As Louisiana enters a pivotal legislative season, House Bill 526 and House Bill 173 have taken center stage for all the wrong reasons. Both measures would limit what injured people can recover after serious harm, including car accidents that were not their fault. They also offer a glimpse into the ongoing, well-funded effort by the insurance industry to restrict the rights of injured Louisianans.
Supporters frame these bills as “reform” aimed at lowering insurance premiums, but that promise should not be accepted at face value. Louisiana residents have heard it before: limit victims’ rights now, and insurance rates will supposedly fall later. Yet there is little consistent evidence that those savings are meaningfully passed on to consumers. Instead, these measures shift financial responsibility away from insurance companies and onto injured individuals.
Together, HB 526 and HB 173 show the direction some lawmakers and lobbying groups are pushing Louisiana to take.
HB 526: Setting Limits on Pain and Suffering
House Bill 526, filed by Rep. Kellee Dickerson, as part of a broader insurance reform push, would place limits on general damages, often described as non-economic damages, in an effort to make damage awards limited to only economic recovery. The bill was recently considered by the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee, but did not advance after the committee reportedly blocked it. This is a win for the people of Louisiana.
What are general damages? Unlike special damages, which cover more tangible losses like medical bills, lost wages, and property damage, general damages are more subjective and are meant to compensate for more personal harm. They can include compensation for damages like:
- Pain and suffering
- Mental anguish
- Loss of enjoyment of life
The proposed limits: HB 526 would set a $500,000 cap on general damages in personal injury and other fault-based civil cases. Supporters, including associations that prioritize corporate interests like the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), argue that large, unpredictable awards contribute to higher insurance costs and discourage insurers from operating in the state. By placing a ceiling on these damages, proponents claim the bill could stabilize the insurance market and lower costs for consumers and businesses.
But that promise should not be accepted at face value. Like other bills that prioritize corporate interests, consumers and small businesses will rarely see the benefits from this. What HB 526 would clearly do is limit what injured people can recover for the human impact of an injury, including pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. In a car accident case, for instance, a jury could hear the evidence and decide that a person’s losses exceed the cap, but the law would still prevent full recovery for those general damages.
Exceptions to the rule: Recognizing that some cases involve extraordinary harm, HB 526 does include some exceptions for the most serious cases:
- $1 million cap: The cap would increase to $1 million if the injured person suffers a permanent mental injury that severely impairs their ability to work or maintain a reasonable standard of living.
- No cap: The bill’s limits would not apply if the injured person suffers a permanent and severe physical injury, such as loss of use of a body part or substantial physical disfigurement, or if the harm was caused by intentional or malicious conduct.
HB 173: Expanding Louisiana’s “No Pay, No Play” Law
House Bill 173, authored by Rep. Dennis Bamburg, which as of late April is listed as still pending in the committee, would represent a major expansion of Louisiana’s existing “No Pay, No Play” law. Current law already limits what certain uninsured drivers can recover after a crash, but HB 173 would go further than that. The bill would target drivers who have a lapse in required liability coverage that exceeds 30 days. Under the bill, those drivers could be barred from recovering any damages for bodily injury or property damage.
In practice, this kind of law can hit hardest against people facing financial hardship. A lapse in coverage may happen because someone lost a job, fell behind on bills, had vehicle trouble, or could not afford rising premiums. In a state like Louisiana, where having a car is often necessary to get to work, school, medical appointments, and daily responsibilities, this proposal would place an even heavier burden on people who are already struggling. Rather than focusing only on accountability for the person who caused a crash, HB 173, could shift the financial consequences of an accident onto an injured person because of a prior insurance lapse.
Here is an overview of what the bill would do:
Under the current No Pay, No Play law, an owner or operator of a motor vehicle who fails to maintain compulsory motor vehicle liability coverage is barred from recovering the first $100,000 in bodily injury or property damage. Although the law was once commonly associated with the old “15/25” limits, those thresholds have since been raised.
HB 173 would change the current rules by creating an additional, broader bar on recovery:
- The 30-day trigger: If a driver has failed to maintain the state-mandated liability security for at least 30 days, they are prohibited from recovering any damages for bodily injury or property damage.
- The shift: It moves the penalty from losing the first portion of a claim to a complete bar on recovering bodily injury or property damage for a driver whose lapse in coverage exceeds 30 days, regardless of who was at fault in the accident.
The Bottom Line: These Bills Put Insurance Companies Ahead of Everyday People
These proposals from our elected officials point in one direction: more protection for insurance companies and more limits on injured people trying to recover after serious harm. Instead of focusing on what fully and fairly compensates everyday people, these officials are advocating for corporations’ interests over those of the people they represent. HB 526 would cap certain general damages in many civil actions, while HB 173 would go even further by completely barring recovery for bodily injury or property damage for a driver whose lapse in compulsory liability coverage exceeds 30 days.
After a car accident that was no fault of your own, the damages available under current law are important to your recovery and your future. We encourage these representatives and their supporters to ask questions we have to ask insurance companies every day:
- How much is a dog-bite scar on a child’s face worth if that child will carry it for the rest of their life?
- If someone has to give up their car because of financial hardship, and loses their insurance with it, why should a lapse in coverage potentially prevent them from recovering after a future crash?
- How much is a neck disc injury worth after someone is rear-ended?
- How much is a family’s grief, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life worth after their loved one fell thirty feet from a ladder and died? And when lawmakers propose capping general damages, what are they really saying that loss is worth?
No matter how catastrophic your case is, we believe in Winning with Awareness, and we believe it is time for our representatives to create laws with that same awareness.
