Source: http://www.atra.org/state/kansas/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:25:16+00:00

Document:
The bill limits the amount a defendant would have to pay to appeal a decision in civil litigation to $25 million. It also creates a rebuttable presumption that an appellant will suffer an undue hardship when the judgment amount exceeds $2.5 million, the defendant is a small business, and judgment is for a claim arising from activities within the appellant’s ordinary course of business. For these purposes, “small business” would be defined as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or other business entity, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, with between 2 and 50 employees that is not a corporate affiliate or subsidiary of, or owned in whole or in part by any other business.
Provides that if the appellant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that setting the supersedeas bond at the full amount of the judgment will result in the appellant suffering an undue hardship or a denial of the right to appeal, the court may reduce the amount of the bond as follows: (1) if the judgment is less than or equal to $1 million, the supersedeas bond shall be set at the full amount of the judgment; or (2) if the judgment exceeds $1 million in value, the supersedeas bond shall be set at a total of $1 million plus 25 percent of any amount in excess of $1 million.
Provides for the interlocutory appeal of class action certifications.
Joint and Several Liability Reform: Brown v. Keill, 580 P.2d 867, 874 (Kan. 1978).
Incrementally raise the limit on noneconomic damages by $50,000 every four years until 2022. The current limit is $250,000, and under this legislation, for all causes of action accruing after July 1, 2022, the limit would be $350,000. This provision is in response to a 2012 Kansas Supreme Court opinion, which called for the state legislature to reexamine the limit and make the necessary monetary increases due to inflation and cost of living increases. The second piece of the bill would adopt the Daubert standard for expert testimony.
Noneconomic Damages Reform: HB 2692 (1988): Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-1902, 60-1903.
Limits noneconomic damages to $250,000. The Kansas Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act provision setting a $250,000 limit on noneconomic losses in health care liability actions did not violate the right to a jury trial or due process provisions of the State Constitution. Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, Inc., 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990).
Noneconomic Damages Reform: HB 2692 (1987).
Limits the award of damages for pain and suffering to $250,000.
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 2693 (1988).
Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, where damages exceed $150,000. Provides for awards to be offset when the court assigns comparative fault. The statute allowing evidence of collateral source benefits where claimant demands judgment for damages in excess of $150,000 violated the equal protection provision of the State Constitution. Thompson v. KFB Insurance Co., 850 P.2d 773 (Kan. 1993).
The $150,000 threshold for the admissibility of collateral sources into evidence was held unconstitutional by the Kansas Supreme Court in Thompson v. KFB Insurance Company, Case No. 68452 (1993).
Government Retention of Personal Injury Lawyers: HB 2627 (2000); K.S.A. § 75-37,130- K.S.A. § 75-37,135.
Requires open and competitive bidding for all contingent fee contracts for legal services between the state and outside counsel, where fees and services exceed $7,500. Requires proposed contracts for legal services between the state and outside counsel in excess of $1 million to be submitted to the legislative budget committee for approval. Requires, at the conclusion of representation, outside counsel to provide the state with a statement of hours worked and fees recovered through a contract for legal services between the state and outside counsel. Provides that in no instance shall the state pay fees, even on a contingent fee basis, in excess of $1,000 per hour.
Punitive Damages Reform: HB 2731 (1988). Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3701.
Limits the award of punitive damages to the lesser of a defendant’s annual gross income or $5 million. (The 1992 legislature amended this statute to allow a judge who felt a defendant’s annual gross income was not a sufficient deterrent to look at 50% of the defendant’s net assets and award the lesser of that amount or $5 million.) Requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted with willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice. Requires the determination of awards for punitive damages to be made in a separate proceeding.
Punitive Damages Reform: HB 2025 (1987).
Limits the award of punitive damages to the lesser of defendant’s highest annual gross income during the preceding five years or $5 million. Provides that if the defendant earned more profit from the objectionable conduct than either of these limits, the court could award 1.5 times the amount of that profit. Requires the determination of awards for punitive damages to be made in a separate proceeding. Requires a plaintiff to prove punitive damages by “clear and convincing” evidence. Provides seven criteria for the judge to consider in punitive damages cases, including whether this is the first award against a given defendant.
Enacts the Asbestos Trust Claims Transparency Act (Act), which shall apply to all asbestos claims (as defined in the Silica and Asbestos Claims Act) filed on or after July 1, 2018. Requires the plaintiff to provide certain statements and materials no later than 30 days prior to the date the court establishes for the completion of all fact discovery. Specifically, the plaintiff is required to conduct an investigation, file all asbestos trust claims that can be made by the plaintiff, and provide a sworn statement indicating the investigation has been conducted and all possible claims filed. The plaintiff is required to provide all parties with all trust claim materials, accompanied by a custodial affidavit from the asbestos trust. If the plaintiff’s asbestos trust claim is based on exposure through another individual, the plaintiff is required to produce all trust claim documents submitted by or on behalf of the other individual to any asbestos trust to which the plaintiff has access. The bill also requires the plaintiff to supplement the information and materials within 30 days after the plaintiff, or a person on the plaintiff’s behalf, supplements an existing asbestos trust claim, receives additional information or materials related to such a claim, or files an additional asbestos trust claim. The bill outlines circumstances under and procedures by which a defendant may file and the court may grant a motion for the completion of all fact discovery regarding the plaintiff’s asbestos trust claims. Additionally, the bill establishes evidentiary standards for asbestos claims; provides a procedure to reopen and adjust judgment in an asbestos claim if the plaintiff subsequently files an asbestos trust claim with an asbestos trust in existence at the time of judgment; and requires defendants and judgment debtors to file any motion under the bill within a reasonable time and not more than one year after the judgment was entered.
Established minimum medical criteria for the filing of asbestos and silica claims.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 75
 § 75
 § 60