Texas Bill Limiting Personal Injury Payouts Fails to Pass Legislature

A bill that would have limited payouts for personal injury and wrongful death claims has died in the Texas legislature. Initially introduced in 2025, SB 30 was intended to reduce the amount of money plaintiffs could receive after filing suit for personal injuries such as car accidents, work-related accidents, and premises liability claims. Proponents of SB 30 claimed the bill would prevent runaway lawsuits, packaging it as a major step forward for tort reform. However, opponents viewed SB 30 as pro-insurance legislation that would sacrifice the rights of the injured in favor of limited payouts from major insurance corporations.

The bill proposed monetary caps on what injured parties could receive and would have limited the ability of injured parties to present evidence referring to emotional anguish, damage to reputation, pain and suffering, and other non-economic damages. During the Senate Committee's hearing, survivors of injuries and sexual assaults stepped forward to explain why these non-economic damages matter. While supporters argued that the bill would cut down on nuclear verdicts, data shows that only 4.6% of all verdicts in Texas between 2021 and 2025 exceeded $10 million. Meanwhile, SB 30 would have imposed limits on all personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits, not just the highest-profile cases.

Being able to pursue legal damages against a negligent party remains a cornerstone of the Texas legal system. Now that SB 30 has failed to pass, those in need can continue to seek damages and financial compensation that actually matches their injuries both economic and non-economic. For the time being, the rights of the injured have been placed ahead of the rights of insurance companies. The failure of this legislation matters because it maintains a critical legal recourse for individuals harmed by negligence, ensuring that compensation can reflect the full scope of their suffering, not just quantifiable financial losses. This outcome underscores the importance of non-economic damages in providing meaningful justice and deterring future misconduct, preserving a system where the severity of the injury, rather than arbitrary caps, determines the remedy.