Tort Reform: Fixing The Legal System (June 2025)

What Is Tort Reform?

There is no easy way to resolve this conflict. On the one hand, tort laws have continuously grown and developed for centuries, and tort reform may represent the latest evolution.

On the other hand, tort laws are designed specifically to compensate injured victims and deter negligent or wrongful conduct. If the pendulum swings too far, both of these goals are lost.

A common tort reform definition is a change in laws and court rules to reduce the number of personal injury lawsuits as well as the costs of defending them. While most of these “reforms” benefit those accused of injuring others, victims may also benefit from faster settlements and more certainty in the amount they recover.

Who Supports Tort Reform and Why?

Tort reform almost always limits the rights and compensation of victims. As a result, the push to reform tort laws comes primarily from defendants facing tort lawsuits.

For example, doctors and malpractice insurers generally aim to limit their exposure in any malpractice lawsuit they face. Similarly, landlords, hotel operators, and property developers tend to favor limits on premises liability.

When Did Tort Reform Start?

Courts have always wrestled with balancing fairness to accused tortfeasors with adequate compensation for victims. For example, judges created the doctrine of proximate cause to limit negligence claims to actions that could foreseeably injure the victim.

However, those judges did not move fast enough for legislators at the time. Skyrocketing insurance premiums and clogged court dockets in the 1970s led to Massachusetts adopting the nation’s first no-fault insurance law.

The move to reform the tort system accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s as news reports about personal injury settlements and awards shocked the public.

Tort Reform Examples

Tort reformers have several tools for implementing their goals. Some examples that have been tested include the following:

No-Fault Auto Insurance

Most states have a tort-based auto insurance system. This is the system you probably think of when you get into a car accident. Anyone injured in a traffic crash pursues an injury claim against the at-fault driver. The at-fault driver and their liability insurer settle the accident claim or litigate against the victim.

A small number of states use a no-fault insurance system. Under this system, auto owners buy personal injury protection (PIP) coverage with their auto insurance.

After a crash, injured people might need to first seek injury compensation from their insurer. The insurer pays certain expenses regardless of fault. In other words, these benefits are available to the driver who caused the crash and innocent victims.

No-fault insurance was one of the earliest and most successful attempts at tort reform. States that implement this system believe it provides the following benefits:

• Fewer car accident lawsuits
• Faster injury settlements for minor injuries
• Lower car insurance costs for good drivers

On the other hand, accident victims lose two rights. First, they cannot file a lawsuit unless they meet the state’s qualifications. In many states, this means they must have suffered a “serious injury.”

Second, they cannot get pain and suffering settlements through their PIP coverage. They can only seek compensation for these losses if they meet the state’s qualifications to file a lawsuit.

Another drawback is that some states have seen an increase in fraudulent claims. Since claimants do not need to prove who caused the crash, they can stage crashes to receive medical and disability benefits.

Shortened Statutes of Limitations

Another type of reform measure shortens the time to file lawsuits. This option requires injured people to start injury claims as quickly as possible. If someone fails to meet the deadline without a legally recognized excuse, the court must dismiss their lawsuit without ever looking at its merits.

Shortened statutes of limitations have one benefit to victims. Shorter filing deadlines mean fresher evidence. Memories have not faded, and documents and objects are better preserved.

However, this approach imposes enormous burdens on victims. Most people do not know the statute of limitations in their states. They can get caught by surprise when they find out they waited too long to file. Additionally, many accident victims must focus on their health before thinking about insurance claims and lawsuits.

Caps on Medical Malpractice Damages

One reform measure focuses specifically on high medical malpractice payouts. Doctors face high insurance rates to practice in many cities. As a result, doctors have relocated from these cities to places where they can afford their insurance. By capping damages, malpractice insurers can reduce premiums because their financial exposure drops.

However, this approach has a few drawbacks. First, even after states cap damages, there is no guarantee that malpractice insurers will drop premiums. Even if they lower premiums, doctors will not necessarily remain in the state for a small price reduction.

Second, some patients need significant compensation for their injuries. Arbitrarily capping damages is unfair to people who have suffered permanent brain damage, paralysis, or other catastrophic injuries.

How Tort Reform Impacts Plaintiffs

Tort reform almost always limits a plaintiff’s options for seeking injury compensation, and the results are predictable. Plaintiffs may miss the window for filing a lawsuit, leading to a complete loss of rights. Alternatively, they may meet their deadline but receive less than full and fair compensation for their injuries.

With that in mind, victims should strongly consider consulting a personal injury attorney promptly after suffering harm.

How Tort Reform Affects Medical Malpractice Cases

Tort reform efforts have been especially aggressive in medical malpractice cases. Doctors, hospitals and malpractice insurers blame the high cost of healthcare on the size of malpractice payouts. They argue that healthcare providers may be forced to leave their practices without significant reforms.

As a result, some states have attempted to cap damages. Moreover, many states now require a professional review of medical malpractice cases before filing. This review is meant to eliminate frivolous filings. Together, these reforms limit injured patients seeking compensation in certain states.

Arguments for and Against Tort Reform

On the one hand, tort reform maintains fairness for those accused of injuring others. When combined with rigorous regulation, these reforms can lower insurance premiums and reduce the fear of lawsuits felt by businesses.

On the other hand, tort reform often comes at the cost of injured victims. The loss of rights can cause significant hardships in their lives as they struggle to pay for medical care and cover their lost earnings.

Learn More About Torts From ConsumerShield

States vary in their attempts to reform their tort systems. This has produced a confusing patchwork of insurance systems, damages caps, and statutes of limitations. ConsumerShield is dedicated to educating people about the law and connecting them with lawyers who can help them. Contact us for a free case review.