During the 89th Texas legislature, A bill authored under Texas Senator Charles Schwertner, SB 30, otherwise known as the “Trucking Bill” was introduced as a major tort reform bill aimed to reduce excessive jury awards referred to as “nuclear verdicts” in civil lawsuits that result in medical or injury damages.
The bill was backed by the Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) organization, which is one of the largest and most powerful political advocacy groups in the state. The TLR has largely shaped the Texas civil justice system more than almost any other group in Texas and has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying, influencing public opinion, and funding campaigns of pro-business, pro-tort-reform candidates and lawmakers. SB 30 proved to be the largest, most aggressive yet most controversial bill they have ever introduced to the Legislature in over 3 decades. Had it passed, it would’ve sent shockwaves to the legal and business communities alike.
Reading The Fine Print
SB 30 had major key provisions in the bill that would’ve reshaped civil injury cases. Of these provisions, three functioned as the main core of the bill.
Limits on Evidence
SB 30 sought to limit the use of evidence by displaying the full amount billed by healthcare providers, especially when those amounts weren’t actually paid. Only the actual amount paid—whether by the plaintiff, their insurance, or another source—would be admissible in court. This was meant to prevent the presentation of inflated medical bills that could unfairly influence juries and lead to higher damage awards.
This would likely require law firms to adjust their discovery practices and hire medical billing experts to help present actual amounts paid in medical cases. This could potentially reduce case value and lower settlement offers and verdicts.
New Definitions on Non-Economic Harm
SB30 would narrow the definitions for Pain and Suffering, loss of life, and emotional distress, which limit how these terms would be quantified in a civil case. This would reduce excessive awards by eliminating the ability to recover from the subjectivity of these definitions.
Law firms that rely on using non-economic damages to appeal to juries’ emotions, especially in serious injury cases, would need to adjust legal strategies to receive compensation for their client by focusing more on economic damages such as medical wages, future care, and lost wages.
Cap on Future Medical Damages and Noneconomic Damages
Caps on future medical damages and noneconomic damages were the provision of SB30 that would’ve been the most detrimental to law firms in the state. Although the House chambers made efforts to slash this provision when they received the bill for amendments, the implications of this provision were TLR’s driving force for the whole bill.
Caps tied to Medicare Rates would limit recovery for clients by setting the rate for compensation for medical expenses to standard Medicare Rates. If a private medical procedure costs $50,000 and the Medicare reimbursement rate offers $5,000, then the total amount a client could recover in compensation would be $5,000.
In the case of non-economic damages, an individual defendant would be capped at around $250,000 for pain and suffering (personal injury) and at around $1,000,000 for wrongful death. If jury awards exceed these limits, the Judge is allowed to override their decision and reduce the amount based on “reasonableness”, ultimately creating a limited cap structure that weakens Jury power.
Weighing Both Sides
To understand why SB30 went to such great lengths to alter the existing civil justice statute, it’s important to examine the motivations and needs of those who supported its adoption. Although a coalition of political actors and lobbyists where the guiding hand of the bill’s passage through the legislature, it’s who they represent; the insurance companies, business and commercial trucking industry; who were the ones to benefit most from the bill.
We know exploitive attorneys exist. Filing bad-faith lawsuits against companies when only minor injuries exist, driven by profits rather than justice. It’s unethical cases like those that lend support to the claims that excessive jury awards can cause financial destruction to companies and businesses due to over-exaggerated, unethical personal injury lawsuits. It’s important to understand that not all lawyers have the same moral code when it comes to taking on a case.
Obviously, justice and reasonable compensation should be the leading forces that drive a lawyer to help get their client a piece of their life back after a life-altering incident, but how should that resolution be weighed at the detriment of the opposing party? Do Judges and juries make “reasonable” verdicts when deciding damage awards? Should a narrower system be put in place to make verdicts more equal and “reasonable”? Only the Texas legislature can provide answers to these questions and determine which trajectory the civil justice system will head for years to come.
SB30’s Current Position in the Texas Legislature
SB30 was engrossed on April 16, 2025, indicating it had passed the Senate chamber and reached about halfway through the legislative process. Despite this progress, the bill ultimately died in the House chamber, failing to secure final approval. On May 30, 2025, the House appointed conferees to negotiate differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. However, these efforts did not lead to further advancement, and the bill stalled in the legislative process without moving beyond that point.
It’s unlikely that Governor Abbott will add SB30 to the special session agenda of 2025, which could potentially revive the bill. TLR will have until next legislative session (January 2027) to reinstate a new version of SB30, a version that is likely to be diluted to accommodate previous Senate and House amendments to ensure a more seamless passage through both chambers. These changes could be expected to incorporate weaker language in provisions, limiting its effect on the civil justice system. Nonetheless, with the campaign cycle around the corner, TLR will have yet another opportunity to influence/fund incumbent and emerging candidates to offer support for the issue in the following session.
Written by:
Michael Ramirez
Law Clerk
GUERRA LLP
875 East Ashby Place, Suite 1200
San Antonio, Texas 78212
Phone: (210) 447-0500
Frank Guerra
Board Certified – Personal Injury Law
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
GUERRA LLP
875 East Ashby Place, Suite 1200
San Antonio, Texas 78212
Phone: (210) 447-0500
