Legislation imposing sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits was passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, but prospects in the Senate–which has already passed on the idea once–are far from certain.

Indeed, while insurance industry trade associations voiced strong support for the bill, David Winston, senior vice president for federal affairs at the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, admitted that "it will be much tougher sledding in the Senate, where 60 votes are required for passage," citing the supermajority needed to overcome any potential filibuster by tort reform opponents.

"We will continue to push hard for Senate action on the legislation, but it will take a Herculean effort to get it passed next year," according to Mr. Winston.

He explained that for the remainder of this year, the focus of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be diverted by the vacancy on the Supreme Court. "Clearly, the president's support of the legislation is critical, as it was when the Class Action Reform Act passed earlier this year, and hopefully the president will use his bully pulpit to talk about the importance of this legislation," he added.

The legislation–H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, or LARA–passed the House by a vote of 228-184. However, a similar bill that passed the House last year was never brought up for a Senate vote.

The legislation passed by the House calls for suspending the licenses of lawyers found to have filed three so-called "frivolous lawsuits." Mr. Winston explained that LARA would end the need for insurers "to use their valuable financial and human resources to respond to such lawsuits."

Brendan Reilly, director of federal government affairs at the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, said it was "common sense to hold plaintiffs' lawyers responsible for filing unwarranted lawsuits," noting that the bill is designed "to prevent the practice of litigation tourism."

Ernie Csiszar, president and CEO of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said the bill contains "two common-sense proposals that will benefit all Americans through lower costs." He cited the bill's ban on so-called "venue shopping" to keep lawsuits in courts with actual connections to the cases, and the imposition of sanctions on lawyers who file multiple frivolous cases.

Charles E. Symington Jr., senior vice president of government affairs and federal relations at IIABA, said the bill, if passed, would prevent attorneys from "shopping around for plaintiff-friendly courthouses to bolster their chances of successfully litigating cases of dubious merits."

The bill would reinstate a pre-1993 rule establishing mandatory penalties against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. The penalty would be the suspension for one year of the law license of an attorney found to have filed three baseless lawsuits in any judicial circuit during their careers.

The House by voice vote added an amendment sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which allows sanctions to be imposed for the destruction of certain documents in federal court cases.

The amendment also clarifies the anti-forum-shopping provision by saying that if there is no state court in the county in which the injury occurred, the case may be brought in the nearest county where a general court is located.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal judiciary, opposes the bill. The group said it would return the courts to a system that required penalties for every violation of the rule and "spawned thousands of court decisions and generated widespread criticism." Under current law, it is up to a judge to determine whether to pursue penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America also voiced concerns about the legislation, arguing that, if enacted, the bill would limit where an injured consumer could file a suit and prevent some foreign corporations that sell unsafe products from being held accountable in U.S. courts.

Ken Suggs, president of the ATLA, said the bill would require a suit be brought not where there are contacts–but where the defendant's principal place of business is located, even if that is overseas. In other words, an injured American would have to travel abroad to file a lawsuit.

"It's bad enough that Congress has passed multiple bills this year allowing corporations to escape accountability, but to now protect foreign corporations that injure Americans with defective products shows to what extreme lengths they'll go to eliminate the right of ordinary Americans to seek justice," Mr. Suggs said.

Under current law, an injured family can sue a foreign manufacturer that makes a defective or dangerous product wherever there are sufficient contacts between that company and the jurisdiction–such as where the product is imported into the U.S. or where it is sold, Mr. Suggs said.

Caption (jury art, via Don):

Insurers will push hard for Senate passage of a House bill cracking down on "frivolous" suits, but some say it will take a "Herculean effort" to get more the more than 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.