Judiciary Committee
February 27, 2025
Committee Chair: Sen. Carolyn Bosn | Bills Heard: 5 | Full Transcript (PDF)
LB416: Modify joint and several liability in settlement cases
Introduced by: Sen. George Dungan | Testimony: 3 proponents, 2 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Nebraska bill would restore joint liability in settlement cases, reversing 2008 court ruling that discourages settlements. LB416 addresses the unintended consequences of the Tadros decision, which eliminated joint and several liability when plaintiffs settle with one defendant. The bill would allow settlements while preserving claims against remaining defendants.
Why it matters: Trial attorneys and mediators say Tadros forces more cases to trial because plaintiffs must choose between settling with one defendant or maintaining full liability claims against others. The real-world impact: families with catastrophically injured children cannot access settlement funds without jeopardizing recovery from all liable parties. Medicaid currently pays enormous medical bills while cases drag on.
What they're saying: - Proponents: "Tadros creates a perverse incentive where parties refuse to settle to avoid destroying joint liability, forcing more cases to trial." Joint and several liability for economic damages is standard in 46 of 50 states. Defense attorneys report Tadros is a significant hurdle in the majority of cases they mediate. - Opponents: LB416 undoes the 1992 tort reform compromise and punishes defendants with higher insurance by forcing them to pay beyond their proportionate share. It creates potential for plaintiff over-recovery and abrogates the pro rata reduction standard.
By the numbers: 97% of cases settle; Tadros creates significant hurdles in mediation. One mediator has handled 500 cases in 3 years where Tadros impacts settlement negotiations.
What's next: No vote was taken. Committee discussion revealed significant concerns about the 1992 compromise and potential for over-recovery, but also recognition that Tadros has created unintended consequences discouraging settlements.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Wendy DeBoer Skeptical: Sen. Rick Hallstrom, Sen. Carolyn Bosn
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB137: Prohibit HOAs from restricting solar panels and pollinator gardens
Introduced by: Sen. George Dungan | Testimony: 3 proponents, 1 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Bill would prohibit homeowners associations from banning solar panels and pollinator gardens on residential property. LB137 reflects growing tension between property rights and HOA governance, with 91 online comments supporting the measure but significant committee skepticism about state overreach.
Why it matters: Homeowners in HOAs increasingly want to install solar panels and native plant gardens but face restrictions. Solar technology has become more affordable and efficient, while pollinator gardens offer environmental benefits. Yet HOAs argue they exist to maintain neighborhood standards through uniform covenants that residents agreed to at purchase.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Solar panels don't harm property values and help reduce fossil fuel use. Pollinator gardens replace water-intensive lawns with native plants supporting pollinators. Property rights are paramount; homeowners should control their own property. - Opponents: HOAs are contractual agreements residents knowingly sign. State legislation removes local control and bypasses city ordinances. Residents have process to change covenants through majority vote. Property values actually declined near solar installations in some cases.
By the numbers: 91 proponent comments, 3 opponent comments, 1 neutral comment submitted online.
What's next: No vote taken. Senator Dungan indicated willingness to negotiate language on time, place, and manner restrictions similar to other states' approaches. Committee expressed concerns about state imposing rules on all Nebraska HOAs when residents agreed to covenants.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. Jared Storm, Sen. Tanya Storer Opposed: Sen. Rick Holdcroft
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB493: Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (anti-SLAPP law)
Introduced by: Sen. Danielle Conrad | Testimony: 4 proponents, 1 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Nebraska would join 11 states adopting Uniform Public Expression Protection Act to combat frivolous lawsuits designed to silence speech. LB493 expands the state's narrow anti-SLAPP law beyond zoning cases to protect journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens from costly litigation meant to chill protected expression.
Why it matters: SLAPP lawsuits weaponize the legal system by burying defendants in discovery and legal fees, even when claims lack merit. The goal is intimidation, not victory. Expanding Nebraska's law would protect political speech, journalism, and public participation—rights that receive the highest constitutional protection.
What they're saying: - Proponents: 35 states have anti-SLAPP laws; 11 have adopted this uniform version. California has had anti-SLAPP for 30 years without sliding slope to other causes of action. Law protects across political spectrum: Right to Life and ACLU both use anti-SLAPP. Special motion to strike prevents abusive discovery. - Opponents: Bill lacks adequate exemption for attorneys general pursuing enforcement actions. Anti-SLAPP laws struck down on constitutional grounds in two states; Colorado considering constitutionality. California experience shows abuse came from other side; Legislature added more exemptions. Concerns about access to courts and due process.
By the numbers: 35 states and D.C. have anti-SLAPP laws; 17 states do not. Seven proponent comments, one opponent comment submitted.
What's next: No vote taken. Attorney General's office offered to provide amendment language for broad government exemption. Committee expressed interest in negotiating fixes to address constitutional concerns rather than rejecting bill.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Carolyn Bosn Skeptical: Sen. Wendy DeBoer Unclear: Sen. Tanya Storer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB360: Allow political yard signs in homeowners associations
Introduced by: Sen. Danielle Conrad | Testimony: 2 proponents, 0 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Bill would allow homeowners to display political yard signs despite HOA restrictions, protecting First Amendment rights on private property. LB360 addresses real cases where HOA residents faced litigation for expressing political preferences, including an 85-year-old sued for displaying a small sign in his window.
Why it matters: Political speech receives the highest constitutional protection. Yet HOAs can prohibit residents from displaying yard signs supporting candidates or ballot initiatives, forcing expensive litigation or relocation. Six states have already protected political speech in HOAs. The bill would prevent HOAs from silencing residents while allowing reasonable restrictions on sign size, duration, and location.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Political speech deserves protection on private property just as it does from government. Congress prohibited HOAs from banning satellite dishes based on free speech; political speech deserves same protection. 2015 Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert requires content-based restrictions survive strict scrutiny. Seniors on fixed income should be able to display signs even if they cannot make large donations. - Opponents: Residents agreed to HOA covenants when purchasing property. Process exists to change rules through majority vote. State should not impose rules on all Nebraska HOAs.
By the numbers: 14 proponent comments, 4 opponent comments submitted online. Real case: 85-year-old sued by HOA for window sign; case cost $30,000 in legal fees.
What's next: No vote taken. Senator Conrad indicated willingness to negotiate language on time, place, and manner restrictions. National HOA trade associations submitted model language for potential amendments.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Wendy DeBoer, Sen. Carolyn Bosn Skeptical: Sen. Tanya Storer Opposed: Sen. Rick Holdcroft
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB422: Extend insurance coverage for property transferred by transfer-on-death deed
Introduced by: Sen. Tanya Storer | Testimony: 1 proponents, 0 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Bill would extend insurance coverage for 60 days after property transfers via transfer-on-death deed, closing gap that leaves beneficiaries vulnerable. LB422 addresses real problem highlighted in Eighth Circuit case where property was destroyed shortly after transferor's death, leaving beneficiary without coverage and facing significant loss.
Why it matters: Transfer-on-death deeds are uniform law adopted by 30-35 states, including Nebraska over 10 years ago. But gap in coverage creates vulnerability: beneficiary may not even know they own property and have no opportunity to arrange insurance before damage occurs. Bill provides reasonable grace period for good-faith actors.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Bill addresses real problem from Strope-Robinson case. Beneficiary may not know they own property and cannot arrange coverage. Provides reasonable window of protection using contracted and paid-for coverage until beneficiary can make proper arrangements. - Insurance industry: Neutral position; members look forward to finalizing deal. Negotiating four key points: clear warning on TOD, policy ending at policy period or alternative coverage secured or 30 days, and addressing personal liability concerns.
By the numbers: 30-35 states have adopted transfer-on-death deed uniform law. One proponent comment submitted.
What's next: No vote taken. Amendment forthcoming from negotiations between proponents and insurance industry. Both sides report being very close to agreement on mutually acceptable language addressing coverage window and liability concerns.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Wendy DeBoer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
Session Notes
Committee Chair Bosn opened hearing with procedural instructions for testifiers. Committee members present: Sen. Jared Storm (District 23), Sen. Tanya Storer (District 43), Sen. Rick Holdcroft (District 36), Sen. Wendy DeBoer (District 10). Legal counsel Denny Vaggalis and committee clerk Laurie Vollertsen assisted. Pages Ayden Topping and Alberto Donis present. Hearing conducted February 27, 2025. Multiple bills heard in newly posted order. Written position comments deadline was 8 a.m. day of hearing via Legislature website. Committee used 3-minute light system for all testifiers. No votes were taken on any bills during this hearing.
Generated by NE Wire Service | Source: Nebraska Legislature Transcribers Office This is an AI-generated summary. Verify all claims against the official transcript.