Legislation Quick Search
12/09/2023 07:26 PM
Pennsylvania State Senate
Home / Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda

Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda

Subscribe to PaLegis Notifications

Subscribe to receive notifications of new Co-Sponsorship Memos circulated

By Member | By Date | Keyword Search

Senate of Pennsylvania
Session of 2021 - 2022 Regular Session


Posted: December 2, 2020 09:48 AM
From: Senator Lisa Baker and Sen. Patrick J. Stefano, Sen. Michele Brooks, Sen. Kristin Phillips-Hill
To: All Senate members
Subject: Pandemic Liability Protections
Please join us in cosponsoring legislation protecting our businesses, schools, universities, manufacturers, nonprofits, and others who have been fighting to protect us all during the pandemic.
Specifically, our bill provides for limited, temporary and targeted COVID-19-related liability for those who have attempted to comply with confusing and ever changing state and federal COVID guidelines including (i) schools and universities, (ii) manufacturers and others who provide Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), (iii) those who provide certain critical medical services, and (iv) those who have been permitted to open up their businesses or have provided our citizens critical governmental services. 

Due to the consequential novel aspects of the coronavirus pandemic, Pennsylvania has been forced into a serious trial-and-error process for containing the spread of the contagion, establishing protocols of treatment by medical practitioners, and setting safety standards for schools, universities and for other aspects of our daily life.  Manufacturers have been forced to increase production, to retool, and others have donated materials or sold them at cost to help battle the pandemic.

With decisive action required before facts are established and research conducted, this process is outside normal assumptions about precautions, risks, responsibility, and liability. 

The state-ordered shutdowns have inflicted substantial economic losses on various institutions, enterprises, and families.  No matter how someone perceives the scope of these restrictions or the proper exercise of authority, the overall economic impact is the same.  We are now trying to figure out how to safely reopen in the face of concerns over a fresh rise in cases.  Even with the hope of a vaccine, businesses and other entities continue to operate in a state of uncertainty.

This presents another set of difficulties.  No matter how reasonable and effective recommended safety standards are, they will be in various ways insufficient, and in every way not entirely enforceable.  Compound this with emphatic political assertions conflicting with health care advisories, and it is impossible to ensure good judgment, willing compliance, and fastidious sanitation by everyone.

While a lot has been learned, the current state of testing and understanding makes it unlikely to determine how and where an individual contracts the disease. 

It is hard to imagine an environment more target rich for litigation.  It is also hard to have circumstances less suited to the customary cause-and-effect nature of litigation.  Early indications are that lawsuits will come from every direction, those who charge that not enough precautions were adopted and those who charge that even small restrictions trampled fundamental rights.

It may be that public entities have protection under sovereign immunity laws.  That means private entities already straining under their economic losses and attempting to find a way forward with a diminished customer base will be the targets of a new round of litigation, where the scope of claims, judgments, and insurance coverage are unknowns.  So how do we address problems at care facilities where a prevalent cause is what state government did or failed to do?  Or a problem at a business that was open as essential or a school for which the guidelines for operation were slow in materializing?

Meanwhile, at times during this pandemic, our courts have been trying to figure out how to safely conduct jury trials.  Both criminal and civil cases have been backlogged.  Resolving this is going to be slow going.  Courts will be ill-equipped to deal with a wave of cases that may not involve clear concerns of misconduct.

It is also unclear how we can make reasonable judgments about fairness and equity during a monumental crisis that is inherently arbitrary and capricious in its effects and outcomes.  After all, we are all in this together.

The collective belief here and elsewhere is that it makes sense to protect businesses and others who have been trying to protect the public. This legislation would protect against litigation based on claims of ordinary and gross negligence for businesses that donated supplies or provided them at cost while protecting against claims of gross negligence for all other covered entities.  For higher levels of alleged misconduct, such as intentional wrongdoing, the avenue to potential legal remedy remains open.

This bill is similar to SB 1239 from last session, which was amended into HB 1737.  Unfortunately, after passing both the House and the Senate, the governor elected to veto, despite the fact that these provisions were supported by over 70 Pennsylvania organizations and associations including the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Alliance of YMCAs, the United Way of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania School Board Association, the Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, and the Pennsylvania Head Start Association.

Introduced as SB273