2007 U. S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
STATE LIABILITY SYSTEMS
RANKING STUDY
Final
April 16, 2007
Conducted for:
U. S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
Field Dates:
December 27, 2006 – March 2, 2007
Project Managers:
Humphrey Taylor, Chairman, The Harris Poll
David Krane, Vice President
Chasson Gracie, Research Associate
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ...................................................... 6
METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... ............................. 6
NOTES ON READING TABLES......................................................................................................................... ............................... 7
PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................... . 8
PUBLIC RELEASE OF SURVEY FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... ................ 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ................................... 9
DETAILED TABLES OF RESULTS........................................................................................................................ ................ 12
STATE RANKINGS BY KEY ELEMENTS....................................................................................................................... ................ 24
INDIVIDUAL STATE RANKINGS....................................................................................................................... ............................ 37
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................... ....................... 88
AN OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... .................................................... 89
SAMPLE DESIGN......................................................................................................................... ................................................ 89
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWING PROCEDURES..................................................................................................................... ............. 89
SIGNIFICANCE TESTING........................................................................................................................ ...................................... 90
APPENDIX B: PAST STATE RANKINGS....................................................................................................................... ...... 93
APPENDIX C: ALERT LETTERS........................................................................................................................ .................. 97
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................................................. ...................... 100
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
3
INDEX OF TABLES
TABLE 1: OVERALL RATING OF STATE COURT LIABILITY SYSTEMS IN AMERICA......................................... 13
TABLE 2: IMPACT OF LITIGATION ENVIRONMENT ON IMPORTANT BUSINESS DECISIONS......................... 14
TABLE 3A: OVERALL RANKING OF STATE LIABILITY SYSTEMS............................................................................ 15
TABLE 3B: MAP OF OVERALL RANKING OF STATE LIABILITY SYSTEMS........................................................... 16
TABLE 4: MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR STATE POLICYMAKERS WHO CARE ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO FOCUS ON TO IMPROVE LITIGATION ENVIRONMENT......................................................... 17
TABLE 5: CITIES OR COUNTIES WITH LEAST FAIR AND REASONABLE LITIGATION ENVIRONMENTS.... 18
TABLE 6: WORST SPECIFIC CITY OR COUNTY COURTS BY STATE........................................................................ 19
TABLE 7: TOP ISSUES MENTIONED AS CREATING THE LEAST FAIR AND REASONABLE LITIGATION ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................................................... .................................................... 20
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF TOP/ BOTTOM 5 STATES BY KEY ELEMENTS.................................................................. 21
TABLE 9: STATE RANKINGS FOR OVERALL TREAMENT OF TORT AND CONTRACT LITIGATION.............. 25
TABLE 10: STATE RANKINGS FOR HAVING AND ENFORCING MEANINGFUL VENUE REQUIREMENTS .... 26
TABLE 11: TREATMENT OF CLASS ACTION SUITS AND MASS CONSOLIDATION SUITS.................................. 27
TABLE 12: PUNITIVE DAMAGES........................................................................................................................ ................. 28
TABLE 13: TIMELINESS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ DISMISSAL.............................................................................. 29
TABLE 14: DISCOVERY...................................................................................................................... .................................... 30
TABLE 15: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EVIDENCE................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 16: NON- ECONOMIC DAMAGES........................................................................................................................ ... 32
TABLE 17: JUDGES' IMPARTIALITY................................................................................................................... .............. 33
TABLE 18: JUDGES' COMPETENCE..................................................................................................................... .............. 34
TABLE 19: JURIES’ PREDICTABILITY................................................................................................................. ............. 35
TABLE 20: JURIES’ FAIRNESS....................................................................................................................... ...................... 36
TABLE 21: ALABAMA........................................................................................................................ ..................................... 38
TABLE 22: ALASKA......................................................................................................................... ........................................ 39
TABLE 23: ARIZONA........................................................................................................................ ....................................... 40
TABLE 24: ARKANSAS....................................................................................................................... ..................................... 41
TABLE 25: CALIFORNIA..................................................................................................................... ................................... 42
TABLE 26: COLORADO....................................................................................................................... ................................... 43 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
4
TABLE 27: CONNECTICUT.................................................................................................................... ................................ 44
TABLE 28: DELAWARE....................................................................................................................... ................................... 45
TABLE 29: FLORIDA........................................................................................................................ ....................................... 46
TABLE 30: GEORGIA........................................................................................................................ ...................................... 47
TABLE 31: HAWAII......................................................................................................................... ........................................ 48
TABLE 32: IDAHO.......................................................................................................................... .......................................... 49
TABLE 33: ILLINOIS....................................................................................................................... ........................................ 50
TABLE 34: INDIANA........................................................................................................................ ........................................ 51
TABLE 35: IOWA........................................................................................................................... ........................................... 52
TABLE 36: KANSAS......................................................................................................................... ........................................ 53
TABLE 37: KENTUCKY....................................................................................................................... ................................... 54
TABLE 38: LOUISIANA...................................................................................................................... ..................................... 55
TABLE 39: MAINE.......................................................................................................................... .......................................... 56
TABLE 40: MARYLAND....................................................................................................................... ................................... 57
TABLE 41: MASSACHUSETTS.................................................................................................................. ............................ 58
TABLE 42: MICHIGAN....................................................................................................................... ..................................... 59
TABLE 43: MINNESOTA...................................................................................................................... ................................... 60
TABLE 44: MISSISSIPPI.................................................................................................................... ...................................... 61
TABLE 45: MISSOURI....................................................................................................................... ...................................... 62
TABLE 46: MONTANA........................................................................................................................ .................................... 63
TABLE 47: NEBRASKA....................................................................................................................... .................................... 64
TABLE 48: NEVADA......................................................................................................................... ....................................... 65
TABLE 49: NEW HAMPSHIRE...................................................................................................................... ........................ 66
TABLE 50: NEW JERSEY......................................................................................................................... ............................... 67
TABLE 51: NEW MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ............................. 68
TABLE 52: NEW YORK........................................................................................................................... ................................ 69
TABLE 53: NORTH CAROLINA....................................................................................................................... ..................... 70
TABLE 54: NORTH DAKOTA......................................................................................................................... ....................... 71
TABLE 55: OHIO........................................................................................................................... ............................................ 72 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
5
TABLE 56: OKLAHOMA....................................................................................................................... .................................. 73
TABLE 57: OREGON......................................................................................................................... ....................................... 74
TABLE 58: PENNSYLVANIA................................................................................................................... ............................... 75
TABLE 59: RHODE ISLAND......................................................................................................................... .......................... 76
TABLE 60: SOUTH CAROLINA....................................................................................................................... ...................... 77
TABLE 61: SOUTH DAKOTA......................................................................................................................... ........................ 78
TABLE 62: TENNESSEE...................................................................................................................... .................................... 79
TABLE 63: TEXAS.......................................................................................................................... .......................................... 80
TABLE 64: UTAH........................................................................................................................... ........................................... 81
TABLE 65: VERMONT........................................................................................................................ ..................................... 82
TABLE 66: VIRGINIA....................................................................................................................... ....................................... 83
TABLE 67 WASHINGTON..................................................................................................................... .................................. 84
TABLE 68 WEST VIRGINIA....................................................................................................................... ............................. 85
TABLE 69 WISCONSIN...................................................................................................................... ....................................... 86
TABLE 70 WYOMING........................................................................................................................ ....................................... 87
TABLE A- 1: RECOMMENDED ALLOWANCE FOR SAMPLING ERROR OF PROPORTIONS ( PLUS OR MINUS) ............................................................................................................................... ........................................................................ 91
TABLE A- 2: SAMPLING ERROR OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROPORTIONS....................................................... 92
TABLE B- 1: OVERALL RANKING OF STATE LIABILITY SYSTEMS........................................................................... 94
TABLE B- 2: PRIOR STATE RANKINGS USING PAST YEARS’ RANKING SYSTEM................................................. 96 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
6
Introduction
The 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study was conducted for the U. S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform among a national sample of in- house general counsel or other senior corporate litigators at public corporations. This study was conducted between December 2006 and March 2007. The previous research was conducted during similar timeframes in the years 2002- 2006. The basic structure and analysis remains the same as 2006.
The goal was to explore how reasonable, fair and balanced the tort liability system is perceived to be by U. S. business. Broadly, the survey focused on perceptions of state liability systems in the following areas:
•
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
•
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
•
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
•
Punitive Damages
•
Timeliness of Summary Judgment/ Dismissal
•
Discovery
•
Scientific and Technical Evidence
•
Non- economic Damages
•
Judges’ Impartiality and Competence
•
Juries' Predictability and Fairness
METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
All interviews for The 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study were conducted by telephone among a nationally representative sample of senior attorneys, in- house general counsel, senior litigators and senior attorneys who are knowledgeable about litigation matters at companies with annual revenues of at least $ 100 million. Interviews averaging 22 minutes in length were conducted with a total of 1,599 respondents and took place between December 27, 2006 and March 2, 2007. The sample was segmented into two main groups. Of the 1,599 respondents, 5% were from insurance companies, with the remaining 95% of interviews being conducted among public corporations from other industries.
A detailed survey methodology including a description of the sampling and survey administration procedures as well as further respondent profile information is contained in Appendix A. The past years’ rankings can be found in Appendix B and the complete questionnaire is found in Appendix D.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
7
NOTES ON READING TABLES
The base (“ N”) on each question is the total number of respondents answering that question. An asterisk (*) on a table signifies a value of less than one- half percent ( 0.5%). A dash represents a value of zero. Percentages may not always add up to 100% because of computer rounding or the acceptance of multiple answers from respondents answering that question. Note that in some cases results may be based on small sample sizes. Caution should be used in drawing any conclusion from results based on these small samples.
States were given a grade (“ A”, “ B”, “ C”, “ D”, “ F”) by respondents for each of the key elements of their liability systems. Tables show the ratings of the states by these grades, the percentage of respondents giving each grade, and the mean grade for each element. The mean grade was calculated by converting the letter grade using a 5.0 scale where “ A” = 5.0, “ B” = 4.0, “ C” = 3.0, “ D” = 2.0, “ F” = 1.0. Therefore, the mean score displayed can also be interpreted as a letter grade. For example, a mean score of 2.8 could be seen as roughly a “ C-” grade. Ties between states with matching mean scores were ranked by looking at the percentage of “ A” grades, the base sizes and any rounding that may have taken place.
For the “ Ranking on Key Elements” tables, states were ranked by their mean grades on that element.
The “ Overall Ranking of State Liability Systems” table was calculated by creating an index using the scores given on each of the key elements. All of the key element items were highly correlated with one another, and with overall performance. The differences in the relationship between each item and overall performance were trivial, so it was determined that each item should contribute equally to the index score. The index was created from the mean across the 12 items, which was rescaled from 0 to 100 prior to averaging them together.
Punitive Damages:
This year the scores for the six states that have no punitive damages ( Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Washington) were calculated in two different ways. One way ( used in our main tables and in all previous years) is to base the score on all the other criteria excluding punitive damages. The second way involved assigning to each of these six states the highest score achieved from other states on punitive damages ( i. e., Delaware’s). While this improves their overall raw score, it does not make a difference in their overall ranking.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
8
PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Harris team responsible for the design and analysis of The State Liability Systems Ranking Study included Humphrey Taylor, Chairman, The Harris Poll, Vice President David Krane and Research Associate Chasson Gracie. We would like to acknowledge Linda Kelly from the U. S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and Judyth Pendell of Pendell Consulting, LLC, for their invaluable contributions to the design, content, focus and analysis of the project. Harris Interactive is responsible for the final determination of topics, question wording, collection of the data, statistical analysis and interpretation in the report.
PUBLIC RELEASE OF SURVEY FINDINGS
All Harris surveys are designed to comply with the code and standards of the Council of American Survey Research Organizations ( CASRO) and the code of the National Council of Public Polls ( NCPP). Should data from the survey be released to the public, any release must stipulate that the complete report is also available.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study was conducted for the U. S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform among a national sample of in- house general counsel or other senior corporate litigators to explore how reasonable and balanced the tort liability system is perceived to be by U. S. business. The 2007 ranking builds on previous years’ work1 where each year all 50 states are ranked by those familiar with the litigation environment in that state. Prior to these rankings, information regarding the attitudes of the business world towards the legal systems in each of the states had been largely anecdotal. The State Liability Systems Ranking Study aims to quantify how corporate attorneys view the state systems. While we can look to the past 5 years’ rankings to see general movement, a direct trend can only be made from the previous year ( 2006). The reason for this is that in 2006 we changed the survey design slightly, adding two elements – having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements and non- economic damages.
There has been an improvement in how the senior attorneys surveyed view the state court liability system, with a net increase of 25 percentage points between 2003 and 2007 in those indicating the system is excellent or pretty good. Further, a majority ( 57%) report that the litigation environment in a state is likely to impact important business decisions at their company, such as where to locate or do business. [ See Tables 1 and 2]
Respondents were first screened for their familiarity with states, and those who were very or somewhat familiar with the litigation environment in a given state were then asked to evaluate that state. It is important to remember that courts and localities within a state may vary a great deal in fairness and efficiency. However, respondents had to evaluate the state as a whole. To explore the detailed nuances within each state would have required extensive questioning for each state and was beyond the scope and purpose of this study. However, other studies have demonstrated this variability within a state. For example, several studies have documented very high litigation activity in certain county courts such as Madison County, Illinois and Jefferson County, Texas, revealing that these counties have “ magnet courts” that are extremely hospitable to plaintiffs. Thus, it is possible that some states received low grades due to the negative reputation of one or two of their counties or jurisdictions.
Overall Rankings of States
Respondents were asked to give states a grade (“ A”, “ B”, “ C”, “ D” or “ F”) in each of the following areas: having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements, overall treatment of tort and contract litigation, treatment of class action suits and mass consolidation suits, punitive damages, timeliness of summary judgment or dismissal, discovery, scientific and technical evidence, non- economic damages, judges’ impartiality and competence, and
1 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
10
juries' predictability and fairness. These grades were combined to create an overall ranking of state liability systems. 2
Further, as the following table highlights, in the past five years there has been a significant increase in the overall average scores.
Year
Average Overall Score among 50 States
2007
61.7
2006
59.5
2005
57.5
2004
57.8
2003
55.8
While there continues to be a wide disparity between the states in terms of those that are perceived to be the best and the worst, nonetheless the overall trend is improving.
According to the general counsel and senior litigators, the states doing the best and worst job of “ creating a fair and reasonable litigation environment” are [ See Table 3]
Top 5
Bottom 5
Delaware (# 1)
West Virginia (# 50)
Minnesota (# 2)
Mississippi (# 49)
Nebraska (# 3)
Louisiana (# 48)
Iowa (# 4)
Alabama (# 47)
Maine (# 5)
Illinois (# 46)
2 The “ Overall Ranking of State Liability Systems” table was calculated by creating an index using the scores given on each of the key elements. All of the key element items were highly correlated with one another and with overall performance. The differences in the relationship between each item and overall performance were trivial, so it was determined that each item should contribute equally to the index score. The index was created from the mean across the 12 items, which was rescaled from 0 to 100 prior to averaging them together.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
11
Most Important Issues to Focus on to Improve Litigation Environment
The study also asked respondents to name the most important issue that state policymakers who care about economic development should focus on to improve the litigation environment in their state. Reform of punitive damages was cited by 12% of our respondents as the most important issue. Other top issues named were timeliness of decisions ( 9%), tort reform issues in general ( 8%), eliminate unnecessary lawsuits ( 7%), caps/ limits on jury awards ( 6%) and caps/ limits on non- economic damages ( 5%). [ See Table 4]
Worst Local Jurisdictions
In order to understand if there are any cities or counties which might impact a state’s ranking, respondents were asked which five cities or counties have the least fair and reasonable litigation environments. The worst jurisdiction was Los Angeles, California ( mentioned by 13% of the respondents), followed by Chicago/ Cook County, Illinois ( 11%). [ See Table 5]
In order to understand why respondents feel negatively about particular jurisdictions, a follow- up question was asked to those who cited a jurisdiction. The top reason given as to why a city or county has the least fair and reasonable litigation environment is corrupt/ unfair system, given by 76% of respondents, and is the number one reason by a large margin. The next tier is led by unfair jury/ judges, mentioned by 27% of respondents, followed by biased judgment ( 24%), have read/ seen a case study ( 12%) and personal experience ( 11%). [ See Table 7]
Conclusion
In conclusion, one important point to note is that these rankings and results are based on the perceptions of these senior corporate attorneys. It is also important to realize that the perceptions may be based on certain cities or counties within the state. But, as we have noted in the past, perception does become linked with reality. If the states can change the way litigators and others perceive their liability systems, we may find considerable movement in their rankings in the future. Once these perceptions change, the overall business environment may be deemed more hospitable as well.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
12
DETAILED TABLES OF RESULTS US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
Table 1
Overall Rating of State Court Liability Systems in America
Excellent/ Pretty Good ( Net)
2007 56% 2006 41%
2005 37%
2004 39%
2003 31%
Only Fair/ Poor ( Net)
2007 41%
2006 55%
2005 60%
2004 56%
2003 65%
2% 3% 3% 5% 2% 4% 4% 7% 49% 30% 19% 47% 13% 44% 36% 14% 46% 35% 10% 45% 39% 1% 3% 6% 35% ExcellentPretty GoodOnly FairPoorNot Sure/ Declineto answer20032004200520062007
Base: General Counsel/ Senior Litigators ( N= 1599)
Q215: Overall, how would you describe the fairness and reasonableness of state court liability systems in America – excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?
13
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
Table 2
Impact of Litigation Environment on Important Business Decisions
Such as Where to Locate or do Business
24% 33% 16% 24% 3% Very likelySomewhat likelySomewhatunlikelyVery unlikelyNot sure/ declineto answerYes, could likely affect important business decision such as where to locate or do businessNo, is unlikely to affect important business decision 40 %
Base: General Counsel/ Senior Litigators ( N= 1599)
Q441: How likely would you say it is that the litigation environment in a state could affect an important business decision at your company such as where to locate or do business? Would you say very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely? 14
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
15
Table 3A
Overall Ranking of State Liability Systems
2007
STATE
RANK
SCORE
N
Delaware
1
75.6
109
Minnesota
2
70.6
86
Nebraska
3
70
63
Iowa
4
68.9
95
Maine
5
68.9
48
New Hampshire
6
68.2
59
Tennessee
7
68.2
101
Indiana
8
68.2
88
Utah
9
67.7
87
Wisconsin
10
67.5
102
South Dakota
11
67
51
Virginia
12
66.9
101
Kansas
13
66.7
96
Connecticut
14
66.3
62
Arizona
15
66.3
94
North Carolina
16
65.9
87
Oregon
17
65.7
67
Massachusetts
18
65.7
123
New York
19
65.6
197
North Dakota
20
65.4
48
Colorado
21
65.1
90
Wyoming
22
64.7
49
Michigan
23
64.2
110
Ohio
24
63.9
123
Washington
25
63.7
116
New Jersey
26
63.4
137
Vermont
27
62.5
46
Nevada
28
62
70
Maryland
29
61.7
74
Idaho
30
61.3
52
Georgia
31
61.2
106
Pennsylvania
32
60.8
146
Kentucky
33
60.8
90
Missouri
34
60
99
Rhode Island
35
58.5
68
Florida
36
58.2
186
South Carolina
37
58.1
81
Oklahoma
38
57.7
82
New Mexico
39
57.5
59
Montana
40
57.2
58
Arkansas
41
56.5
76
Hawaii
42
56.3
54
Alaska
43
56
48
Texas
44
54.3
210
California
45
53.5
286
Illinois
46
50.8
180
Alabama
47
50.7
107
Louisiana
48
47.3
142
Mississippi
49
46.1
156
West Virginia
50
38
134
Base: General Counsel/ Senior Litigators ( N= 1599)
* Note: Scores displayed in this table have been rounded to one decimal point. However, when developing the ranking, scores were evaluated based on two decimal points. The column labeled “ N” represents the number of evaluations for a given state.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
Table 3B
Map of Overall Ranking of State Liability Systems3
Best to Worst Legal Systems in America
2007 ILR/ Harris Interactive Ranking of State Liability Systems
Best Moderate* Worst
1. Delaware 16. North Carolina 26. New Jersey 35. Rhode Island
2. Minnesota 17. Oregon 27. Vermont 36. Florida
3. Nebraska 18. Massachusetts 28. Nevada 37. South Carolina
4. Iowa 19. New York 29. Maryland 38. Oklahoma
5. Maine 20. North Dakota 30. Idaho 39. New Mexico
6. New Hampshire 21. Colorado 31. Georgia 40. Montana
7. Tennessee 22. Wyoming 32. Pennsylvania 41. Arkansas
8. Indiana 23. Michigan 33. Kentucky 42. Hawaii
9. Utah 24. Ohio 34. Missouri 43. Alaska
10.
Wisconsin 25. Washington 44. Texas
11.
South Dakota 45. California
12.
Virginia 46. Illinois
13.
Kansas 47. Alabama
14.
Connecticut 48. Louisiana
15.
Arizona 49. Mississippi
50. West Virginia
Base: General Counsel/ Senior Litigators ( N= 1599)
* Neither Best, nor Worst 16
4 States listed as “ Best” had a total score exceeding 66.0, those listed as “ Moderate” had scores of 66.0 to 60.0, those listed as “ Worst” had scores lower than 60.0.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
17
Table 4
Most Important Issues for State Policymakers Who Care About Economic
Development to Focus on to Improve Litigation Environment*
Total
Base:
1599
%
Reform of punitive damages
12
Timeliness of decisions
9
Tort reform issues in general
8
Eliminate unnecessary lawsuits
7
Caps/ limits on jury awards
6
Caps/ limits on non- economic damages
5
Limitation of class action suits
4
Speeding up the trial process
4
Limits on discovery
4
Other fee issues
4
Business/ corporate issues/ regulation/ fairness
4
Fairness and impartiality
3
Judicial competence
3
Level playing field/ do not favor plaintiffs
3
Predictability
3
Selection of judges
3
Adequately funding the court system ( i. e., salaries)
2
Appointment vs. election of judges
2
Attorney/ court fees paid by the loser
2
Forum shopping/ venue selection
2
Limiting attorney fees
2
Quality of judges
2
Workers’ compensation
2
Jury system reform
2
Case processing
2
Summary judgment issues
2
More judges/ judicial/ staffing resources
2
* Note: The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Mentions by 2% or more are given above.
Base: General Counsel/ Senior Litigators ( N= 1599)
Q435: What do you think is the single worst aspect of the litigation environment that state policy makers should focus on to improve the business climate in their states? US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
18
Table 5
Cities or Counties with the Least Fair and Reasonable Litigation Environment*
Total
Base:
1599
%
Los Angeles, California
13
Chicago/ Cook County, Illinois
11
Madison County, Illinois
9
Mississippi ( other mentions)
8
New Orleans/ Parish, Louisiana
6
Miami/ Dade County, Florida
6
San Francisco, California
5
New York Greater Metropolitan Region
4
New York ( other mentions)
4
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4
Beaumont, Texas
3
* Note: The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Mentions by at least 3% given above.
Base: General Counsel/ Senior Litigators ( N= 1599)
Q445: Thinking about the entire country, what do you think are the five worst city or county courts? That is, which city or county courts
have the least fair and reasonable litigation environment for both defendants and plaintiffs?
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
19
Table 6
Worst Specific City or County Courts by State*
RANKED BY STATE
Base:
1599
%
Illinois ( all mentions)
24
Chicago/ Cook County
11
Madison County
9
Other jurisdictions mentioned
4
Texas ( all mentions)
21
Houston
3
Beaumont
3
Dallas- Ft. Worth
2
Other jurisdictions mentioned
13
California ( all mentions)
20
Los Angeles
13
San Francisco
5
Other jurisdictions mentioned
2
New York ( all mentions)
10
Greater Metropolitan area
4
Bronx County
2
Other jurisdictions mentioned
4
Louisiana ( all mentions)
10
New Orleans Parish
6
Other jurisdictions mentioned
4
Mississippi ( all mentions)
10
Jackson
2
Other jurisdictions mentioned
8
Florida ( all mentions)
9
Miami- Dade County
6
Other jurisdictions mentioned
3
Alabama ( all mentions)
6
Pennsylvania ( all mentions)
4
Philadelphia
4
Other jurisdictions mentioned
**
Missouri ( all mentions)
3
St. Louis
2
Other jurisdictions mentioned
1
* Note: The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Mentions by at least 3% for entire state given above.
** Note: Less than 0.5 percent.
Q445: Thinking about the entire country, what do you think are the five worst city or county courts.? That is, which city or county courts have the least fair and reasonable litigation environment for both defendants and plaintiffs?
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
20
TABLE 7
Top Issues Mentioned as Creating the LEAST Fair and Reasonable Litigation Environment
Total
Base:
90
%
Corrupt/ unfair system
76
Unfair jury/ judges
27
Biased judgment
24
Have read/ seen a case study
12
Personal experience
11
Incompetent jury/ judges
6
Verdicts – general comments
6
Other corruption mentions
6
Judges are bribed
4
Inconvenience
4
High jury awards
3
Influenced by other parties
3
Too liberal
3
Election of judges
2
Expensive/ High court costs
2
Good old boy system/ Depends on who you know
2
High jury verdicts
2
Overburdened with cases/ Too many cases
2
Poor quality of jury/ judges
2
Too easy to file cases there
2
Unpredictable jury/ judges
2
Allow forum shopping
1
Composition of jury pool
1
Difficult/ Hostile environment/ jury/ judges
1
Personal opinion
1
Slow process
1
* Note: The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Mentions by at least 1% are given above.
Base: General Counsel/ Senior Litigators ( N= 1599)
Q446: Why do you say [ Insert Name of City or County] has the LEAST fair and reasonable litigation environment for both defendants and plaintiffs?
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
21
Table 8
Summary of Top/ Bottom 5 States by Key Elements
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
Nebraska
Louisiana
New Hampshire
Mississippi
Wyoming
Illinois
Minnesota
Alabama
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
BEST
WORST
Indiana
West Virginia
Nebraska
Illinois
Delaware
Louisiana
Tennessee
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Alabama
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
Tennessee
Mississippi
Iowa
Illinois
New York
Louisiana
Indiana
California
Punitive Damages
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
Minnesota
Mississippi
Tennessee
California
Maine
Alabama
Utah
Illinois
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
South Dakota
Mississippi
Minnesota
Louisiana
Wisconsin
California
North Dakota
Illinois
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
Table 8 ( Cont'd)
Summary of Top/ Bottom 5 States by Key Elements
Discovery
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
Minnesota
Mississippi
Wisconsin
Illinois
Nebraska
Louisiana
Iowa
California
Scientific and Technical Evidence
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
Minnesota
Mississippi
New York
Montana
Virginia
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Alabama
Non- economic Damages
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
Nebraska
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Illinois
Maine
Louisiana
Tennessee
Alabama
Judges' Impartiality
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
Maine
Louisiana
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nebraska
Illinois
New Hampshire
Texas
22
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
Table 8 ( Cont'd)
Summary of Top/ Bottom 5 States by Key Elements
Judge's Competence
BEST
WORST
Delaware
West Virginia
Maine
Louisiana
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Alabama
Kansas
Illinois
Juries' Predictability
BEST
WORST
Nebraska
West Virginia
Utah
Alabama
Indiana
California
Tennessee
Mississippi
Kansas
Louisiana
23
Juries' Fairness
BEST
WORST
Nebraska
West Virginia
Minnesota
Mississippi
Wisconsin
Louisiana
Iowa
Alabama
South Dakota
Illinois
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
24
State Rankings by Key Elements US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
25
Table 9
State Rankings for Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
Arizona
26
Nebraska
2
New Jersey
27
New Hampshire
3
Kentucky
28
Wyoming
4
Washington
29
Minnesota
5
Michigan
30
Maine
6
Pennsylvania
31
Iowa
7
Georgia
32
Connecticut
8
Idaho
33
Wisconsin
9
South Carolina
34
Indiana
10
Oklahoma
35
Tennessee
11
Rhode Island
36
North Carolina
12
Florida
37
South Dakota
13
Arkansas
38
Virginia
14
Missouri
39
Colorado
15
Montana
40
Massachusetts
16
New Mexico
41
Kansas
17
Hawaii
42
Utah
18
Texas
43
Oregon
19
Alaska
44
North Dakota
20
California
45
Maryland
21
Alabama
46
New York
22
Illinois
47
Nevada
23
Mississippi
48
Ohio
24
Louisiana
49
Vermont
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
26
Table 10
State Rankings for Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Indiana
1
New Jersey
26
Nebraska
2
Wyoming
27
Delaware
3
Washington
28
Tennessee
4
Idaho
29
New Hampshire
5
Georgia
30
Oregon
6
Missouri
31
New York
7
Nevada
32
Minnesota
8
South Carolina
33
Virginia
9
Pennsylvania
34
South Dakota
10
Kentucky
35
Iowa
11
Montana
36
North Dakota
12
Oklahoma
37
Connecticut
13
Hawaii
38
Maine
14
Rhode Island
39
Massachusetts
15
California
40
Utah
16
Maryland
41
Colorado
17
New Mexico
42
North Carolina
18
Alaska
43
Kansas
19
Arkansas
44
Wisconsin
20
Texas
45
Ohio
21
Alabama
46
Michigan
22
Mississippi
47
Vermont
23
Louisiana
48
Florida
24
Illinois
49
Arizona
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
27
Table 11
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
Oregon
26
Tennessee
2
New Hampshire
27
New York
3
North Dakota
28
Iowa
4
South Dakota
29
Indiana
5
North Carolina
30
Connecticut
6
Georgia
31
Kansas
7
Pennsylvania
32
Nebraska
8
Missouri
33
Wisconsin
9
Hawaii
34
Minnesota
10
Rhode Island
35
Wyoming
11
Maryland
36
Nevada
12
New Mexico
37
Vermont
13
Alaska
38
New Jersey
14
Florida
39
Utah
15
Montana
40
Virginia
16
South Carolina
41
Michigan
17
Texas
42
Massachusetts
18
Oklahoma
43
Maine
19
Arkansas
44
Arizona
20
Alabama
45
Colorado
21
California
46
Idaho
22
Louisiana
47
Ohio
23
Illinois
48
Washington
24
Mississippi
49
Kentucky
25
West Virginia
50
* Virginia and Mississippi do not have class actions but both have mass consolidation suits ( source: U. S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform).
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
28
Table 12
Punitive Damages4
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
Idaho
23
Minnesota
2
Nevada
24
Tennessee
3
North Dakota
25
Maine
4
Oregon
26
Utah
5
Pennsylvania
27
Iowa
6
Georgia
28
Indiana
7
Florida
29
Michigan
8
Rhode Island
30
Wisconsin
9
South Carolina
31
Wyoming
10
New Mexico
32
Kansas
11
Missouri
33
Arizona
12
Arkansas
34
North Carolina
13
Montana
35
New York
14
Oklahoma
36
South Dakota
15
Hawaii
37
Virginia
16
Texas
38
Ohio
17
Alaska
39
Kentucky
18
Illinois
40
Connecticut
19
Alabama
41
Vermont
20
California
42
Colorado
21
Mississippi
43
Maryland
22
West Virginia
44
* Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Washington are not included because they do not allow punitive damages in general ( source: U. S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform).
4 This year the scores for the six states that have no punitive damages ( Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Washington) were calculated in two different ways. One way ( used in our main tables and in all previous years) is to base the score on all the other criteria excluding punitive damages. The second way involved assigning to each of these six states the highest score achieved from other states on punitive damages ( i. e., Delaware’s). While this improves their overall raw score, it does not make a difference in their overall ranking.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
29
Table 13
Timeliness of Summary Judgment/ Dismissal
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
New Jersey
26
South Dakota
2
Arkansas
27
Minnesota
3
Rhode Island
28
Wisconsin
4
Kentucky
29
North Dakota
5
Ohio
30
Arizona
6
New York
31
Nebraska
7
Georgia
32
Iowa
8
Pennsylvania
33
Tennessee
9
South Carolina
34
Indiana
10
Montana
35
Oregon
11
Florida
36
New Hampshire
12
Maryland
37
Maine
13
Missouri
38
Utah
14
Massachusetts
39
Washington
15
Oklahoma
40
Connecticut
16
New Mexico
41
Wyoming
17
Texas
42
Idaho
18
Hawaii
43
Virginia
19
Alabama
44
Kansas
20
Alaska
45
Michigan
21
Illinois
46
North Carolina
22
California
47
Vermont
23
Louisiana
48
Nevada
24
Mississippi
49
Colorado
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
30
Table 14
Discovery
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
Oregon
26
Minnesota
2
Oklahoma
27
Wisconsin
3
Vermont
28
Nebraska
4
Washington
29
Iowa
5
Idaho
30
Indiana
6
Missouri
31
Tennessee
7
Kentucky
32
Maine
8
Montana
33
Wyoming
9
Pennsylvania
34
South Dakota
10
South Carolina
35
Kansas
11
Georgia
36
Utah
12
Maryland
37
North Carolina
13
Florida
38
Connecticut
14
Rhode Island
39
New Hampshire
15
New Mexico
40
Michigan
16
Texas
41
Arizona
17
Arkansas
42
North Dakota
18
Hawaii
43
New York
19
Alaska
44
Virginia
20
Alabama
45
Nevada
21
California
46
Massachusetts
22
Louisiana
47
New Jersey
23
Illinois
48
Colorado
24
Mississippi
49
Ohio
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
31
Table 15
Scientific and Technical Evidence
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
Pennsylvania
26
Minnesota
2
Texas
27
New York
3
Georgia
28
Massachusetts
4
Vermont
29
Virginia
5
California
30
Tennessee
6
New Hampshire
31
Colorado
7
Nevada
32
Connecticut
8
North Dakota
33
Oregon
9
Missouri
34
Nebraska
10
Idaho
35
Iowa
11
Florida
36
Michigan
12
New Mexico
37
New Jersey
13
Rhode Island
38
Washington
14
Kentucky
39
Utah
15
South Carolina
40
Indiana
16
Alaska
41
Wyoming
17
Illinois
42
Maine
18
Oklahoma
43
South Dakota
19
Hawaii
44
Ohio
20
Arkansas
45
Kansas
21
Alabama
46
Wisconsin
22
Louisiana
47
North Carolina
23
Montana
48
Arizona
24
Mississippi
49
Maryland
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
32
Table 16
Non- economic Damages
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
Colorado
26
Nebraska
2
New Jersey
27
New Hampshire
3
Kentucky
28
Maine
4
Washington
29
Tennessee
5
Georgia
30
Iowa
6
Rhode Island
31
Minnesota
7
Montana
32
Wisconsin
8
Idaho
33
Vermont
9
Maryland
34
Utah
10
Oklahoma
35
North Carolina
11
Florida
36
New York
12
Missouri
37
Indiana
13
Pennsylvania
38
Kansas
14
Arkansas
39
Connecticut
15
Hawaii
40
North Dakota
16
South Carolina
41
South Dakota
17
New Mexico
42
Arizona
18
Texas
43
Nevada
19
Alaska
44
Oregon
20
California
45
Virginia
21
Alabama
46
Massachusetts
22
Louisiana
47
Ohio
23
Illinois
48
Wyoming
24
Mississippi
49
Michigan
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
33
Table 17
Judges' Impartiality
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
Maryland
26
Maine
2
Michigan
27
Minnesota
3
Missouri
28
Nebraska
4
Vermont
29
New Hampshire
5
Pennsylvania
30
Colorado
6
Georgia
31
Wisconsin
7
Kentucky
32
Iowa
8
Florida
33
Kansas
9
California
34
Oregon
10
Wyoming
35
Virginia
11
Nevada
36
South Dakota
12
Rhode Island
37
North Dakota
13
Montana
38
New York
14
South Carolina
39
Arizona
15
New Mexico
40
Tennessee
16
Alaska
41
Connecticut
17
Oklahoma
42
Indiana
18
Hawaii
43
Massachusetts
19
Arkansas
44
North Carolina
20
Alabama
45
Utah
21
Texas
46
Ohio
22
Illinois
47
New Jersey
23
Mississippi
48
Washington
24
Louisiana
49
Idaho
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
34
Table 18
Judges' Competence
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Delaware
1
Vermont
26
Maine
2
Maryland
27
Minnesota
3
Idaho
28
New Hampshire
4
Ohio
29
Kansas
5
Missouri
30
Virginia
6
California
31
Oregon
7
Pennsylvania
32
Iowa
8
Montana
33
Tennessee
9
Nevada
34
Massachusetts
10
South Carolina
35
Connecticut
11
Kentucky
36
Wisconsin
12
Florida
37
New York
13
Rhode Island
38
Indiana
14
Wyoming
39
Nebraska
15
Alaska
40
Utah
16
New Mexico
41
Washington
17
Hawaii
42
South Dakota
18
Arkansas
43
Arizona
19
Oklahoma
44
North Carolina
20
Texas
45
North Dakota
21
Illinois
46
Georgia
22
Alabama
47
Michigan
23
Mississippi
48
New Jersey
24
Louisiana
49
Colorado
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
35
Table 19
Juries’ Predictability
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Nebraska
1
Connecticut
26
Utah
2
Oregon
27
Indiana
3
New Jersey
28
Tennessee
4
Michigan
29
Kansas
5
Nevada
30
Iowa
6
Maryland
31
South Dakota
7
Rhode Island
32
Delaware
8
Vermont
33
North Dakota
9
Montana
34
Wisconsin
10
Washington
35
Virginia
11
Missouri
36
New Hampshire
12
Oklahoma
37
Wyoming
13
South Carolina
38
Ohio
14
Pennsylvania
39
Minnesota
15
Florida
40
New Mexico
16
Hawaii
41
Arizona
17
Alaska
42
North Carolina
18
Arkansas
43
Idaho
19
Texas
44
Colorado
20
Illinois
45
Maine
21
Louisiana
46
New York
22
Mississippi
47
Massachusetts
23
California
48
Kentucky
24
Alabama
49
Georgia
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
36
Table 20
Juries’ Fairness
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
STATE
ELEMENT RANKING
Nebraska
1
Washington
26
Minnesota
2
New Jersey
27
Wisconsin
3
Idaho
28
Iowa
4
Vermont
29
South Dakota
5
Pennsylvania
30
Indiana
6
Kentucky
31
Delaware
7
Georgia
32
Maine
8
Missouri
33
New Hampshire
9
Rhode Island
34
Ohio
10
Arkansas
35
North Carolina
11
South Carolina
36
Utah
12
Maryland
37
Kansas
13
Alaska
38
Tennessee
14
Oklahoma
39
Colorado
15
Hawaii
40
Arizona
16
Florida
41
Virginia
17
New Mexico
42
Oregon
18
Montana
43
Massachusetts
19
California
44
North Dakota
20
Texas
45
New York
21
Illinois
46
Wyoming
22
Alabama
47
Connecticut
23
Louisiana
48
Nevada
24
Mississippi
49
Michigan
25
West Virginia
50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
37
Individual State Rankings
( IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)
Notes on reading the tables:
The following tables show the individual state rankings. For each state, the 2007 overall state ranking is shown. Also displayed is the number of evaluations of each state ( shown as the “ N= xxx”).
Respondents who evaluated each state were asked to rate the following elements of a state liability system in randomized order: having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements, overall treatment of tort and contract litigation, treatment of class action suits and mass consolidation suits, punitive damages ( note: rank of 1- 44 since six states do not allow for punitive damages), timeliness of summary judgment/ dismissal, discovery, scientific and technical evidence, non- economic damages, judges’ impartiality and competence, and juries' predictability and fairness.
Then, respondents were asked whether there was any other element that is critical to the liability system of the state they were evaluating. If respondents could identify another element, this response was recorded along with the number of respondents ( N) who provided this response. The most frequently mentioned responses for each state are shown and labeled here as “ Additional Volunteered Items”. Other items mentioned in fewer numbers are not shown. Therefore, the total number of responses may not equal the total N who volunteered items. The number of people who provided volunteer responses is very small ( less than 70) and therefore caution should be exercised when interpreting the findings from these items.
An asterisk (*) on a table signifies a value of less than one- half percent ( 0.5%). A dash represents a value of zero. Percentages may not always add up to 100% because of computer rounding or the acceptance of multiple answers from respondents answering that question. Note that in some cases results may be based on small sample sizes. Caution should be used in drawing any conclusion from results based on these small samples. US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
38
Table 21
Alabama
2007 Overall Ranking: 47
2006 Overall Ranking: 47
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 109)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
11
28
37
12
6
3.3
46
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
6
25
39
24
6
3.0
46
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
9
16
30
21
10
2.9
45
Punitive Damages
%
6
22
26
27
15
2.8
41
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
30
34
14
9
3.1
44
Discovery
%
8
28
43
15
2
3.3
45
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
4
28
32
16
6
3.1
46
Non- economic Damages
%
6
23
33
23
11
2.9
46
Judges' Impartiality
%
9
28
40
13
6
3.2
45
Judges' Competence
%
6
29
42
15
5
3.2
47
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
23
39
20
10
2.9
49
Juries’ Fairness
%
6
21
39
21
8
3.0
47
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
3
31
39
20
6
3.0
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 16
# of respondents who named each item
Focus on specific local issue 6
Update judicial system 3
Insurance issues 2
Ability to issue a summary judgment 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
39
Table 22
Alaska
2007 Overall Ranking: 43
2006 Overall Ranking: 36
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 53)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
8
36
17
17
-
3.4
43
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
2
34
30
21
2
3.1
44
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
2
30
26
9
6
3.2
38
Punitive Damages
%
4
21
32
15
9
2.9
39
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
2
28
25
23
4
3.0
45
Discovery
%
4
34
34
13
-
3.3
44
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
4
26
36
11
-
3.3
41
Non- economic Damages
%
2
19
36
21
2
3.0
44
Judges' Impartiality
%
8
40
25
13
4
3.4
41
Judges' Competence
%
13
28
32
9
4
3.4
40
Juries’ Predictability
%
-
32
28
19
4
3.1
42
Juries’ Fairness
%
4
30
30
17
-
3.3
38
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
2
36
38
11
2
3.3
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 2
Commercial sophistication 1
Composition of juries 1
Laws are clear, in place ( positive context) 1
The workers' comp shield 1
Fairness ( i. e. court, laws, judges) 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
40
Table 23
Arizona
2007 Overall Ranking: 14
2006 Overall Ranking: 13
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 98)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
13
38
19
4
2
3.7
25
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
12
40
33
7
2
3.6
26
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
35
23
5
3
3.4
20
Punitive Damages
%
11
31
32
6
2
3.5
13
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
19
36
22
7
2
3.7
6
Discovery
%
13
47
23
4
3
3.7
17
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
38
26
5
2
3.6
24
Non- economic Damages
%
10
39
26
7
3
3.5
18
Judges' Impartiality
%
14
52
16
5
-
3.9
15
Judges' Competence
%
14
42
28
3
1
3.7
19
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
40
33
4
3
3.4
17
Juries’ Fairness
%
9
46
22
5
2
3.7
16
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
10
52
29
3
1
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 6
# of respondents who named each item
Lawyer/ judge competency 1
Prejudice issues 1
Ability to issue a summary judgment 1
Fee issues 1
Contributory negligence 1
Reduce fraudulent cases 1
Update judicial system 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
41
Table 24
Arkansas
2007 Overall Ranking: 41
2006 Overall Ranking: 41
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 77)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
9
30
39
6
4
3.4
44
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
10
27
40
10
5
3.3
38
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
5
23
39
9
10
3.0
44
Punitive Damages
%
8
16
52
10
4
3.1
34
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
8
36
34
6
6
3.4
27
Discovery
%
9
32
38
8
5
3.4
42
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
4
21
43
16
1
3.1
45
Non- economic Damages
%
5
27
45
9
3
3.3
39
Judges' Impartiality
%
5
40
35
8
5
3.3
44
Judges' Competence
%
9
34
36
12
3
3.4
43
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
23
47
13
5
3.1
43
Juries’ Fairness
%
6
35
39
9
3
3.4
35
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
5
31
45
12
4
3.2
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 14
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 3
Prejudice issues 3
Composition of juries 2
Favor plaintiffs 2
Election of judges 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
42
Table 25
California
2007 Overall Ranking: 45
2006 Overall Ranking: 44
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 290)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
13
36
27
10
3
3.5
40
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
5
30
37
21
6
3.1
45
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
5
21
30
19
11
2.9
46
Punitive Damages
%
4
21
29
25
13
2.8
42
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
6
26
36
17
11
3.0
47
Discovery
%
7
32
38
13
5
3.3
46
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
11
37
26
9
4
3.5
30
Non- economic Damages
%
4
25
34
20
9
3.0
45
Judges' Impartiality
%
11
42
32
9
4
3.5
34
Judges' Competence
%
10
44
34
5
3
3.6
31
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
21
38
21
9
2.9
48
Juries’ Fairness
%
4
29
35
19
4
3.1
44
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
4
30
39
21
4
3.1
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 68
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 22
Need to use an intermediate court of appeals 7
Ability to issue a summary judgment 7
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
43
Table 26
Colorado
2007 Overall Ranking: 21
2006 Overall Ranking: 8
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 93)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
15
45
20
4
-
3.8
17
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
10
52
32
3
-
3.7
15
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
2
29
27
5
-
3.4
21
Punitive Damages
%
4
39
34
5
4
3.4
22
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
41
31
13
1
3.4
25
Discovery
%
9
47
33
5
-
3.6
24
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
10
43
30
1
-
3.7
7
Non- economic Damages
%
4
43
32
8
2
3.4
26
Judges' Impartiality
%
18
57
19
-
1
4.0
6
Judges' Competence
%
6
54
31
4
-
3.7
25
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
33
40
6
-
3.4
20
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
49
32
-
1
3.7
15
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
6
55
32
3
-
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 11
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 5
Hard to get a dismissal 2
Control frivolous lawsuits 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
44
Table 27
Connecticut
2007 Overall Ranking: 14
2006 Overall Ranking: 5
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 63)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
22
38
24
5
-
3.9
13
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
13
54
21
6
-
3.8
8
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
13
32
25
5
3
3.6
6
Punitive Damages
%
6
38
19
13
3
3.4
20
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
8
46
32
8
-
3.6
16
Discovery
%
14
44
30
5
-
3.7
14
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
11
38
30
2
-
3.7
8
Non- economic Damages
%
8
40
33
3
2
3.6
15
Judges' Impartiality
%
21
38
29
5
-
3.8
17
Judges' Competence
%
19
41
30
2
-
3.8
11
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
32
43
6
-
3.3
26
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
44
32
6
-
3.5
23
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
6
60
27
2
-
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 4
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 2
Need to use an intermediate court of appeals 1
Election of judges 1
Reduce fraudulent cases 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
45
Table 28
Delaware
2007 Overall Ranking: 1
2006 Overall Ranking: 1
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 113)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
27
42
11
7
1
4.0
3
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
23
56
13
3
-
4.0
1
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
23
43
16
2
1
4.0
1
Punitive Damages
%
18
43
19
3
-
3.9
1
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
25
39
20
4
1
3.9
1
Discovery
%
27
46
20
1
-
4.0
1
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
27
46
16
-
-
4.1
1
Non- economic Damages
%
16
46
22
1
-
3.9
1
Judges' Impartiality
%
37
43
14
-
-
4.2
1
Judges' Competence
%
46
42
6
1
-
4.4
1
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
42
31
3
1
3.5
8
Juries’ Fairness
%
10
45
24
1
-
3.8
7
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
24
58
15
-
-
4.1
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 10
# of respondents who named each item
Class action issues 4
Update judicial system 3
Need to use an intermediate court of appeals 1
Prejudice issues 1
The workers' comp shield 1
Quality of trial 1
Contributory negligence 1 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
46
Table 29
Florida
2007 Overall Ranking: 36
2006 Overall Ranking: 38
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 193)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
16
39
24
6
1
3.7
24
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
6
36
39
13
2
3.3
37
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
3
28
32
18
2
3.1
39
Punitive Damages
%
4
30
35
13
4
3.2
29
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
9
22
42
14
3
3.2
36
Discovery
%
9
36
40
5
2
3.5
38
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
6
33
38
7
2
3.4
36
Non- economic Damages
%
7
30
39
13
2
3.3
36
Judges' Impartiality
%
9
41
32
9
2
3.5
33
Judges' Competence
%
8
41
34
9
2
3.5
37
Juries’ Predictability
%
4
26
40
16
2
3.2
40
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
27
41
13
2
3.2
41
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
3
41
40
11
1
3.3
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 30
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 10
Prejudice issues 5
Composition of juries 4
The workers' comp shield 4
Cap on damages 3
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
47
Table 30
Georgia
2007 Overall Ranking: 31
2006 Overall Ranking: 27
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 110)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
10
43
26
6
1
3.6
30
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
7
43
31
12
2
3.4
32
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
5
24
36
8
2
3.3
31
Punitive Damages
%
4
30
35
12
4
3.2
28
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
32
38
14
2
3.3
32
Discovery
%
5
47
27
9
2
3.5
36
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
35
35
3
3
3.5
28
Non- economic Damages
%
6
35
35
9
3
3.4
30
Judges' Impartiality
%
11
43
30
9
1
3.6
31
Judges' Competence
%
11
53
25
5
1
3.7
22
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
35
39
6
2
3.4
25
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
35
38
4
3
3.4
32
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
3
47
40
5
1
3.5
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 6
# of respondents who named each item
The nature of the case 2
Wrongful death issue 1
Need to use an intermediate court of appeals 1
Class action issues 1
Prejudice issues 1
Reduce fraudulent cases 1 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
48
Table 31
Hawaii
2007 Overall Ranking: 42
2006 Overall Ranking: 46
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 56)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
16
18
41
5
-
3.6
38
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
5
29
39
20
-
3.2
42
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
20
38
11
-
3.2
34
Punitive Damages
%
4
23
38
14
5
3.1
37
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
20
36
20
2
3.1
43
Discovery
%
5
32
39
13
-
3.3
43
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
4
25
34
18
-
3.2
44
Non- economic Damages
%
7
21
38
16
-
3.2
40
Judges' Impartiality
%
7
34
34
16
-
3.4
43
Judges' Competence
%
5
38
34
11
-
3.4
42
Juries’ Predictability
%
4
21
39
13
4
3.1
41
Juries’ Fairness
%
7
25
34
13
4
3.2
40
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
4
30
43
18
-
3.2
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 7
# of respondents who named each item
Legislature 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Venue selection 1
Ability to issue a summary judgment 1
Court resources/ funding/ staffing 1
Cap on damages 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
49
Table 32
Idaho
2007 Overall Ranking: 30
2006 Overall Ranking: 18
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 54)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
7
43
31
-
2
3.6
29
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
6
39
35
9
2
3.4
33
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
30
39
4
-
3.4
22
Punitive Damages
%
11
28
28
17
2
3.3
24
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
11
28
39
4
-
3.6
18
Discovery
%
6
37
41
-
-
3.6
30
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
4
33
37
4
2
3.4
35
Non- economic Damages
%
9
30
30
9
6
3.3
33
Judges' Impartiality
%
9
46
30
4
-
3.7
25
Judges' Competence
%
6
44
37
2
-
3.6
28
Juries’ Predictability
%
-
41
33
7
-
3.4
19
Juries’ Fairness
%
6
39
31
9
-
3.5
28
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
2
41
44
7
-
3.4
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 1
# of respondents who named each item
Cap on damages 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
50
Table 33
Illinois
2007 Overall Ranking: 46
2006 Overall Ranking: 45
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 183)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
4
30
23
20
11
3.0
49
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
3
28
37
21
8
3.0
47
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
5
19
26
20
17
2.7
48
Punitive Damages
%
3
24
32
21
10
2.9
40
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
2
27
37
17
5
3.0
46
Discovery
%
5
32
36
15
5
3.2
48
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
27
31
15
3
3.2
42
Non- economic Damages
%
4
20
34
25
10
2.8
48
Judges' Impartiality
%
4
31
31
21
8
3.0
47
Judges' Competence
%
7
36
34
14
4
3.3
46
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
22
39
19
5
3.0
45
Juries’ Fairness
%
4
23
36
21
6
3.0
46
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
2
30
36
23
7
3.0
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 37
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 9
Need to use an intermediate court of appeals 4
Prejudice issues 4
The workers' comp shield 4
Composition of juries 2 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
51
Table 34
Indiana
2007 Overall Ranking: 8
2006 Overall Ranking: 11
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 91)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
22
47
13
1
-
4.1
1
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
8
65
13
7
1
3.8
10
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
10
41
22
5
2
3.6
5
Punitive Damages
%
15
40
22
8
3
3.6
7
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
10
49
23
7
1
3.7
10
Discovery
%
11
55
20
3
1
3.8
6
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
4
49
24
4
1
3.6
16
Non- economic Damages
%
10
44
22
9
2
3.6
13
Judges' Impartiality
%
20
42
26
5
-
3.8
18
Judges' Competence
%
15
52
24
3
-
3.8
14
Juries’ Predictability
%
11
41
29
5
-
3.7
3
Juries’ Fairness
%
20
40
23
3
2
3.8
6
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
5
64
18
9
1
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 13
# of respondents who named each item
Insurance issues 2
Political influence/ interference 2
Prejudice issues 2
Ability to issue a summary judgment 2
Cap on damages 5
Update judicial system 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
52
Table 35
Iowa
2007 Overall Ranking: 4
2006 Overall Ranking: 4
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 100)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
17
44
24
2
-
3.9
11
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
13
50
26
4
-
3.8
7
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
9
34
34
2
-
3.6
4
Punitive Damages
%
9
40
35
3
-
3.6
6
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
13
38
32
5
-
3.7
8
Discovery
%
11
53
27
1
-
3.8
5
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
9
41
35
1
-
3.7
11
Non- economic Damages
%
11
39
39
2
1
3.6
6
Judges' Impartiality
%
18
54
22
2
-
3.9
8
Judges' Competence
%
12
61
22
1
-
3.9
8
Juries’ Predictability
%
8
39
39
3
1
3.6
6
Juries’ Fairness
%
15
50
25
2
-
3.8
4
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
11
59
25
1
-
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 2
# of respondents who named each item
Composition of juries 1
Wrongful death issue 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Update judicial system 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
53
Table 36
Kansas
2007 Overall Ranking: 13
2006 Overall Ranking: 15
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 102)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
20
36
28
4
-
3.8
19
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
10
45
34
3
-
3.7
17
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
9
33
31
2
2
3.6
7
Punitive Damages
%
12
36
27
7
2
3.6
12
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
6
43
32
5
1
3.6
20
Discovery
%
11
47
29
2
-
3.7
11
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
9
40
32
6
-
3.6
21
Non- economic Damages
%
12
34
33
8
-
3.6
14
Judges' Impartiality
%
17
48
21
3
-
3.9
9
Judges' Competence
%
16
49
24
-
-
3.9
5
Juries’ Predictability
%
6
41
31
4
1
3.6
5
Juries’ Fairness
%
10
42
27
2
1
3.7
13
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
9
52
32
2
-
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 4
# of respondents who named each item
Cap on damages 2
Laws are clear, in place ( positive context) 1
Fee issues 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
54
Table 37
Kentucky
2007 Overall Ranking: 32
2006 Overall Ranking: 34
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 93)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
14
37
32
6
2
3.6
35
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
6
43
37
6
1
3.5
28
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
34
34
5
2
3.4
25
Punitive Damages
%
11
31
35
8
4
3.4
19
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
33
37
14
2
3.3
29
Discovery
%
8
41
40
2
1
3.6
32
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
5
34
35
9
3
3.3
39
Non- economic Damages
%
11
29
41
4
4
3.4
28
Judges' Impartiality
%
14
40
25
15
1
3.5
32
Judges' Competence
%
8
43
34
9
1
3.5
36
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
44
30
12
2
3.4
24
Juries’ Fairness
%
8
42
27
13
2
3.4
31
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
3
39
44
10
1
3.3
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 7
# of respondents who named each item
Election of judges 3
Update judicial system 2
Need to use an intermediate court of appeals 1
Focus on specific local issue 1
Alternative dispute resolution 1
Prejudice issues 1
Ability to issue a summary judgment 1
Patient compensation fund 1 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
55
Table 38
Louisiana
2007 Overall Ranking: 48
2006 Overall Ranking: 49
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 144)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
8
24
33
22
3
3.1
48
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
3
20
38
26
10
2.8
49
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
2
19
31
25
11
2.7
47
Punitive Damages
%
Louisiana does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
6
23
35
22
7
3.0
47
Discovery
%
7
28
40
16
4
3.2
47
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
6
19
42
19
4
3.0
47
Non- economic Damages
%
6
15
38
25
8
2.8
47
Judges' Impartiality
%
3
16
38
31
8
2.7
49
Judges' Competence
%
5
21
42
24
4
3.0
49
Juries’ Predictability
%
6
20
38
27
4
3.0
46
Juries’ Fairness
%
4
19
38
28
6
2.9
48
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
3
16
42
28
9
2.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 37
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 12
The nature of the case 3
Alternative dispute resolution 3
Hard to get a dismissal 2
No fault 2
Prejudice issues 2
The workers’ comp shield 2
Contributory negligence 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
56
Table 39
Maine
2007 Overall Ranking: 4
2006 Overall Ranking: 9
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 50)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
18
48
26
2
-
3.9
14
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
10
60
24
-
2
3.8
6
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
34
26
8
-
3.5
19
Punitive Damages
%
14
36
32
2
2
3.7
4
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
10
50
30
4
2
3.6
13
Discovery
%
12
50
26
4
-
3.8
8
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
14
40
22
10
2
3.6
18
Non- economic Damages
%
12
46
30
4
-
3.7
4
Judges' Impartiality
%
28
56
10
2
-
4.1
2
Judges' Competence
%
18
68
8
2
-
4.1
2
Juries’ Predictability
%
8
28
42
6
2
3.4
21
Juries’ Fairness
%
20
32
36
2
-
3.8
8
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
10
60
24
2
-
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 2
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 1
Focus on specific local issue 1
Prejudice issues 1
Cap on damages 1 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
57
Table 40
Maryland
2007 Overall Ranking: 29
2006 Overall Ranking: 20
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 77)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
10
30
35
9
-
3.5
41
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
13
39
35
4
1
3.6
21
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
3
27
26
13
3
3.2
36
Punitive Damages
%
6
29
32
5
4
3.4
23
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
4
29
40
14
1
3.2
36
Discovery
%
8
40
34
8
1
3.5
37
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
6
39
35
3
1
3.6
24
Non- economic Damages
%
4
34
36
10
1
3.3
34
Judges' Impartiality
%
10
45
34
3
1
3.7
26
Judges' Competence
%
9
40
39
3
-
3.6
27
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
35
36
10
1
3.3
31
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
30
39
12
1
3.3
37
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
4
42
45
4
1
3.4
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 14
# of respondents who named each item
Composition of juries 3
Laws are clear, in place ( positive context) 3
Need to use an intermediate court of appeals 2
Discovery issues 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
58
Table 41
Massachusetts
2007 Overall Ranking: 18
2006 Overall Ranking: 32
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 128)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
14
46
20
2
-
3.9
15
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
15
41
32
5
1
3.7
16
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
9
24
24
8
2
3.5
18
Punitive Damages
%
Massachusetts does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
7
27
38
13
5
3.2
39
Discovery
%
11
45
27
6
1
3.7
22
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
16
38
20
5
1
3.8
4
Non- economic Damages
%
9
34
30
9
1
3.5
22
Judges' Impartiality
%
22
39
24
5
2
3.8
19
Judges' Competence
%
20
44
25
2
2
3.9
10
Juries’ Predictability
%
4
30
43
3
2
3.4
23
Juries’ Fairness
%
12
38
28
5
1
3.6
19
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
8
51
33
5
-
3.6
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 15
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 4
Wrongful death issue 3
Reduce fraudulent cases 3
Venue selection 2
The nature of the case 2 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
59
Table 42
Michigan
2007 Overall Ranking: 25
2006 Overall Ranking: 22
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 114)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
14
46
25
3
-
3.8
22
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
7
45
34
8
3
3.5
30
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
8
32
32
6
2
3.5
17
Punitive Damages
%
17
33
26
6
4
3.6
8
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
6
49
26
11
1
3.5
21
Discovery
%
12
49
27
4
2
3.7
16
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
9
44
29
4
-
3.7
12
Non- economic Damages
%
9
40
29
9
3
3.5
25
Judges' Impartiality
%
10
50
31
4
2
3.6
27
Judges' Competence
%
6
57
29
3
1
3.7
23
Juries’ Predictability
%
1
36
45
6
1
3.3
29
Juries’ Fairness
%
4
45
36
5
-
3.5
25
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
3
55
33
5
1
3.5
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 23
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 8
The workers' comp shield 3
Hard to get a dismissal 3 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
60
Table 43
Minnesota
2007 Overall Ranking: 2
2006 Overall Ranking: 14
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 89)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
18
48
13
2
2
3.9
8
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
17
49
20
7
-
3.8
5
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
36
22
4
1
3.6
10
Punitive Damages
%
12
42
29
2
1
3.7
2
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
16
44
25
4
1
3.8
3
Discovery
%
18
48
20
2
-
3.9
2
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
13
53
15
1
1
3.9
2
Non- economic Damages
%
9
45
31
4
1
3.6
7
Judges' Impartiality
%
26
51
15
2
-
4.1
3
Judges' Competence
%
21
54
17
-
1
4.0
3
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
42
40
2
1
3.5
15
Juries’ Fairness
%
19
49
15
2
2
3.9
2
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
13
57
24
2
-
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 12
# of respondents who named each item
Wrongful death issue 3
Update judicial system 3
Control frivolous lawsuits 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
61
Table 44
Mississippi
2007 Overall Ranking: 49
2006 Overall Ranking: 48
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 157)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
14
22
29
17
10
3.2
47
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
7
22
30
29
10
2.9
48
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
12
13
22
23
22
2.7
49
Punitive Damages
%
8
17
17
33
22
2.6
43
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
4
22
34
22
7
2.9
49
Discovery
%
8
22
39
18
4
3.1
49
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
20
30
25
10
2.9
49
Non- economic Damages
%
6
16
25
31
15
2.7
49
Judges' Impartiality
%
4
18
40
27
8
2.8
48
Judges' Competence
%
4
20
50
17
6
3.0
48
Juries’ Predictability
%
6
18
35
25
8
2.9
47
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
13
32
31
15
2.6
49
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
5
18
34
35
7
2.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 28
# of respondents who named each item
The workers' comp shield 8
Update judicial system 6
Jury awards are too high 3
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
62
Table 45
Missouri
2007 Overall Ranking: 34
2006 Overall Ranking: 35
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 101)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
18
35
37
4
3
3.6
31
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
5
38
38
16
2
3.3
39
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
3
29
42
7
3
3.3
33
Punitive Damages
%
6
21
49
13
3
3.2
33
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
6
31
42
16
3
3.2
38
Discovery
%
10
48
31
6
3
3.6
31
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
42
30
11
3
3.4
34
Non- economic Damages
%
5
35
44
9
4
3.3
37
Judges' Impartiality
%
20
36
28
12
2
3.6
28
Judges' Competence
%
15
42
28
10
2
3.6
30
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
37
42
10
3
3.3
36
Juries’ Fairness
%
8
38
35
11
3
3.4
33
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
8
39
43
9
-
3.5
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 18
# of respondents who named each item
The workers' comp shield 6
Prejudice issues 3
Election of judges 2
Update judicial system 2
Reduce fraudulent cases 2 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
63
Table 46
Montana
2007 Overall Ranking: 40
2006 Overall Ranking: 39
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 61)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
15
33
26
7
3
3.6
35
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
8
33
34
8
8
3.3
40
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
3
21
33
10
5
3.1
40
Punitive Damages
%
10
18
36
13
7
3.1
35
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
33
31
15
3
3.2
35
Discovery
%
15
31
33
3
5
3.5
33
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
3
20
38
13
5
3.0
48
Non- economic Damages
%
7
31
33
7
5
3.3
32
Judges' Impartiality
%
13
33
25
11
5
3.4
38
Judges' Competence
%
10
38
31
2
5
3.5
33
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
33
38
7
3
3.3
34
Juries’ Fairness
%
7
25
36
8
8
3.2
43
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
7
34
36
8
7
3.3
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 11
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 3
Wrongful death issue 2
Insurance issues 2
No fault 2
Quality of trial 2
Cap on damages 2 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
64
Table 47
Nebraska
2007 Overall Ranking: 3
2006 Overall Ranking: 2
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 68)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
16
56
15
-
-
4.0
2
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
18
51
19
4
-
3.9
2
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
12
29
28
6
1
3.6
8
Punitive Damages
%
Nebraska does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
10
43
34
1
-
3.7
7
Discovery
%
12
54
16
3
1
3.8
4
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
10
40
29
3
-
3.7
10
Non- economic Damages
%
16
50
24
-
3
3.8
2
Judges' Impartiality
%
21
57
13
-
1
4.0
4
Judges' Competence
%
15
53
21
3
1
3.8
15
Juries’ Predictability
%
9
44
29
1
-
3.7
1
Juries’ Fairness
%
15
51
19
-
-
3.9
1
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
10
60
21
1
-
3.9
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 0
# of respondents who named each item
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
65
Table 48
Nevada
2007 Overall Ranking: 28
2006 Overall Ranking: 37
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 75)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
11
43
27
7
1
3.6
32
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
9
52
21
8
3
3.6
23
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
8
32
29
5
1
3.5
12
Punitive Damages
%
8
36
21
15
4
3.3
24
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
8
36
28
12
3
3.4
24
Discovery
%
17
41
24
8
3
3.7
21
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
37
32
7
3
3.5
32
Non- economic Damages
%
11
40
27
7
4
3.5
19
Judges' Impartiality
%
8
43
28
7
5
3.5
36
Judges' Competence
%
7
47
31
5
3
3.5
34
Juries’ Predictability
%
1
39
37
5
4
3.3
30
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
44
32
5
1
3.5
24
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
5
49
25
11
3
3.5
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 11
# of respondents who named each item
Fee issues 2
Quality of juries/ juror pool 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
66
Table 49
New Hampshire
2007 Overall Ranking: 6
2006 Overall Ranking: 6
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 64)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
22
39
25
-
-
4.0
5
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
14
50
25
2
-
3.8
3
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
2
28
31
5
-
3.4
27
Punitive Damages
%
New Hampshire does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
13
33
33
3
-
3.7
12
Discovery
%
14
38
34
-
2
3.7
15
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
5
34
36
5
-
3.5
31
Non- economic Damages
%
11
42
27
2
-
3.8
3
Judges' Impartiality
%
22
50
19
-
-
4.0
5
Judges' Competence
%
16
56
20
-
-
3.9
4
Juries’ Predictability
%
5
39
42
3
-
3.5
12
Juries’ Fairness
%
13
42
31
2
-
3.8
9
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
11
55
28
-
-
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 2
# of respondents who named each item
Availability of sanctions 1
Composition of juries 1
Use of mediation 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
67
Table 50
New Jersey
2007 Overall Ranking: 26
2006 Overall Ranking: 25
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 143)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
10
50
23
3
1
3.7
26
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
11
41
34
9
1
3.6
27
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
12
30
27
6
3
3.5
14
Punitive Damages
%
New Jersey does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
8
36
33
10
3
3.4
26
Discovery
%
12
45
31
6
1
3.6
23
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
12
40
24
6
1
3.7
13
Non- economic Damages
%
9
33
33
8
3
3.4
27
Judges' Impartiality
%
16
45
27
7
1
3.7
23
Judges' Competence
%
12
46
31
6
-
3.7
24
Juries’ Predictability
%
4
34
37
9
2
3.3
28
Juries’ Fairness
%
10
32
34
9
1
3.5
27
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
8
47
34
6
-
3.6
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 12
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trial 3
Number of environmental cases 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
68
Table 51
New Mexico
2007 Overall Ranking: 39
2006 Overall Ranking: 40
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 61)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
8
36
39
2
5
3.5
42
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
8
28
41
15
3
3.2
41
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
7
26
31
13
5
3.2
37
Punitive Damages
%
5
28
43
13
5
3.2
32
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
28
38
11
7
3.1
41
Discovery
%
10
31
43
10
-
3.4
40
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
8
26
49
5
2
3.4
37
Non- economic Damages
%
5
30
46
8
7
3.2
42
Judges' Impartiality
%
11
33
38
10
3
3.4
40
Judges' Competence
%
5
46
33
8
3
3.4
41
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
48
33
8
-
3.5
16
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
31
39
8
7
3.2
42
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
5
36
41
11
3
3.3
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 3
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 1
Availability of sanctions 1
Laws are clear, in place ( positive context) 1
Prejudice issues 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
69
Table 52
New York
2007 Overall Ranking: 19
2006 Overall Ranking: 21
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 202)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
21
50
15
4
1
3.9
7
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
13
48
24
8
2
3.6
22
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
16
31
21
6
3
3.6
3
Punitive Damages
%
10
42
27
5
5
3.5
15
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
9
31
36
14
5
3.3
31
Discovery
%
16
42
30
5
2
3.7
19
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
17
44
17
5
1
3.8
3
Non- economic Damages
%
8
45
28
6
1
3.6
12
Judges' Impartiality
%
24
43
22
5
1
3.9
14
Judges' Competence
%
20
48
22
6
*
3.8
13
Juries’ Predictability
%
5
36
36
10
1
3.4
22
Juries’ Fairness
%
9
45
27
7
1
3.6
21
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
11
54
26
6
*
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 18
# of respondents who named each item
The workers' comp shield 3
Wrongful death issue 3
Composition of juries 2
Class action issues 2
Quality of trial 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
70
Table 53
North Carolina
2007 Overall Ranking: 16
2006 Overall Ranking: 10
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 90)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
16
47
23
2
1
3.8
18
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
12
52
26
6
-
3.7
12
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
34
29
11
1
3.4
30
Punitive Damages
%
13
31
32
10
1
3.5
14
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
8
42
33
8
1
3.5
22
Discovery
%
11
53
22
7
-
3.7
13
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
6
43
30
7
-
3.6
23
Non- economic Damages
%
10
41
31
8
-
3.6
11
Judges' Impartiality
%
17
46
28
4
-
3.8
20
Judges' Competence
%
13
48
29
4
-
3.7
20
Juries’ Predictability
%
4
39
37
8
1
3.4
18
Juries’ Fairness
%
14
42
28
6
-
3.7
11
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
7
64
21
4
-
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 3
# of respondents who named each item
Availability of sanctions 1
Laws are clear, in place ( positive context) 1
Prejudice issues 1
Update judicial system 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
71
Table 54
North Dakota
2007 Overall Ranking: 20
2006 Overall Ranking: 12
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 53)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
15
42
25
-
-
3.9
12
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
13
42
30
4
2
3.7
20
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
11
19
26
8
4
3.4
28
Punitive Damages
%
8
28
26
6
8
3.3
25
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
15
38
26
2
2
3.8
5
Discovery
%
11
40
28
2
2
3.7
18
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
6
32
32
6
2
3.4
33
Non- economic Damages
%
13
30
26
8
2
3.6
16
Judges' Impartiality
%
19
43
21
2
2
3.9
13
Judges' Competence
%
9
49
26
-
2
3.7
21
Juries’ Predictability
%
9
38
26
2
6
3.5
9
Juries’ Fairness
%
13
30
32
4
2
3.6
20
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
9
53
23
4
2
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 0
# of respondents who named each item
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
72
Table 55
Ohio
2007 Overall Ranking: 24
2006 Overall Ranking: 19
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 125)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
14
47
23
3
-
3.8
21
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
7
48
35
4
1
3.6
24
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
6
33
37
7
1
3.4
23
Punitive Damages
%
5
42
32
9
2
3.4
18
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
6
30
42
12
2
3.3
30
Discovery
%
13
39
35
6
1
3.6
25
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
42
36
2
-
3.6
18
Non- economic Damages
%
6
42
34
8
1
3.5
23
Judges' Impartiality
%
13
50
26
6
-
3.7
22
Judges' Competence
%
8
46
35
6
-
3.6
29
Juries’ Predictability
%
5
40
35
8
-
3.5
14
Juries’ Fairness
%
11
46
33
2
-
3.7
10
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
5
52
39
3
-
3.6
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 17
# of respondents who named each item
Supreme court decisions 5
Admissibility of expert testimony 3
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
73
Table 56
Oklahoma
2007 Overall Ranking: 38
2006 Overall Ranking: 33
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 84)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
14
37
29
8
2
3.6
37
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
8
37
37
8
4
3.4
35
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
5
21
33
12
7
3.1
43
Punitive Damages
%
10
21
38
13
8
3.1
36
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
33
32
17
4
3.2
40
Discovery
%
10
44
33
4
2
3.6
27
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
5
31
40
14
2
3.2
43
Non- economic Damages
%
10
29
39
10
5
3.3
35
Judges' Impartiality
%
12
33
40
7
6
3.4
42
Judges' Competence
%
6
42
37
10
4
3.4
44
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
40
35
12
5
3.3
37
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
37
40
5
8
3.3
39
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
6
32
48
8
5
3.3
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 15
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 4
The workers' comp shield 3
Election of judges 3
Laws are clear, in place ( positive context) 2
Prejudice issues 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
74
Table 57
Oregon
2007 Overall Ranking: 17
2006 Overall Ranking: 30
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 70)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
24
37
21
1
1
4.0
6
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
16
44
23
10
1
3.7
19
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
6
31
33
6
3
3.4
26
Punitive Damages
%
11
29
29
10
9
3.3
26
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
20
33
27
7
3
3.7
11
Discovery
%
10
46
31
4
3
3.6
26
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
16
40
20
4
4
3.7
9
Non- economic Damages
%
13
34
34
6
4
3.5
20
Judges' Impartiality
%
23
43
17
6
1
3.9
10
Judges' Competence
%
20
49
16
3
3
3.9
7
Juries’ Predictability
%
7
30
40
6
4
3.3
27
Juries’ Fairness
%
13
41
27
4
3
3.6
18
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
13
47
27
6
1
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 6
# of respondents who named each item
Reform punitive damages 1
Laws are clear, in place ( positive context) 1
The workers' comp shield 1
Fee issues 1
Contributory negligence 1
Rules of evidence 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
75
Table 58
Pennsylvania
2007 Overall Ranking: 32
2006 Overall Ranking: 31
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 148)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
13
45
24
9
3
3.6
34
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
8
40
38
10
1
3.4
31
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
32
33
11
3
3.3
32
Punitive Damages
%
6
30
41
12
3
3.3
27
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
4
36
38
13
3
3.3
33
Discovery
%
6
47
36
5
1
3.5
34
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
45
30
5
2
3.5
26
Non- economic Damages
%
5
38
31
14
4
3.3
38
Judges' Impartiality
%
13
48
22
11
2
3.6
30
Judges' Competence
%
7
52
26
9
1
3.6
32
Juries’ Predictability
%
4
27
43
12
3
3.2
39
Juries’ Fairness
%
10
36
32
11
2
3.5
30
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
5
49
33
11
1
3.5
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 27
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 7
Commercial sophistication 5
The workers' comp shield 3
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
76
Table 59
Rhode Island
2007 Overall Ranking: 35
2006 Overall Ranking: 26
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 75)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
12
31
27
12
-
3.5
39
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
9
32
27
19
1
3.3
36
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
7
19
32
15
1
3.2
35
Punitive Damages
%
5
24
28
17
1
3.2
30
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
5
28
41
8
3
3.3
28
Discovery
%
11
28
39
7
1
3.5
39
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
25
39
7
1
3.4
38
Non- economic Damages
%
7
25
37
11
-
3.3
31
Judges' Impartiality
%
7
37
32
9
1
3.4
37
Judges' Competence
%
11
31
36
8
1
3.5
38
Juries’ Predictability
%
4
35
31
13
1
3.3
32
Juries’ Fairness
%
7
29
37
9
3
3.3
34
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
9
32
33
16
-
3.4
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 2
# of respondents who named each item
Composition of juries 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
77
Table 60
South Carolina
2007 Overall Ranking: 37
2006 Overall Ranking: 42
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 83)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
10
43
33
6
-
3.6
33
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
6
35
47
8
-
3.4
34
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
4
18
36
18
1
3.1
41
Punitive Damages
%
4
22
55
10
1
3.2
31
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
8
25
42
14
2
3.2
34
Discovery
%
8
39
40
7
-
3.5
35
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
6
25
46
11
-
3.3
40
Non- economic Damages
%
2
27
51
11
-
3.2
41
Judges' Impartiality
%
8
39
37
13
-
3.4
39
Judges' Competence
%
8
43
37
8
-
3.5
35
Juries’ Predictability
%
4
29
43
13
1
3.2
38
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
33
46
8
-
3.4
36
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
4
29
52
13
-
3.2
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 21
# of respondents who named each item
Discovery issues 5
Appointment vs. elections 4
Insurance issues 3
Control frivolous lawsuits 3
Lawyer/ judge competency 2
Cap on damages 2 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
78
Table 61
South Dakota
2007 Overall Ranking: 11
2006 Overall Ranking: 7
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 55)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
20
38
20
2
2
3.9
10
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
11
45
35
2
-
3.7
13
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
5
25
35
2
4
3.4
29
Punitive Damages
%
11
29
36
2
4
3.5
16
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
20
36
24
2
4
3.8
2
Discovery
%
11
53
20
4
2
3.8
10
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
9
36
31
2
2
3.6
18
Non- economic Damages
%
11
35
36
4
2
3.6
17
Judges' Impartiality
%
20
44
22
2
2
3.9
12
Judges' Competence
%
9
55
22
4
-
3.8
18
Juries’ Predictability
%
11
33
31
5
2
3.6
7
Juries’ Fairness
%
16
44
22
2
2
3.8
5
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
11
45
29
4
-
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 4
# of respondents who named each item
Joint and several liability rules 1
Legislature 1
Court resources/ funding/ staffing 1
Cap on damages 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
79
Table 62
Tennessee
2007 Overall Ranking: 6
2006 Overall Ranking: 29
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 104)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
20
52
18
-
1
4.0
3
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
13
51
25
5
1
3.7
11
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
13
29
30
2
1
3.7
2
Punitive Damages
%
13
43
29
4
2
3.7
3
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
12
48
25
9
-
3.7
9
Discovery
%
13
46
30
3
-
3.8
7
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
15
38
29
4
-
3.8
6
Non- economic Damages
%
12
42
36
1
1
3.7
5
Judges' Impartiality
%
17
46
29
3
-
3.8
16
Judges' Competence
%
15
53
28
-
-
3.9
9
Juries’ Predictability
%
11
38
35
5
1
3.6
4
Juries’ Fairness
%
14
39
34
3
2
3.7
14
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
10
57
29
2
-
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 7
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 2
The workers' comp shield 2
Wrongful death issue 1
Prejudice issues 1
Election of judges 1
Reduce fraudulent cases 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
80
Table 63
Texas
2007 Overall Ranking: 44
2006 Overall Ranking: 43
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 214)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
12
33
30
12
5
3.4
45
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
4
34
39
17
4
3.2
43
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
6
24
34
17
7
3.1
42
Punitive Damages
%
5
26
29
23
8
3.0
38
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
3
31
39
15
5
3.1
42
Discovery
%
6
43
33
8
3
3.4
41
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
7
40
33
5
2
3.5
27
Non- economic Damages
%
6
29
30
22
5
3.1
43
Judges' Impartiality
%
4
32
40
15
6
3.1
46
Judges' Competence
%
5
38
38
13
3
3.3
45
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
29
36
20
7
3.0
44
Juries’ Fairness
%
4
31
34
18
8
3.1
45
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
2
35
40
19
2
3.2
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 56
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 9
The workers' comp shield 9
Prejudice issues 7
Jury awards are too high 7
Hard to get a dismissal 6
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
81
Table 64
Utah
2007 Overall Ranking: 9
2006 Overall Ranking: 17
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 88)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
15
50
20
3
-
3.9
16
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
8
56
27
5
1
3.7
18
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
5
34
26
7
-
3.5
15
Punitive Damages
%
14
38
30
6
1
3.6
5
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
8
48
33
5
-
3.6
14
Discovery
%
10
53
27
1
1
3.8
12
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
6
48
27
5
-
3.6
15
Non- economic Damages
%
6
45
32
5
-
3.6
10
Judges' Impartiality
%
16
48
26
6
-
3.8
21
Judges' Competence
%
15
49
28
2
-
3.8
16
Juries’ Predictability
%
8
48
26
5
-
3.7
2
Juries’ Fairness
%
11
45
25
6
-
3.7
12
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
8
59
30
1
-
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 6
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 2
Composition of juries 1
Hard to get a dismissal 1
Prejudice issues 1
The nature of the case 1
Election of judges 1
Cap on damages 1 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
82
Table 65
Vermont
2007 Overall Ranking: 27
2006 Overall Ranking: 24
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 53)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
15
36
21
6
-
3.8
23
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
8
42
25
6
2
3.6
25
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
9
25
17
11
-
3.5
13
Punitive Damages
%
4
32
26
8
2
3.4
21
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
6
30
30
9
-
3.4
23
Discovery
%
11
34
28
6
2
3.6
28
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
9
32
25
9
2
3.5
29
Non- economic Damages
%
9
38
19
8
2
3.6
9
Judges' Impartiality
%
17
42
11
11
6
3.6
29
Judges' Competence
%
13
45
13
8
6
3.6
26
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
34
28
13
-
3.3
33
Juries’ Fairness
%
8
36
25
9
2
3.5
29
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
9
45
23
6
2
3.6
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 3
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 3
Hard to get a dismissal 1
Focus on specific local issue 1
Statute of repose issues 1
Cap on damages 1 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
83
Table 66
Virginia
2007 Overall Ranking: 12
2006 Overall Ranking: 3
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 102)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
16
49
20
2
-
3.9
9
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
13
50
26
6
1
3.7
14
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
7
35
32
5
2
3.5
16
Punitive Damages
%
10
34
31
10
2
3.5
17
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
13
39
29
6
4
3.6
19
Discovery
%
10
51
28
6
-
3.7
20
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
9
53
25
2
-
3.8
5
Non- economic Damages
%
5
47
31
5
3
3.5
21
Judges' Impartiality
%
15
61
19
4
-
3.9
11
Judges' Competence
%
16
61
21
2
-
3.9
6
Juries’ Predictability
%
3
46
32
7
-
3.5
11
Juries’ Fairness
%
7
53
24
6
1
3.7
17
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
10
61
26
2
1
3.8
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 14
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 6
Composition of juries 2
Wrongful death issue 2
Number of environmental cases 2
Discovery issues 2 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
84
Table 67
Washington
2007 Overall Ranking: 25
2006 Overall Ranking: 28
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 130)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
15
31
26
5
1
3.7
28
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
8
37
34
8
1
3.5
29
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
5
32
28
6
2
3.4
24
Punitive Damages
%
Washington does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
12
37
23
8
2
3.6
15
Discovery
%
8
40
29
6
1
3.6
29
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
9
36
28
4
-
3.7
14
Non- economic Damages
%
6
32
32
7
2
3.4
29
Judges' Impartiality
%
14
42
22
8
1
3.7
24
Judges' Competence
%
13
47
23
2
2
3.8
17
Juries’ Predictability
%
2
29
42
6
2
3.3
35
Juries’ Fairness
%
5
35
33
5
1
3.5
26
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
6
45
32
5
1
3.6
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 9
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 2
Focus on specific local issue 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
85
Table 68
West Virginia
2007 Overall Ranking: 50
2006 Overall Ranking: 50
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 140)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
1
13
31
20
16
2.6
50
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
1
9
31
36
16
2.4
50
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
1
11
21
27
22
2.3
50
Punitive Damages
%
1
8
21
37
24
2.2
44
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
3
13
33
28
11
2.6
50
Discovery
%
3
10
44
22
9
2.7
50
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
1
11
30
33
11
2.5
50
Non- economic Damages
%
1
7
27
33
21
2.3
50
Judges' Impartiality
%
1
11
31
31
16
2.5
50
Judges' Competence
%
1
14
40
29
9
2.7
50
Juries’ Predictability
%
1
14
27
32
14
2.5
50
Juries’ Fairness
%
-
14
24
35
18
2.4
50
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
2
9
29
40
16
2.4
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 23
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 9
Laws are clear, in place ( positive context) 4
Composition of juries 2
Insurance issues 2
Political influence/ interference 2
Class action issues 2
The workers’ comp shield 2
The nature of the case 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
86
Table 69
Wisconsin
2007 Overall Ranking: 10
2006 Overall Ranking: 23
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 107)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
21
36
21
7
1
3.8
20
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
19
43
23
7
1
3.8
9
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
10
28
28
2
3
3.6
9
Punitive Damages
%
12
35
28
6
2
3.6
10
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
17
41
24
6
1
3.8
4
Discovery
%
19
47
17
4
3
3.8
3
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
14
35
24
7
3
3.6
22
Non- economic Damages
%
11
36
36
4
1
3.6
8
Judges' Impartiality
%
21
50
16
3
2
3.9
7
Judges' Competence
%
15
55
16
4
2
3.8
12
Juries’ Predictability
%
6
37
34
5
1
3.5
10
Juries’ Fairness
%
13
49
19
1
1
3.9
3
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
9
54
26
5
1
3.7
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 18
# of respondents who named each item
Insurance issues 5
Election of judges 4
Wrongful death issue 3
Update judicial system 3
Cap on damages 2 US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
87
Table 70
Wyoming
2007 Overall Ranking: 22
2006 Overall Ranking: 16
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 53)
" A"
" B"
" C"
" D"
" F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking Within Element
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
%
13
38
23
4
2
3.7
27
Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
%
13
51
19
2
2
3.8
4
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
%
6
25
25
4
-
3.5
11
Punitive Damages
%
11
36
25
4
4
3.6
10
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
%
15
26
28
8
2
3.6
17
Discovery
%
15
36
32
2
-
3.8
9
Scientific and Technical Evidence
%
8
34
28
4
-
3.6
17
Non- economic Damages
%
13
28
26
11
2
3.5
24
Judges' Impartiality
%
9
40
25
8
6
3.5
35
Judges' Competence
%
9
32
34
8
2
3.5
39
Juries’ Predictability
%
6
38
26
8
2
3.5
15
Juries’ Fairness
%
13
32
25
6
4
3.6
22
OVERALL STATE GRADE
%
9
49
26
4
4
3.6
ADDITIONAL VOLUNTEERED ITEMS TOTAL
N= 10
# of respondents who named each item
Legislature 4
Other 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
88
Appendix A: Methodology US Chamber of Commerce — 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
89
METHODOLOGY
AN OVERVIEW
The 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study was conducted for the U. S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform by Harris Interactive, Inc. The final results are based on interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,599 in- house general counsel or other senior litigators at companies with annual revenues of at least $ 100 million. Interviews averaging 22 minutes in length were conducted by telephone and took place between December 27, 2006 and March 2, 2007.
SAMPLE DESIGN
A representative sample of companies with annual revenues of at least $ 100 million annually was drawn using sample from idExec, Dun & Bradstreet, and AMI. Alert letters were sent to the general counsel at each company. These letters provided general information about the study, notified them that an interviewer from Harris Interactive would be contacting them and requested their participation. A copy of both letters appears in Appendix C.
The sample was segmented into two main groups. Of the 1,599 respondents, 77 were from insurance companies, with the remaining 1,522 interviews being conducted among public corpo