agencies, businesses, farmers, and professionals from doctors and lawyers to CPA’s. Our presence here today is a reflection of the major importance this issue has to all of us and our members, and we hope to this august committee. Simply put, this is a priority issue for me and my colleagues and we all wanted to express that by being here today.

Now why is Andy doing this testimony? Well, the first reason is that I drew the short straw. But the second, and more important reason is that I have personally been a part of the efforts to reform our civil justice system since the mid-1980s. As I know you are all aware, you are not the first body of elected officials to look at the need for these reforms. In the mid-1980s there was major tort reform legislation passed under a democrat governor and democrat-controlled House because there was recognition of the critical need for such reform. Over the years the Ohio Supreme Court eroded those changes. In the 1990s these issues were revisited again – and once again comprehensive tort reform legislation was enacted. Then, in an extraordinary move, our Supreme Court -- or at least four of the seven justices – by-passed all the lower Courts to decide the constitutionality of that legislation. The Court decided the General Assembly was wrong and HB 350 was tossed out in its entirety.

Well, I’m here to tell you that your predecessors were not wrong. And, by enacting SB 120 this General Assembly can send the message that we are, once again, on our way toward a fair and balanced tort system in Ohio.

You have already heard a lot of technical and expert testimony about this bill and my colleagues and I are not here to repeat that testimony. We want to emphasize that this is a bill aimed at fairness for all. By saying that an entity has to be more than 50% at fault to pay a whole judgment is simply a step toward preventing inequities from occurring. It is also important to note what this bill is not. It is not total proportionate liability and it is not a total elimination of joint and several liability. It is a fair, middle of the road attempt to modify a very unbalanced component of our tort laws. That is an important concept to remember – this bill, as introduced, is a compromise that has evolved through many years of discussion over tort reform.

I know everyone hates to hear how an issue is about “jobs and the economy”. And, I’m sure it seems like every time your hear from the Chamber we’re raising issues about jobs and the economy. But frankly this is a significant part of the equation with SB 120.

As elected officials, you wrestle constantly with what kind of programs or incentives you can pass that will make Ohio attractive for new businesses and encourage existing businesses to expand. Well, the legal reforms included in SB 120 send a strong message that you care about our state’s business climate and want to be sure that it includes a fair, predictable civil justice system.

A state’s litigation climate, unfortunately, grows in importance for businesses every day.

It is no secret that we are becoming a more litigious society and no one feels it more than business. A survey we conducted with the NFIB several years ago showed almost three out of five small Ohio businesses had been involved in or had been threatened with at least one lawsuit. That level of uncertainty is a major business climate problem.

Passage of SB 120 is an act we can trumpet as a positive economic development factor. I have seen other states run whole economic development programs around their civil justice reforms. So yes, this is an important economic development issue, this is about jobs for Ohioans and the greatest part is passage of SB 120 won’t require the allocation of any dollars from the state’s fragile general fund budget.

In conclusion, we urge this committee to bring Ohio in line with 36 other states that have abolished or modified their laws on joint and several liability. Let’s send the message, one more time, as we did in the mid-1980s and again in the 1990s that Ohio’s elected officials do believe in a balanced and fair civil justice system.

Thank you Mr. Chairman on behalf of all my colleagues. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. I would just warn the committee, up front, that I am only a policy geek, and if you have technical questions I would hope you would let me defer to our legal counsel, who is present.