Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires a specific jury instruction in a federal civil action for damages based on negligence arising from the transmission of COVID-19. Specifically, a court must instruct the jury that negligence may not be found solely on the basis of holding oneself open for business.
Sponsors: Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by civil negligence lawsuits related to COVID-19
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill applies to federal civil actions for damages related to COVID-19 transmission, impacting businesses that remained open during the pandemic.
- Businesses that have been sued or are at risk of being sued for being open during COVID-19 are most directly affected.
- Employees of these businesses might also be indirectly impacted, as the legal protections could influence business decisions that affect their employment conditions.
- Customers who could potentially sue businesses for COVID-19 transmission impacts are indirectly affected as the liability standards are clarified.
Reasoning
- The policy 'Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2022' mostly benefits businesses that remained open during the pandemic and could face litigation related to COVID-19 transmission. The budget allows covering many businesses, but given the large size of potentially affected populations—workers and customers of such businesses—its effect might be localised against major cities or industries which had extensive exposure to pandemic circumstances.
- The wellbeing impact on businesses would likely be high if they are frequent targets for lawsuits due to the relief from financial and legal burdens. For employees and customers, the impact is more indirect and milder in nature, concerning job stability and health safety standards.
- We focus on businesses in high-risk states and sectors such as hospitality, retail, and healthcare, as they may experience a higher incidence of COVID-19 cases and legal actions.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides necessary relief for small businesses who faced unfair legal challenges.
- It allows me to focus more on growing my business without the fear of litigation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retail Employee (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure in my job now because my employer is not bogged down by legal expenses.
- However, I still worry about health safety at my workplace.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill limits the number of frivolous claims I see, allowing legitimate cases to proceed without backlog issues.
- It could reduce some business for lawyers in this field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Customer (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to offer more protection to businesses at the cost of individual legal rights.
- It may dissuade genuine claims.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Corporate Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our risk management and insurance discussions have simplified post-policy since we're more protected.
- It doesn't change day-to-day operations much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Restaurant Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The relief is immense; it was difficult handling legal threats during tough economic times.
- I can now focus more on our recovery and expansion plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Health Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this policy doesn't directly apply to hospital healthcare, it may influence general public expectations of responsibility.
- Concerns around work-related COVID issues remain unchanged.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I largely support the policy as it allows innovation without fear of legal repercussions from COVID.
- It gives us breathing room to focus on development rather than litigation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Insurance Agent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes risk assessment more predictable and could improve client satisfaction.
- However, it might lower demand for extensive liability coverage services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public Health Official (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy shifts public accountability somewhat, could interfere with local directives.
- It's important that businesses still adhere to public health guidelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential reduction in frivolous lawsuits might encourage businesses to operate with greater certainty.
- Legal and court systems may need minor adjustments to accommodate the new jury instructions, leading to potential initial costs.
- Businesses may experience cost savings from reduced legal fees associated with negligence claims.