Fairer CT civil justice system can drop costs, raise confidence

Connecticut families are stretched thin. Government-driven inflation has raged for four years, everything costs more, insurance premiums keep climbing, and small employers are struggling with rising expenses they can't control. One hidden cost comes from how our civil justice system handles lawsuits.

Our courts must always remain open to people who have been genuinely harmed -- that's non-negotiable. But when parts of the system reward volume over merit or secrecy over transparency, everyone pays the price through higher costs and fewer opportunities. The good news is we can fix this without closing courthouse doors to anyone who truly deserves their day in court.

Let's start with a basic fact: Connecticut doesn't cap compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases. When negligence is proven, juries can -- and should -- fully compensate patients for their losses and suffering. That reflects our belief in individualized justice. At the same time, we already have safeguards such as the "certificate of good faith" and the required opinion letter from a similar medical provider to weed out weak claims. Those are smart protections.

The next step is modernizing the system so legitimate claims move forward while discouraging tactics that drive up costs for everyone else. One area that needs attention is transparency in third-party litigation funding. Increasingly, outside investors are financing lawsuits in exchange for a share of settlements. Connecticut recently updated its Small Loan Act to cover some of these products under consumer credit rules -- a good move -- but it doesn't answer a key question: who's really calling the shots?

These funding agreements should be disclosed to the court, under reasonable protections. Judges already require disclosure when relationships could affect a case or settlement -- this fits squarely within that principle.

We also need to strengthen attorney advertising rules. Connecticut bans false or misleading legal ads, and many must be filed with the Statewide Grievance Committee. Still, we've all seen mass-market ads that blur the line between persuasion and misinformation -- promising easy money or implying liability without context. Disclaimers should be clear, and we should consider additional disclosures for national "mass tort" campaigns that may never touch a Connecticut courtroom. This isn't about silencing lawyers -- it's about protecting consumers and ensuring people understand what they're signing up for.

Procedurally, we can improve fairness and predictability by tightening venue rules and refining our offer-of-compromise statute. Venue should reflect where cases belong -- where the facts and witnesses are -- not where one side thinks they might get a better outcome. And while offers of compromise can encourage timely settlements, they sometimes create pressure to settle regardless of merit. Adjusting timelines or interest rates could help reward reasonableness over brinkmanship.

Why does this matter? Because these costs ripple through our economy. Take auto insurance: Connecticut drivers now pay average full-coverage premiums higher than the national average. Insurers cite higher repair costs, more severe claims, and litigation expenses among the reasons. The same goes for health care, where many residents face double-digit premium hikes next year. Litigation isn't the only factor, but it's one where smart, state-level reforms can make a difference.

Ensuring that only well-founded claims proceed, that expert opinions are sound, and that settlements aren't distorted by undisclosed funders helps bring long-term stability.

Some critics say reform tilts the playing field against injured people. That's not what this is about. I will oppose any measure that limits a jury's ability to make someone whole for proven harm. But we should make sure the system's incentives align with fairness, not gamesmanship.

Require disclosure of litigation funders. Enforce honest advertising. Keep venue choices fair. Adjust settlement rules so both sides are motivated by fairness, not fear. That's common sense.

Connecticut has a long tradition of pragmatic reform -- fixing systems without abandoning our core values. A transparent, even-handed civil justice system deters negligence, protects those who are truly injured, and reduces the hidden costs shouldered by families and small businesses alike.

If we focus on reforms that reward honesty and discourage gamesmanship, we'll lower costs where it matters most -- and rebuild public confidence in the rule of law. That's a win for patients, a win for small businesses, and a win for every Connecticut family that deserves both a fair shake in court and a fair price at the checkout counter.

State Rep. David Rutigliano, R-Trumbull, is serving his seventh term in the Connecticut General Assembly representing the 123rd District. He is a small business owner, Deputy House Republican Leader and the ranking member of the General Law Committee. Dave also serves on the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee and the Judiciary Committee.