Alternate bill offers three‑year compromise as lawmakers debate shortening limits

Representative Billington presented House Bill 16‑10 as a narrower alternative to a two‑year reduction, proposing a three‑year period for general personal‑injury claims. Sponsors and several witnesses framed HB 16‑10 as a compromise approach during a Commerce Committee session that also included a two‑year proposal (House Bill 16‑45) and a separate two‑year bill by Representative Mackey.

Dana Friess, testifying again for insurers and hospital interests, said she preferred two years but ‘‘support[ed] the concepts’’ in the three‑year bill as an alternative. Other business witnesses (Missouri Chamber, NFIB, Associated Industries, Railroad Association) said they preferred two years but indicated they could accept three if it advanced the policy. Trial attorneys and plaintiff advocates repeated concerns that shorter windows—whether two or three years—can prevent discovery and investigation in complex cases and leave seriously injured claimants without civil recourse.

Committee discussion focused on whether a three‑year term meaningfully addresses insurers’ reserve concerns while preserving plaintiffs’ access to courts, and on whether exceptions should be carved out for sexual‑abuse and other delayed‑disclosure claims. The bill received supportive testimony but no committee vote at the conclusion of the hearing.