2006 U. S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
STATE LIABILITY SYSTEMS
RANKING STUDY
Final Report
March 17, 2006
Conducted for:
U. S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
Field Dates:
November 28, 2005 – March 7, 2006
Project Managers:
Humphrey Taylor, Chairman, The Harris Poll
Regina Corso, Research Director
Gwendolyn Radsch, Senior Research Associate
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... .......................................... 6
METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... ............................. 6
NOTES ON READING TABLES......................................................................................................................... ............................... 7
PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................... . 7
PUBLIC RELEASE OF SURVEY FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... ................ 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... ............................ 8
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
CHANGES IN RANKINGS ............................................................................................................................... .............................. 90
SIGNIFICANCE TESTING........................................................................................................................ ...................................... 91
APPENDIX B: PRIOR STATE RANKINGS USING PAST YEARS’ RANKING SYSTEM.............................................. 97
APPENDIX C: ALERT LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................. 99
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 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: TOP 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 HAVING AND ENFORCING MEANINGFUL VENUE REQUIREMENTS ...... 25
TABLE 10: STATE RANKINGS FOR OVERALL TREATMENT OF TORT AND CONTRACT LITIGATION......... 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 — 2006 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 413: 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 — 2006 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)
............................................................................................................................... ........................................................................ 92
TABLE A- 2: SAMPLING ERROR OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROPORTIONS....................................................... 94
TABLE B- 1: OVERALL RANKING OF STATE LIABILITY SYSTEMS........................................................................... 96
TABLE B- 2: PRIOR STATE RANKINGS USING PAST YEARS’ RANKING SYSTEM................................................. 97
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
6
INTRODUCTION
The 2006 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 litigators at public corporations. This study was
conducted between November 2005 and March 2006. In previous research conducted in November 2004 to
February 2005, December 2003 to February 2004, December 2002 to February 2003 and January to February 2002,
similar rankings were created and analyzed, however this year, we have expanded the rankings to include areas that
were not previously covered. This year’s ranking is therefore new and not directly comparable to previous years’
rankings.
The goal was to explore how reasonable and fair 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:
• Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements ( new this year)
• Tort and Contract Litigation
• Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits ( mass consolidation has been added this year)
• Punitive Damages
• Timeliness of Summary Judgment/ Dismissal
• Discovery
• Scientific and Technical Evidence
• Non- economic Damages ( new this year)
• Judges’ Impartiality and Competence
• Juries' Predictability and Fairness
METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
All interviews for The 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study were conducted by telephone among a nationally
representative sample of senior attorneys at companies with annual revenues of at least $ 100 million. Interviews
averaging 24 minutes in length were conducted with a total of 1,456 respondents and took place between November
28, 2005 and March 7, 2006. The sample was segmented into two main groups. Of the 1,456 respondents, 88 were
from insurance companies, with the remaining 1,368 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 C.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 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. Ties between
states with matching mean grades were ranked by looking at the percentage of “ A” grades.
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.
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; Regina Corso, Research Director and Gwendolyn Radsch, Senior
Research Associate. 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 — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2006 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 fair the tort liability system is perceived to be by U. S. business. The 2006 ranking builds on previous years’
work in 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002 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. The 2006 ranking has expanded from previous years to
include areas that were not originally measured: venue requirements, mass consolidation suits and non- economic
damages. While we can look to the past years’ rankings to see general movement, a direct trend from previous years
cannot be made.
There has been an improvement in the number of senior attorneys surveyed who view the state court liability system
favorably, with a net increase of 10 percentage points between 2003 and 2006 in those indicating the system is
excellent or pretty good, although a majority of those surveyed continue to view the system as only fair or
poor. Further, and perhaps more importantly, a large majority ( 70%) 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 class- action
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.
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,
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
9
scientific and technical evidence, non- economic damages, judges’ impartiality and competence, and juries'
predictability and fairness. These grades were combined to create an overall ranking of state liability systems. 1
According to the U. S. businesses surveyed, the states doing the best job of creating a fair and reasonable
litigation environment are Delaware, Nebraska, Virginia, Iowa, and Connecticut. The bottom five states
today are West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Hawaii. [ See Table 3A]
States were also ranked by each of the key elements making up the overall grade. 2 While some states remained
leaders across the elements, some states stood out as getting particularly high or low ratings on certain elements.
• For having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements, an item added to the rankings this year,
the top five states are: Virginia, Delaware, Nebraska, North Carolina and Indiana. The bottom five states
are: West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Illinois. [ See Table 8]
• For overall treatment of tort and contract litigation, today the top five states are: Delaware, Virginia,
Nebraska, Iowa, and Indiana. In 2005, the top five consisted of Delaware, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Virginia, and Iowa. Today the bottom five states are: West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama,
and Hawaii. In 2005, the bottom five states were: Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, and
California. [ See Table 8] 3
• For treatment of class action suits and mass consolidation suits, the top five states are: Delaware,
Nebraska, Iowa, Connecticut and Arizona. In previous years, we only asked about treatment of class
action suits and in 2005 the top five consisted of Delaware, Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa and South
Dakota. The bottom five states on the revised element are: West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi and California. In 2005, the bottom five states were: West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana,
Illinois and California [ See Table 8]
• For punitive damages, today the top five states are: Delaware, Virginia, Iowa, Indiana and North
Dakota. In 2005, the top five states consisted of: Delaware, North Dakota, Idaho, Indiana and Virginia.
The bottom five states today are: West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, California, and Illinois. The
bottom five states in 2005 were: Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Illinois, and California. [ See
Table 8]
1 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 10 items, which was rescaled from
0 to 100 prior to averaging them together.
2 For the “ Ranking on Key Elements” tables, states were ranked by their mean grades on that element. Ties between states with
matching mean grades were resolved by looking at the percentage of “ A” grades, the base sizes and any rounding that may have
taken place.
3 While we are providing comparisons to the previous year’s rankings on these elements, please note this is for anecdotal reasons
only. Due to the change in the overall structure of this year’s survey, we can not directly trend this data.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
10
• For timeliness of summary judgment or dismissal, today the top five states are: Delaware, Virginia,
South Dakota, Nebraska, and Maine. In 2005, the top five states consisted of: Delaware, Nebraska,
Virginia, North Dakota, and Idaho. The bottom five states are: West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Hawaii, and Alabama. In 2005, the bottom five states were: Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama,
Louisiana, and California. [ See Table 8]
• For discovery, today the top five states are: Delaware, Virginia, Nebraska, Iowa and New Hampshire.
In 2005, the top five consisted of: Delaware, North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia, and New Hampshire.
The bottom five states today are: West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Hawaii. The
bottom five states in 2005 were: Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, and California. [ See
Table 8]
• For handling of scientific and technical evidence, today the top five states are: Delaware, Virginia,
Colorado, New York, and Nebraska. In 2005, the top five states consisted of: Delaware, Washington,
Virginia, Nebraska, and Minnesota. The bottom five states today are: West Virginia, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Alabama, and Hawaii. In 2005, the bottom five states were: Mississippi, West Virginia,
Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas. [ See Table 8]
• For non- economic damages, an item added to the rankings this year, the top five states are: Delaware,
Nebraska, Virginia, North Dakota and Iowa. The bottom five states are: West Virginia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama and California. [ See Table 8]
• For judges’ impartiality, this year the top five states are: Delaware, Virginia, Nebraska, Iowa, and
Connecticut. In 2005, the top five states consisted of: Delaware, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, and
Maine. The bottom five states today are: Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Hawaii.
In 2005, the bottom five states were: Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Illinois. [ See
Table 8]
• For judges’ competence, today the top five states are: Delaware, Virginia, Nebraska, Connecticut and
Iowa. In 2005, the top five states were: Delaware, Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, and Iowa. The
bottom five states today are: West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Hawaii. In 2005, the
bottom five states were: Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Illinois. [ See Table 8]
• For juries’ predictability, today the top five states are: Nebraska, Connecticut, Iowa, Delaware and
Wisconsin. In 2005, the top five states were: Delaware, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Iowa.
The bottom five states today are: Mississippi, Louisiana, California, Hawaii and Alabama. In 2005, the
bottom five states were: Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, and California. [ See Table 8]
• For juries’ fairness, today the top five states are: Nebraska, Iowa, Connecticut, Delaware and Indiana.
In 2005, the top five states were: Nebraska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa. The
bottom five states today are: Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, Alabama and Hawaii. In 2005, the
bottom five states were: Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Illinois. [ See Table 8]
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
11
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. This year our top two responses
were reversed from last year. Reform of punitive damages was cited by 25% of our respondents ( as compared to
16% of the respondents in 2005) and 17% of our respondents named tort reform in general as the most important
issue ( as compared to 22% of respondents last year). Other top issues named were limitation of class action lawsuits
( named by 9% of respondents this year and 6% in 2005), fairness and impartiality ( 8% this year as compared to 5%
in 2005), limits on non- economic damages ( 7% in 2006 while not being mentioned by even 1% in 2005), and
elimination of unnecessary lawsuits ( 7% in 2006 as compared to 4% in 2005). [ See Table 9]
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, a question first asked in
2004. The worst jurisdiction was Los Angeles, California ( mentioned by 20% of the respondents), followed by
Texas ( various other jurisdictions) which was mentioned by 15% of the respondents. At third worst is Cook County
( Chicago), Illinois, mentioned by 14%, closely followed by Madison County in Illinois ( cited by 13% of the
respondents). Following are the New York Greater Metropolitan Area ( mentioned by 11% of the respondents),
California ( various other jurisdictions) ( mentioned by 8% of the respondents), and then Alabama ( various other
jurisdictions) and New Orleans Parish, Louisiana ( each mentioned by 7% of respondents). Dade County ( Miami),
Florida ( cited by 6% of respondents) and Mississippi ( various other jurisdictions) ( mentioned by 5% of respondents)
rounded off the top ten mentions. In total, the state of California received the most mentions as having a jurisdiction
with the least fair and reasonable litigation environment ( mentioned by 40% of respondents), followed by Illinois
( with 31% of respondents who mentioned a jurisdiction in that state) and Texas ( cited by 29% of respondents. [ See
Tables 5 and 6]
This year, in order to understand why respondents feel negatively about particular jurisdictions, a follow- up question
was added 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 biased judgment, given by 18% of respondents, and is the number one reason by
a large margin. The next tier is led by a personal experience, mentioned by only 5% of respondents, followed by
incompetent jury/ judges, corrupt/ unfair system and having seen/ read a case, each mentioned by 4% of respondents.
[ See Table 7]
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 — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
12
DETAILED TABLES OF RESULTS
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
13
Table 1
Overall Rating of State Court Liability Systems in America
2%
30%
3% 3%
5%
2%
4% 4%
19%
47%
13%
44%
36%
14%
46%
35%
10%
45%
39%
1%
Excellent Pretty Good Only Fair Poor Not Sure/ Decline
to answer
2003 2004 2005 2006
Excellent/ Pretty Good
( Net)
2003 31%
2004 39%
2005 37%
2006 41%
Only Fair/ Poor ( Net)
2003 65%
2004 56%
2005 60%
2006 55%
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
14
Table 2
Impact of Litigation Environment on Important Business Decisions
Such as Where to Locate or do Business
30%
39%
16%
13%
1%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
Not sure/ decline
to answer
Yes, could likely affect
important business
decision such as where
to locate or do business
No, is unlikely to
affect important
business decision
29%
70%
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
15
Table 3A
Overall Ranking of State Liability Systems
2006 4
STATE RANK SCORE 5 N
Delaware 1 74.9 108
Nebraska 2 71.5 78
Virginia 3 71.1 121
Iowa 4 68.8 109
Connecticut 5 66.9 90
New Hampshire 6 66.0 81
South Dakota 7 65.7 56
Colorado 8 65.6 100
Maine 9 65.5 66
North Carolina 10 65.2 98
Indiana 11 65.2 99
North Dakota 12 65.2 51
Arizona 13 65.1 98
Minnesota 14 65.0 83
Kansas 15 64.5 110
Wyoming 16 64.2 66
Utah 17 64.2 103
Idaho 18 64.0 70
Ohio 19 63.5 139
Maryland 20 63.4 91
New York 21 63.2 217
Michigan 22 63.1 125
Wisconsin 23 62.6 110
Vermont 24 62.3 61
New Jersey 25 61.4 141
Rhode Island 26 61.1 91
Georgia 27 61.0 118
Washington 28 60.7 139
Tennessee 29 59.9 109
Oregon 30 59.8 89
Pennsylvania 31 59.3 157
Massachusetts 32 59.0 125
Oklahoma 33 58.8 100
Kentucky 34 58.0 101
Missouri 35 57.8 109
Alaska 36 56.2 58
Nevada 37 56.0 85
Florida 38 55.2 209
Montana 39 54.8 70
New Mexico 40 54.2 96
Arkansas 41 54.1 99
South Carolina 42 53.9 95
Texas 43 52.0 243
California 44 49.8 317
Illinois 45 49.2 229
Hawaii 46 48.0 74
Alabama 47 44.4 125
Mississippi 48 39.7 143
Louisiana 49 39.0 137
West Virginia 50 37.3 137
4 2006 rankings are based on a new ranking system, therefore they are distinct from prior year’s rankings which can be found in Appendix B.
5
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 — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
16
Table 3B
Map of Overall Ranking of State Liability Systems 6
Best Moderate* Worst
1. Delaware 18. Idaho 27. Georgia 36. Alaska
2. Nebraska 19. Ohio 28. Washington 37. Nevada
3. Virginia 20. Maryland 29. Tennessee 38. Florida
4. Iowa 21. New York 30. Oregon 39. Montana
5. Connecticut 22. Michigan 31. Pennsylvania 40. New Mexico
6. New Hampshire 23. Wisconsin 32. Massachusetts 41. Arkansas
7. South Dakota 24. Vermont 33. Oklahoma 42. South Carolina
8. Colorado 25. New Jersey 34. Kentucky 43. Texas
9. Maine 26. Rhode Island 35. Missouri 44. California
10. North Carolina 45. Illinois
11. Indiana 46. Hawaii
12. North Dakota 47. Alabama
13. Arizona 48. Mississippi
14. Minnesota 49. Louisiana
15. Kansas 50. West Virginia
16. Wyoming
17. Utah
* Neither Best, nor Worst
States listed as “ Best” had a total score exceeding 64.0, those listed as “ Moderate” had scores of 64.0 to 56.0, those listed as
“ Worst” had scores of 57.0 or lower.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 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
%
Reform of punitive damages 25
Tort reform issues in general 17
Limitation of class action suits 9
Fairness and impartiality 8
Caps/ limits on non- economic damages 7
Eliminate unnecessary lawsuits 7
Judicial competence 6
Speeding up the trial process 5
Forum shopping/ venue selection 3
Appointment vs. elections of judges 3
Timeliness of decisions 3
Limiting attorney fees 3
Selection of judges 3
Caps/ limits on jury awards 3
Caps/ limits on liability lawsuit awards 2
Attorney/ court fees paid by the loser 2
Predictability 2
Quality of judges 2
Workers’ compensation 2
Limits on discovery 2
Joint and several liability 2
Medical malpractice 2
Adequately funding the court system ( i. e. salaries) 2
Level playing field/ do not favor plaintiffs 2
* Note: The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Mentions by 2% or more are given above.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
18
Table 5
Cities or Counties with the Least Fair and Reasonable Litigation Environment*
Total
%
Los Angeles, California 20
Texas ( various other jurisdictions)** 15
Chicago/ Cook County, Illinois 14
Madison County, Illinois 13
New York Greater Metropolitan Area ( including
Newark, New Jersey)
11
California ( various other jurisdictions)** 8
Alabama ( various other jurisdictions)** 7
New Orleans Parish, Louisiana 7
Dade County ( Miami), Florida 6
Mississippi ( various other jurisdictions)** 5
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 4
Houston, Texas 4
Florida ( various other jurisdictions)** 4
Illinois ( various other jurisdictions)** 4
St. Louis, Missouri 3
Georgia ( various other jurisdictions)** 3
Jackson, Mississippi 3
Detroit, Michigan 3
West Virginia ( various other jurisdictions)** 3
Hidalgo County, Texas 2
Washington DC 2
St. Clair, Illinois 2
Jefferson County, Texas 2
Boston, Massachusetts 2
Dallas- Ft. Worth, Texas 2
Harris County, Texas 2
Wayne County, Michigan 2
Louisiana ( various other jurisdictions)** 2
Washington ( various other jurisdictions)** 2
* Note: The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Mentions by at least 2% given above.
** Note: Respondents mentioned a wide variety of other jurisdictions in the following states: Alabama, California, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Washington and West Virginia. Because no single jurisdiction predominated
within these states, these responses are listed as "[ state name] ( various other jurisdictions)".
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
19
Table 6
Top Specific City or County Courts by State*
RANKED BY
STATE
Base size: 1,456
%
California ( all mentions) 40
Los Angeles 20
San Francisco 10
Other jurisdictions mentioned 8
Illinois ( all mentions) 31
Chicago/ Cook County 14
Madison County 13
St. Clair 2
Other jurisdictions mentioned 4
Texas ( all mentions) 29
Houston 4
Beaumont 3
Hidalgo County 2
Jefferson County 2
Dallas- Ft. Worth 2
Harris County 2
Other jurisdictions mentioned 15
New York ( all mentions, including Newark, NJ) 12
Greater Metropolitan area ( including Newark, NJ) 11
Other jurisdictions mentioned *
Florida ( all mentions) 10
Miami- Dade County 6
Other jurisdictions mentioned 4
Louisiana ( all mentions) 9
New Orleans Parish 7
Other jurisdictions mentioned 2
Mississippi ( all mentions) 8
Jackson 3
Other jurisdictions mentioned 5
Alabama ( all mentions) 7
Various jurisdictions mentioned 7
* Note: The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Those with 100 mentions or more when asked about which jurisdiction has
the least fair/ reasonable litigation environment above. Due to rounding and multiple responses, these percentages may not add up to 100%.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
20
TABLE 7
Top Issues Mentioned as Creating the LEAST Fair and Reasonable Litigation Environment
Total
Base size: 1,456
%
Biased judgment 18
Personal experience 5
Incompetent jury/ judges 4
Corrupt/ unfair system 4
Have seen/ read about a case 4
Unfair jury/ judges 3
Unpredictable jury/ judges 3
Judgments 3
General corruption 3
Slow process 2
High jury awards 2
Dislike the jury/ judges 2
General inconvenience 1
Too liberal 1
Allow forum shopping 1
High jury verdicts 1
* Note: The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Mentions by at least 1% are given above.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
21
Table 8
Summary of Top/ Bottom 5 States By Key Elements
Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
BEST WORST
Virginia West Virginia
Delaware Louisiana
Nebraska Mississippi
North Carolina Alabama
Indiana Illinois
Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
BEST WORST
Delaware West Virginia
Virginia Mississippi
Nebraska Louisiana
Iowa Alabama
Indiana Hawaii
Treatment of Class Action Suits and Mass Consolidation Suits
BEST WORST
Delaware West Virginia
Virginia Louisiana
Nebraska Alabama
Iowa Mississippi
Connecticut California
Punitive Damages
BEST WORST
Delaware West Virginia
Virginia Mississippi
Iowa Alabama
Indiana California
North Dakota Illinois
Timeliness of Summary Judgment or Dismissal
BEST WORST
Delaware West Virginia
Virginia Louisiana
South Dakota Mississippi
Nebraska Hawaii
Maine Alabama
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
22
Table 8 ( Cont'd)
Summary of Top/ Bottom 5 States By Key Elements
Discovery
BEST WORST
Delaware West Virginia
Virginia Louisiana
Nebraska Mississippi
Iowa Alabama
New Hampshire Hawaii
Scientific and Technical Evidence
BEST WORST
Delaware West Virginia
Virginia Mississippi
Colorado Louisiana
New York Alabama
Nebraska Hawaii
Non- economic Damages
BEST WORST
Delaware West Virginia
Nebraska Louisiana
Virginia Mississippi
North Dakota Alabama
Iowa California
Judges' Impartiality
BEST WORST
Delaware Louisiana
Virginia West Virginia
Nebraska Mississippi
Iowa Alabama
Connecticut Hawaii
Judge's Competence
BEST WORST
Delaware West Virginia
Virginia Louisiana
Nebraska Mississippi
Connecticut Alabama
Iowa Hawaii
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
23
Table 8 ( Cont'd)
Summary of Top/ Bottom 5 States By Key Elements
Juries' Predictability
BEST WORST
Nebraska Mississippi
Connecticut Louisiana
Iowa California
Delaware Hawaii
Wisconsin Alabama
Juries' Fairness
BEST WORST
Nebraska Mississippi
Iowa Louisiana
Connecticut West Virginia
Delaware Alabama
Indiana Hawaii
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
24
STATE RANKINGS BY KEY ELEMENTS
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
25
Table 9
State Rankings for Having and Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Virginia 1 Rhode Island 26
Delaware 2 Utah 27
Nebraska 3 Kansas 28
North Carolina 4 Kentucky 29
Indiana 5 Tennessee 30
Iowa 6 Oklahoma 31
New York 7 Wyoming 32
Wisconsin 8 Nevada 33
Connecticut 9 Massachusetts 34
Minnesota 10 Washington 35
Idaho 11 Florida 36
South Dakota 12 Alaska 37
Colorado 13 Missouri 38
Maine 14 South Carolina 39
Arizona 15 Arkansas 40
Pennsylvania 16 Texas 41
New Jersey 17 California 42
Oregon 18 Montana 43
Michigan 19 Hawaii 44
Ohio 20 New Mexico 45
North Dakota 21 Illinois 46
Maryland 22 Alabama 47
New Hampshire 23 Mississippi 48
Georgia 24 Louisiana 49
Vermont 25 West Virginia 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
26
Table 10
State Rankings for Overall Treatment of Tort and Contract Litigation
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Delaware 1 Wisconsin 26
Virginia 2 Rhode Island 27
Nebraska 3 New Jersey 28
Iowa 4 Massachusetts 29
Indiana 5 Washington 30
South Dakota 6 Pennsylvania 31
Connecticut 7 Oregon 32
North Carolina 8 Kentucky 33
New Hampshire 9 Missouri 34
Arizona 10 Oklahoma 35
Colorado 11 Alaska 36
Kansas 12 Nevada 37
New York 13 Florida 38
Maryland 14 South Carolina 39
Minnesota 15 New Mexico 40
Utah 16 Arkansas 41
North Dakota 17 Montana 42
Wyoming 18 Texas 43
Georgia 19 Illinois 44
Michigan 20 California 45
Maine 21 Hawaii 46
Idaho 22 Alabama 47
Vermont 23 Louisiana 48
Tennessee 24 Mississippi 49
Ohio 25 West Virginia 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 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 Oklahoma 26
Virginia 2 Oregon 27
Nebraska 3 Rhode Island 28
Iowa 4 Vermont 29
Connecticut 5 Missouri 30
Arizona 6 New Jersey 31
Kansas 7 Pennsylvania 32
North Dakota 8 Nevada 33
South Dakota 9 Massachusetts 34
Wyoming 10 Minnesota 35
Idaho 11 Washington 36
New York 12 Alaska 37
Georgia 13 Montana 38
Utah 14 Florida 39
Ohio 15 South Carolina 40
Indiana 16 New Mexico 41
Colorado 17 Texas 42
New Hampshire 18 Arkansas 43
North Carolina 19 Hawaii 44
Michigan 20 Illinois 45
Maine 21 California 46
Maryland 22 Mississippi 47
Tennessee 23 Alabama 48
Wisconsin 24 Louisiana 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 — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
28
Table 12
Punitive Damages
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Delaware 1 Tennessee 23
Virginia 2 Rhode Island 24
Iowa 3 Kentucky 25
Indiana 4 Wisconsin 26
North Dakota 5 Pennsylvania 27
Kansas 6 Oklahoma 28
North Carolina 7 Arkansas 29
Utah 8 Missouri 30
Wyoming 9 New Mexico 31
Michigan 10 Oregon 32
Colorado 11 Nevada 33
South Dakota 12 South Carolina 34
Ohio 13 Alaska 35
Connecticut 14 Texas 36
Maine 15 Florida 37
Minnesota 16 Montana 38
Georgia 17 Hawaii 39
Arizona 18 Illinois 40
Idaho 19 California 41
Vermont 20 Alabama 42
Maryland 21 Mississippi 43
New York 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).
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
29
Table 13
Timeliness of Summary Judgment/ Dismissal
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Delaware 1 Georgia 26
Virginia 2 Tennessee 27
South Dakota 3 Rhode Island 28
Nebraska 4 Pennsylvania 29
Maine 5 New Jersey 30
New Hampshire 6 Missouri 31
Minnesota 7 Kentucky 32
Wyoming 8 Massachusetts 33
Iowa 9 Alaska 34
Indiana 10 New York 35
Arizona 11 Oklahoma 36
Idaho 12 Nevada 37
Utah 13 Montana 38
North Dakota 14 Florida 39
Colorado 15 Texas 40
Ohio 16 Arkansas 41
North Carolina 17 New Mexico 42
Wisconsin 18 South Carolina 43
Vermont 19 Illinois 44
Michigan 20 California 45
Connecticut 21 Alabama 46
Maryland 22 Hawaii 47
Washington 23 Mississippi 48
Kansas 24 Louisiana 49
Oregon 25 West Virginia 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
30
Table 14
Discovery
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Delaware 1 Georgia 26
Virginia 2 Washington 27
Nebraska 3 Rhode Island 28
Iowa 4 Oregon 29
New Hampshire 5 Tennessee 30
Wyoming 6 Kentucky 31
North Carolina 7 Pennsylvania 32
Indiana 8 Missouri 33
Colorado 9 Oklahoma 34
Connecticut 10 Massachusetts 35
Idaho 11 Montana 36
Vermont 12 Nevada 37
Wisconsin 13 South Carolina 38
Arizona 14 Texas 39
Ohio 15 Alaska 40
Maryland 16 Florida 41
South Dakota 17 New Mexico 42
North Dakota 18 Arkansas 43
Maine 19 Illinois 44
Kansas 20 California 45
New York 21 Hawaii 46
Michigan 22 Alabama 47
Minnesota 23 Mississippi 48
Utah 24 Louisiana 49
New Jersey 25 West Virginia 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
31
Table 15
Scientific and Technical Evidence
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Delaware 1 South Dakota 26
Virginia 2 North Dakota 27
Colorado 3 Wisconsin 28
New York 4 Indiana 29
Nebraska 5 Tennessee 30
North Carolina 6 Missouri 31
Massachusetts 7 Vermont 32
Connecticut 8 Kansas 33
Minnesota 9 California 34
Iowa 10 Texas 35
New Jersey 11 Nevada 36
Arizona 12 Kentucky 37
New Hampshire 13 Oklahoma 38
Ohio 14 Montana 39
Maine 15 Alaska 40
Rhode Island 16 Florida 41
Utah 17 New Mexico 42
Washington 18 South Carolina 43
Maryland 19 Illinois 44
Wyoming 20 Arkansas 45
Michigan 21 Hawaii 46
Georgia 22 Alabama 47
Pennsylvania 23 Louisiana 48
Oregon 24 Mississippi 49
Idaho 25 West Virginia 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
32
Table 16
Non- economic Damages
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Delaware 1 New Jersey 26
Nebraska 2 Washington 27
Virginia 3 Pennsylvania 28
North Dakota 4 Massachusetts 29
Iowa 5 Alaska 30
Colorado 6 Maryland 31
Kansas 7 Wisconsin 32
South Dakota 8 Oklahoma 33
Utah 9 Oregon 34
North Carolina 10 Missouri 35
Indiana 11 Arkansas 36
Idaho 12 Kentucky 37
Connecticut 13 Montana 38
New Hampshire 14 Florida 39
Wyoming 15 Nevada 40
Maine 16 New Mexico 41
Ohio 17 Texas 42
Arizona 18 South Carolina 43
Minnesota 19 Illinois 44
Michigan 20 Hawaii 45
Georgia 21 California 46
Vermont 22 Alabama 47
Tennessee 23 Mississippi 48
Rhode Island 24 Louisiana 49
New York 25 West Virginia 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
33
Table 17
Judges' Impartiality
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Delaware 1 Vermont 26
Virginia 2 Michigan 27
Nebraska 3 Pennsylvania 28
Iowa 4 Massachusetts 29
Connecticut 5 Georgia 30
Colorado 6 Missouri 31
Wyoming 7 Tennessee 32
Maryland 8 Rhode Island 33
South Dakota 9 Oklahoma 34
New Hampshire 10 Alaska 35
Wisconsin 11 Florida 36
Indiana 12 Kentucky 37
North Dakota 13 Nevada 38
Minnesota 14 California 39
New Jersey 15 Arkansas 40
New York 16 South Carolina 41
Maine 17 Montana 42
Arizona 18 New Mexico 43
Utah 19 Texas 44
North Carolina 20 Illinois 45
Idaho 21 Hawaii 46
Oregon 22 Alabama 47
Kansas 23 Mississippi 48
Washington 24 West Virginia 49
Ohio 25 Louisiana 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
34
Table 18
Judges' Competence
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Delaware 1 Oregon 26
Virginia 2 Vermont 27
Nebraska 3 Michigan 28
Connecticut 4 Georgia 29
Iowa 5 Rhode Island 30
Maryland 6 Pennsylvania 31
New Hampshire 7 Missouri 32
Minnesota 8 Tennessee 33
Colorado 9 Alaska 34
Wisconsin 10 Oklahoma 35
Maine 11 Kentucky 36
Arizona 12 California 37
North Carolina 13 Montana 38
Utah 14 Florida 39
New York 15 New Mexico 40
Kansas 16 Nevada 41
Washington 17 Arkansas 42
New Jersey 18 Illinois 43
North Dakota 19 Texas 44
Indiana 20 South Carolina 45
Idaho 21 Hawaii 46
South Dakota 22 Alabama 47
Massachusetts 23 Mississippi 48
Wyoming 24 Louisiana 49
Ohio 25 West Virginia 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
35
Table 19
Juries’ Predictability
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Nebraska 1 Michigan 26
Connecticut 2 Oklahoma 27
Iowa 3 Kentucky 28
Delaware 4 New York 29
Wisconsin 5 New Jersey 30
New Hampshire 6 Pennsylvania 31
Minnesota 7 Georgia 32
Maine 8 Oregon 33
Indiana 9 New Mexico 34
North Carolina 10 Massachusetts 35
Kansas 11 South Carolina 36
Virginia 12 Montana 37
South Dakota 13 Missouri 38
Utah 14 Washington 39
Vermont 15 Alaska 40
Idaho 16 Florida 41
Arizona 17 Nevada 42
North Dakota 18 Texas 43
Ohio 19 Illinois 44
Arkansas 20 West Virginia 45
Maryland 21 Alabama 46
Rhode Island 22 Hawaii 47
Colorado 23 California 48
Wyoming 24 Louisiana 49
Tennessee 25 Mississippi 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
36
Table 20
Juries’ Fairness
STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING STATE
ELEMENT
RANKING
Nebraska 1 Michigan 26
Iowa 2 New York 27
Connecticut 3 Oklahoma 28
Delaware 4 Massachusetts 29
Indiana 5 Oregon 30
Virginia 6 New Jersey 31
Wisconsin 7 Washington 32
Minnesota 8 Kentucky 33
North Dakota 9 Georgia 34
Colorado 10 Alaska 35
North Carolina 11 Montana 36
Kansas 12 Arkansas 37
South Dakota 13 Missouri 38
Wyoming 14 Nevada 39
Arizona 15 Florida 40
Maine 16 New Mexico 41
Ohio 17 South Carolina 42
New Hampshire 18 Texas 43
Utah 19 Illinois 44
Vermont 20 California 45
Idaho 21 Hawaii 46
Maryland 22 Alabama 47
Rhode Island 23 West Virginia 48
Pennsylvania 24 Louisiana 49
Tennessee 25 Mississippi 50
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 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 2006 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 first asked to rate the following elements of a state liability system:
having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements, tort and contract litigation, 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, 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 top five responses shown are labeled as “ Additional
Volunteered Items” on each individual state table on the following pages. The number of people who provided
volunteer responses is very small ( less than 50) 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 — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
38
Table 21
Alabama
2006 Overall Ranking: 47
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
% 3 23 32 14 10 3.0 47
Overall Treatment of Tort and
Contract Litigation
% 1 19 29 31 13 2.6 47
Treatment of Class Action Suits
and Mass Consolidation Suits
% 1 16 26 18 20 2.5 47
Punitive Damages % 2 15 24 23 25 2.4 42
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 2 18 38 18 11 2.8 46
Discovery % 1 23 46 10 8 3.0 47
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 2 18 34 19 9 2.8 47
Non- economic Damages % 2 14 37 17 18 2.6 47
Judges' Impartiality % 3 25 34 19 8 3.0 47
Judges' Competence % 2 24 39 14 7 3.0 47
Juries’ Predictability % 2 25 29 21 11 2.8 46
Juries’ Fairness % - 17 34 26 12 2.6 47
OVERALL STATE GRADE % - 20 36 27 14 2.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS 7 TOTAL
N= 15
# of respondents who named each item
Reform punitive damages 3
Tort reform legislation 2
Election of judges 2
Cap on damages 2
7 The responses displayed in this table were volunteered by the respondents. Items listed above are individual elements
mentioned by 8% or more of respondents who said that there is an additional element to be taken into account when grading that
state, thus the total number of responses may not equal “ N.”
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
39
Table 22
Alaska
2006 Overall Ranking: 36
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 58)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue Requirements
% 10 17 40 7 - 3.4 37
Overall Treatment of Tort and
Contract Litigation
% 7 21 45 12 2 3.2 36
Treatment of Class Action Suits
and Mass Consolidation Suits
% 5 14 26 12 2 3.1 36
Punitive Damages % 5 17 34 17 5 3.0 35
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 9 16 41 14 2 3.2 34
Discovery % 2 38 33 10 2 3.3 40
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 5 16 41 5 2 3.3 40
Non- economic Damages % 3 31 29 12 3 3.2 30
Judges' Impartiality % 16 31 14 17 5 3.4 35
Judges' Competence % 10 36 21 12 3 3.5 34
Juries’ Predictability % 5 24 29 19 3 3.1 40
Juries’ Fairness % 7 28 29 14 5 3.2 35
OVERALL STATE GRADE % 9 26 36 14 3 3.3
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 2
Statutory reform 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Legislature 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
40
Table 23
Arizona
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
% 9 42 24 4 - 3.7 15
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 55 29 4 1 3.6 10
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 1 36 20 3 - 3.6 5
Punitive Damages % 3 38 32 7 1 3.4 18
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 6 47 23 9 3 3.5 11
Discovery % 10 45 26 6 1 3.7 14
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 6 37 29 1 - 3.7 12
Non- economic Damages % 3 41 34 6 1 3.5 18
Judges' Impartiality % 10 53 21 4 1 3.8 18
Judges' Competence % 9 57 20 2 1 3.8 12
Juries’ Predictability % - 37 41 4 - 3.4 17
Juries’ Fairness % 2 45 31 3 - 3.6 15
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 4 57 32 3 1 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 11
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trial 3
Control frivolous lawsuits 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Election of judges 1
Update judicial system 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
41
Table 24
Arkansas
2006 Overall Ranking: 41
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 99)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 10 29 24 16 2 3.4 40
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 29 41 17 2 3.1 41
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 1 21 31 17 4 3.0 42
Punitive Damages % 4 32 27 15 4 3.2 29
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 6 15 43 16 3 3.1 41
Discovery % 1 30 44 9 3 3.2 43
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 1 17 48 9 4 3.0 45
Non- economic Damages % 2 31 36 11 4 3.2 36
Judges' Impartiality % 7 33 35 9 4 3.3 40
Judges' Competence % 5 31 39 9 3 3.3 42
Juries’ Predictability % 4 35 36 8 2 3.4 20
Juries’ Fairness % 2 33 33 13 4 3.2 37
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 27 51 13 4 3.1
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Statutory reform 2
Composition of juries 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Fairness ( i. e. court, laws, judges) 1
Election of judges 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
42
Table 25
California
2006 Overall Ranking: 44
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 317)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 7 31 32 9 7 3.3 42
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 25 37 21 10 2.9 45
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 19 29 21 15 2.7 45
Punitive Damages % 1 17 30 24 20 2.5 41
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 24 34 18 12 2.9 45
Discovery % 4 31 38 12 7 3.1 45
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 8 33 26 8 6 3.4 34
Non- economic Damages % 2 21 32 22 13 2.8 46
Judges' Impartiality % 9 35 32 12 4 3.4 39
Judges' Competence % 6 39 38 8 2 3.4 37
Juries’ Predictability % 1 19 39 19 11 2.8 48
Juries’ Fairness % 2 21 36 22 9 2.8 45
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 29 35 24 7 2.9
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 73
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 7
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
43
Table 26
Colorado
2006 Overall Ranking: 8
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
% 6 54 19 4 1 3.7 13
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 8 52 26 8 1 3.6 11
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 4 33 30 6 1 3.4 16
Punitive Damages % 8 38 30 10 1 3.5 11
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 4 42 34 7 1 3.5 15
Discovery % 9 50 29 4 - 3.7 9
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 9 55 21 2 1 3.8 3
Non- economic Damages % 8 45 27 3 1 3.7 6
Judges' Impartiality % 19 44 22 5 - 3.9 6
Judges' Competence % 13 53 24 2 - 3.8 9
Juries’ Predictability % 3 31 46 4 2 3.3 23
Juries’ Fairness % 11 39 35 2 1 3.6 10
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 6 57 32 3 - 3.7
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 14
# of respondents who named each item
Supreme court decisions 1
Timeliness for trial 1
Class action issues 1
Legislature 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Rules on evidence 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
44
Table 27
Connecticut
2006 Overall Ranking: 5
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
% 7 51 22 2 - 3.8 9
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 9 50 31 3 - 3.7 7
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 3 36 31 1 - 3.6 4
Punitive Damages % 6 38 27 8 2 3.5 14
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 46 31 8 3 3.4 21
Discovery % 10 48 30 4 - 3.7 10
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 12 32 32 1 1 3.7 8
Non- economic Damages % 4 38 31 4 1 3.5 13
Judges' Impartiality % 16 57 16 3 - 3.9 5
Judges' Competence % 12 64 13 2 - 3.9 4
Juries’ Predictability % 4 47 27 2 - 3.7 2
Juries’ Fairness % 9 49 21 3 - 3.8 3
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 6 60 27 2 - 3.7
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 3
# of respondents who named each item
Legislature 1
Tort reform legislation 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
45
Table 28
Delaware
2006 Overall Ranking: 1
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 108)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 22 45 13 6 - 4.0 2
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 26 47 12 4 - 4.1 1
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 20 48 12 5 - 4.0 1
Punitive Damages % 12 48 17 1 - 3.9 1
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 19 47 23 1 - 3.9 1
Discovery % 19 48 24 1 - 3.9 1
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 17 44 12 - - 4.1 1
Non- economic Damages % 15 45 19 1 - 3.9 1
Judges' Impartiality % 39 45 6 - - 4.4 1
Judges' Competence % 45 39 6 1 - 4.4 1
Juries’ Predictability % 4 43 28 3 - 3.6 4
Juries’ Fairness % 5 49 23 1 - 3.7 4
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 20 62 10 1 - 4.1
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 14
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 4
Environment for business disputes 3
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
46
Table 29
Florida
2006 Overall Ranking: 38
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 209)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 4 42 30 7 3 3.4 36
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 37 38 14 4 3.2 38
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 1 27 32 13 4 3.1 38
Punitive Damages % 2 23 34 18 7 2.9 37
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 2 26 45 11 6 3.1 39
Discovery % 4 35 37 12 3 3.3 41
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 1 31 34 10 3 3.2 41
Non- economic Damages % 2 28 40 13 3 3.2 39
Judges' Impartiality % 6 41 31 10 3 3.4 36
Judges' Competence % 3 42 33 10 2 3.4 39
Juries’ Predictability % - 25 43 11 4 3.1 41
Juries’ Fairness % 1 29 40 11 4 3.1 40
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 38 43 11 3 3.2
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 22
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 3
Favor plaintiffs 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
47
Table 30
Georgia
2006 Overall Ranking: 27
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 118)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 9 42 22 9 1 3.6 24
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 5 50 34 4 2 3.6 19
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 7 27 31 5 1 3.5 12
Punitive Damages % 6 36 32 8 2 3.4 17
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 7 31 39 12 3 3.3 26
Discovery % 5 45 32 8 - 3.5 26
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 3 38 31 4 1 3.5 22
Non- economic Damages % 3 36 37 4 2 3.4 21
Judges' Impartiality % 8 43 34 5 2 3.5 30
Judges' Competence % 8 44 31 6 - 3.6 29
Juries’ Predictability % 2 27 46 12 1 3.2 32
Juries’ Fairness % 1 29 48 9 - 3.2 34
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 2 43 45 6 - 3.4
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 11
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trials 3
Tort reform legislation 3
Competency of lawyers and judges 1
Jury awards are too high 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
48
Table 31
Hawaii
2006 Overall Ranking: 46
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 74)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 3 30 28 8 4 3.3 44
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 11 51 19 4 2.8 46
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 1 12 31 9 5 2.9 43
Punitive Damages % - 14 38 20 4 2.8 39
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 9 39 24 5 2.8 47
Discovery % 3 19 39 15 5 3.0 46
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 1 14 35 16 4 2.9 46
Non- economic Damages % - 15 36 20 4 2.8 45
Judges' Impartiality % 5 12 49 9 5 3.0 46
Judges' Competence % - 26 39 11 5 3.0 46
Juries’ Predictability % - 14 39 20 3 2.8 47
Juries’ Fairness % 1 14 31 26 3 2.8 46
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 11 57 15 5 2.9
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Favor plaintiffs 1
Legislature 1
Ability to issue a summary judgment 1
Court resources/ funding/ staff 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
49
Table 32
Idaho
2006 Overall Ranking: 18
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
% 6 37 24 - - 3.7 11
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 33 39 3 - 3.5 22
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 3 24 23 1 1 3.5 10
Punitive Damages % 4 24 30 9 - 3.4 19
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 4 39 29 6 1 3.5 12
Discovery % 6 40 26 1 - 3.7 11
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 3 27 33 3 - 3.5 25
Non- economic Damages % 6 33 29 4 1 3.5 12
Judges' Impartiality % 10 41 23 1 1 3.7 21
Judges' Competence % 7 43 24 1 - 3.7 21
Juries’ Predictability % 4 27 34 6 - 3.4 16
Juries’ Fairness % 4 34 27 7 - 3.5 21
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 50 31 3 - 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Tort reform 1
Cap on damages 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
50
Table 33
Illinois
2006 Overall Ranking: 45
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 229)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 5 30 28 13 14 3.0 46
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 2 28 32 22 10 2.9 44
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 21 27 16 18 2.7 44
Punitive Damages % 1 21 33 17 16 2.7 40
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 26 34 20 9 2.9 44
Discovery % 3 31 39 12 5 3.2 44
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 2 28 34 11 6 3.1 44
Non- economic Damages % 1 26 30 21 10 2.9 44
Judges' Impartiality % 5 31 34 16 7 3.1 45
Judges' Competence % 7 34 33 14 5 3.2 43
Juries’ Predictability % 2 23 41 14 7 3.0 44
Juries’ Fairness % 2 21 38 20 8 2.9 44
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 28 34 24 9 2.9
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 30
# of respondents who named each item
Favor plaintiffs 4
Fairness ( i. e. court, laws, judges) 4
Venue selection 3
Class action issues 3
Timeliness for trial 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
51
Table 34
Indiana
2006 Overall Ranking: 11
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 99)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 14 40 28 2 - 3.8 5
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 11 49 22 7 - 3.7 5
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 6 28 28 5 2 3.4 15
Punitive Damages % 11 36 25 6 3 3.6 4
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 7 36 34 6 1 3.5 10
Discovery % 5 55 25 3 - 3.7 8
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 2 36 31 5 2 3.4 29
Non- economic Damages % 6 39 35 5 1 3.5 11
Judges' Impartiality % 11 52 24 1 1 3.8 12
Judges' Competence % 5 57 26 1 - 3.7 20
Juries’ Predictability % 3 47 27 7 - 3.5 9
Juries’ Fairness % 9 48 23 5 - 3.7 5
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 5 52 32 3 1 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 9
# of respondents who named each item
Medical malpractice 2
Tort reform legislation 1
Fee issues 1
Cap on damages 1
The workers’ comp shield 1
Reduce fraudulent cases 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
52
Table 35
Iowa
2006 Overall Ranking: 4
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
% 10 47 25 2 - 3.8 6
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 7 56 26 3 - 3.7 4
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 9 31 32 1 1 3.6 3
Punitive Damages % 9 38 31 3 - 3.7 3
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 6 42 34 6 1 3.5 9
Discovery % 10 50 28 2 - 3.8 4
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 5 50 28 1 1 3.7 10
Non- economic Damages % 7 45 32 2 - 3.7 5
Judges' Impartiality % 21 51 17 1 - 4.0 4
Judges' Competence % 16 53 24 - - 3.9 5
Juries’ Predictability % 4 52 32 2 - 3.6 3
Juries’ Fairness % 10 58 20 2 - 3.8 2
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 7 61 25 1 - 3.8
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 7
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 1
Jury fairness 1
Supreme court decision 1
Appointments vs. elections of judges 1
Fairness ( i. e. courts, laws, judges) 1
Rules of evidence 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
53
Table 36
Kansas
2006 Overall Ranking: 15
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
% 8 38 34 5 1 3.6 28
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 7 48 31 4 2 3.6 12
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 5 34 30 2 1 3.6 6
Punitive Damages % 8 35 34 5 - 3.6 6
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 37 33 12 1 3.3 24
Discovery % 5 45 35 4 - 3.6 20
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 2 34 35 8 - 3.4 33
Non- economic Damages % 9 39 34 3 - 3.6 7
Judges' Impartiality % 11 52 21 5 2 3.7 23
Judges' Competence % 8 55 25 3 - 3.8 16
Juries’ Predictability % 4 40 42 3 - 3.5 11
Juries’ Fairness % 5 51 27 5 1 3.6 12
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 54 30 5 1 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 9
# of respondents who named each item
Joint and several liability rules 1
Comparative negligence 1
Reform punitive damages 1
Prejudice issues 1
Cap on damages 1
Medical malpractice 1
Rules of evidence 1
Admissibility of expert testimony 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
54
Table 37
Kentucky
2006 Overall Ranking: 34
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
% 3 44 34 3 - 3.6 29
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 2 33 45 11 - 3.3 33
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 25 39 5 1 3.3 24
Punitive Damages % 5 25 43 9 3 3.2 25
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 5 29 40 11 4 3.2 32
Discovery % 3 39 41 5 - 3.5 31
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 4 25 36 11 - 3.3 37
Non- economic Damages % 1 27 43 12 1 3.2 37
Judges' Impartiality % 6 34 41 8 1 3.4 37
Judges' Competence % 6 35 42 7 1 3.4 36
Juries’ Predictability % 1 31 44 8 1 3.3 28
Juries’ Fairness % 3 29 45 8 - 3.3 33
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 2 29 53 8 1 3.2
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 4
# of respondents who named each item
Update judicial system 2
Jury fairness 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
55
Table 38
Louisiana
2006 Overall Ranking: 49
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 137)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 1 20 32 19 12 2.8 49
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 12 33 35 15 2.5 48
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% - 9 27 23 20 2.3 48
Punitive Damages % Louisiana does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 1 15 36 24 15 2.6 49
Discovery % 2 18 38 24 10 2.8 49
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 1 14 34 25 12 2.6 48
Non- economic Damages % 1 9 32 28 17 2.4 49
Judges' Impartiality % 1 8 36 33 13 2.5 50
Judges' Competence % 1 12 42 28 8 2.7 49
Juries’ Predictability % 5 15 34 25 10 2.8 49
Juries’ Fairness % 1 9 33 31 14 2.4 49
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% - 7 42 35 13 2.4
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 32
# of respondents who named each item
Election of judges 4
Fairness ( i. e. courts, laws, judges) 2
Tort reform legislation 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
56
Table 39
Maine
2006 Overall Ranking: 9
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 66)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 3 45 24 - - 3.7 14
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 6 36 35 5 - 3.5 21
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 30 33 6 - 3.4 20
Punitive Damages % 8 24 36 3 2 3.5 15
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 6 36 26 6 - 3.6 5
Discovery % 9 33 36 3 - 3.6 19
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 8 32 27 5 - 3.6 15
Non- economic Damages % 8 26 36 5 - 3.5 16
Judges' Impartiality % 14 35 29 - 2 3.8 17
Judges' Competence % 11 44 27 - - 3.8 11
Juries’ Predictability % 8 33 33 5 - 3.6 8
Juries’ Fairness % 9 30 33 5 - 3.6 16
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 42 35 5 - 3.5
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 1
# of respondents who named each item
Legislature 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
57
Table 40
Maryland
2006 Overall Ranking: 20
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
% 7 42 25 4 1 3.6 22
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 9 49 25 8 2 3.6 14
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 7 26 32 4 4 3.4 21
Punitive Damages % 8 31 29 8 5 3.3 21
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 2 45 35 5 3 3.4 22
Discovery % 9 44 32 5 - 3.6 16
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 2 44 24 4 1 3.6 19
Non- economic Damages % 9 24 31 10 7 3.2 31
Judges' Impartiality % 16 46 19 7 - 3.8 8
Judges' Competence % 14 52 22 2 - 3.9 6
Juries’ Predictability % 4 32 35 3 4 3.4 21
Juries’ Fairness % 7 33 33 7 1 3.5 22
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 4 54 22 12 - 3.5
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 11
# of respondents who named each item
Contributory negligence 2
Timeliness for trial 1
Favor plaintiffs 1
Fee issues 1
Competency of lawyers and judges 1
Court resources/ funding/ staffing 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
58
Table 41
Massachusetts
2006 Overall Ranking: 32
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
% 5 39 29 6 2 3.5 34
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 5 40 36 8 4 3.4 29
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 4 23 32 10 3 3.2 33
Punitive Damages % Massachusetts does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 4 26 43 11 2 3.2 33
Discovery % 6 35 37 10 1 3.4 35
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 12 30 26 2 2 3.7 7
Non- economic Damages % 4 26 43 9 2 3.2 29
Judges' Impartiality % 10 40 29 10 1 3.6 29
Judges' Competence % 14 42 27 6 1 3.7 23
Juries’ Predictability % 5 21 41 11 3 3.2 35
Juries’ Fairness % 6 32 30 11 2 3.4 29
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 37 42 8 2 3.3
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 8
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trial 1
Favor plaintiffs 1
Court resources/ funding/ staffing 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
59
Table 42
Michigan
2006 Overall Ranking: 22
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
% 8 46 25 4 1 3.7 19
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 9 42 31 9 1 3.5 20
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 4 30 30 8 1 3.4 19
Punitive Damages % 12 25 36 6 2 3.5 10
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 6 38 36 9 2 3.4 20
Discovery % 5 46 34 3 1 3.6 22
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 6 38 32 4 2 3.5 21
Non- economic Damages % 6 34 37 8 - 3.4 20
Judges' Impartiality % 6 48 30 6 - 3.6 27
Judges' Competence % 6 50 31 2 1 3.6 28
Juries’ Predictability % - 33 38 6 2 3.3 26
Juries’ Fairness % 1 35 38 6 1 3.4 26
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 5 49 38 2 - 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 23
%
Use of mediation 4
Tort reform legislation 3
Supreme court decisions 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
60
Table 43
Minnesota
2006 Overall Ranking: 14
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
% 11 42 24 4 - 3.7 10
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 10 45 35 7 - 3.6 15
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 23 35 10 2 3.2 34
Punitive Damages % 5 41 25 13 - 3.4 16
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 7 42 37 4 1 3.6 7
Discovery % 7 45 37 6 - 3.6 23
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 10 45 31 4 - 3.7 9
Non- economic Damages % 5 39 30 11 - 3.4 19
Judges' Impartiality % 13 54 19 7 - 3.8 14
Judges' Competence % 16 54 20 5 - 3.8 8
Juries’ Predictability % 6 42 35 2 1 3.6 7
Juries’ Fairness % 8 47 30 5 - 3.7 8
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 8 46 37 5 - 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 12
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 2
Joint and several liability rules 1
Favor plaintiffs 1
No fault laws 1
Prejudice issues 1
Election of judges 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
61
Table 44
Mississippi
2006 Overall Ranking: 48
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
% 5 15 28 22 10 2.8 48
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 9 30 37 15 2.4 49
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 6 15 23 27 14 2.7 46
Punitive Damages % 1 10 24 33 17 2.4 43
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 1 14 38 21 10 2.7 48
Discovery % 1 15 41 26 6 2.8 48
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 1 12 29 26 12 2.5 49
Non- economic Damages % 1 10 31 25 17 2.4 48
Judges' Impartiality % 2 20 33 24 12 2.7 48
Judges' Competence % 1 16 43 21 8 2.8 48
Juries’ Predictability % 4 15 30 26 11 2.7 50
Juries’ Fairness % 1 8 29 36 15 2.3 50
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 13 34 37 8 2.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 26
# of respondents who named each item
Waiting to see impact of tort reform legislation 10
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
62
Table 45
Missouri
2006 Overall Ranking: 35
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
% 8 31 25 9 4 3.4 38
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 5 36 34 17 1 3.3 34
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 4 27 30 13 2 3.2 29
Punitive Damages % 3 27 35 17 1 3.2 30
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 4 34 32 15 3 3.2 31
Discovery % 6 42 28 11 2 3.4 33
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 3 36 25 11 1 3.4 31
Non- economic Damages % 3 31 34 15 3 3.2 35
Judges' Impartiality % 8 43 30 6 3 3.5 31
Judges' Competence % 6 45 32 6 2 3.5 32
Juries’ Predictability % 1 30 38 17 3 3.1 38
Juries’ Fairness % 2 32 38 13 4 3.2 38
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 43 34 13 2 3.3
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 17
# of respondents who named each item
Tort reform legislation 5
Joint and several liability rules 2
Venue selection 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
63
Table 46
Montana
2006 Overall Ranking: 39
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
% 4 29 36 7 4 3.3 43
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 23 46 14 4 3.1 42
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 3 14 33 10 1 3.1 37
Punitive Damages % 3 16 39 19 6 2.9 38
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 4 20 40 16 3 3.1 38
Discovery % 10 27 33 13 1 3.4 36
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 4 24 39 9 1 3.3 39
Non- economic Damages % 7 21 34 16 3 3.2 38
Judges' Impartiality % 7 29 36 13 3 3.3 42
Judges' Competence % 4 31 40 7 - 3.4 38
Juries’ Predictability % - 26 47 11 1 3.1 37
Juries’ Fairness % 4 24 39 14 1 3.2 36
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 30 41 14 1 3.2
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Statutory reform 2
The workers’ comp shield 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Venue selection 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
64
Table 47
Nebraska
2006 Overall Ranking: 2
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 78)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 14 46 21 - - 3.9 3
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 12 50 24 1 - 3.8 3
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 14 23 31 - 1 3.7 2
Punitive Damages % Nebraska does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 13 31 31 3 1 3.7 4
Discovery % 15 45 22 1 - 3.9 3
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 6 42 24 3 - 3.7 5
Non- economic Damages % 15 46 21 1 1 3.9 2
Judges' Impartiality % 19 55 9 3 - 4.1 3
Judges' Competence % 13 62 10 - - 4.0 3
Juries’ Predictability % 4 53 24 3 - 3.7 1
Juries’ Fairness % 9 59 13 1 - 3.9 1
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 12 59 15 1 - 3.9
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Reform punitive damages 1
Timeliness for trial 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
65
Table 48
Nevada
2006 Overall Ranking: 37
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 85)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 6 39 32 5 2 3.5 33
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 31 48 11 4 3.2 37
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 21 31 8 2 3.2 32
Punitive Damages % 2 26 38 19 4 3.1 33
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 4 28 34 18 5 3.1 37
Discovery % 2 42 36 13 - 3.4 37
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 6 27 38 9 1 3.3 36
Non- economic Damages % 2 26 38 15 4 3.1 40
Judges' Impartiality % 6 38 35 11 2 3.4 38
Judges' Competence % 4 38 40 8 4 3.3 41
Juries’ Predictability % 1 21 38 21 1 3.0 42
Juries’ Fairness % - 28 45 13 1 3.1 39
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 33 47 14 2 3.2
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 6
# of respondents who named each item
Venue selection 1
Court resources/ funding/ staffing 1
Medical malpractice 1
Admissibility of expert testimony 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
66
Table 49
New Hampshire
2006 Overall Ranking: 6
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 81)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 5 41 27 2 1 3.6 23
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 6 44 30 2 1 3.6 9
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 30 32 1 2 3.4 17
Punitive Damages % New Hampshire does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 7 36 31 4 1 3.6 6
Discovery % 11 43 26 2 - 3.8 5
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 6 37 27 - 1 3.7 13
Non- economic Damages % 7 28 38 2 1 3.5 14
Judges' Impartiality % 19 38 26 1 2 3.8 10
Judges' Competence % 17 40 26 - 1 3.9 7
Juries’ Predictability % 9 30 37 - 1 3.6 6
Juries’ Fairness % 7 35 27 4 2 3.5 18
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 5 51 28 2 1 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 2
# of respondents who named each item
Environment for business disputes 1
Court resources/ funding/ staffing 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
67
Table 50
New Jersey
2006 Overall Ranking: 25
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 141)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 9 45 28 3 1 3.7 17
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 40 41 10 1 3.4 28
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 4 26 31 10 4 3,2 30
Punitive Damages % New Jersey does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 5 32 43 13 3 3.2 30
Discovery % 4 50 35 4 2 3.5 25
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 9 41 27 4 1 3.7 11
Non- economic Damages % 3 34 38 12 1 3.3 26
Judges' Impartiality % 16 47 27 3 2 3.8 15
Judges' Competence % 13 52 25 3 2 3.8 18
Juries’ Predictability % 2 28 46 9 1 3.2 30
Juries’ Fairness % 2 36 42 6 2 3.3 31
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 45 40 7 1 3.4
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 9
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trial 2
Reform punitive damages 2
Political influence/ interference 1
Comparative negligence 1
Environment for business disputes 1
Election of judges 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
68
Table 51
New Mexico
2006 Overall Ranking: 40
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 96)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 4 30 27 11 5 3.2 45
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 31 35 16 3 3.1 40
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 22 25 8 7 3.0 40
Punitive Damages % 5 21 31 17 3 3.1 31
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 22 39 9 7 3.1 42
Discovery % 1 33 36 8 3 3.3 42
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 2 24 29 11 3 3.1 42
Non- economic Damages % 1 28 32 17 3 3.1 41
Judges' Impartiality % 4 26 42 8 4 3.2 43
Judges' Competence % 5 28 38 9 1 3.3 40
Juries’ Predictability % 3 25 35 11 3 3.2 34
Juries’ Fairness % 2 28 28 16 4 3.1 41
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 2 29 44 15 3 3.1
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Appointments vs. elections of judges 1
Medical malpractice 1
Patient compensation fund 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
69
Table 52
New York
2006 Overall Ranking: 21
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 217)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 15 43 25 3 1 3.8 7
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 12 43 31 6 2 3.6 13
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 9 35 25 9 3 3.5 11
Punitive Damages % 6 34 29 12 3 3.3 22
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 7 24 39 16 3 3.2 35
Discovery % 10 40 35 6 * 3.6 21
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 14 41 21 5 * 3.8 4
Non- economic Damages % 6 34 35 11 2 3.3 25
Judges' Impartiality % 14 48 24 6 1 3.8 16
Judges' Competence % 18 41 28 4 1 3.8 15
Juries’ Predictability % 3 27 43 9 2 3.2 29
Juries’ Fairness % 5 35 37 9 2 3.4 27
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 6 48 34 6 2 3.5
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 35
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trial 7
Competency of lawyers and judges 5
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
70
Table 53
North Carolina
2006 Overall Ranking: 10
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
% 10 44 21 2 - 3.8 4
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 5 51 31 2 - 3.7 8
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 1 35 31 5 1 3.4 18
Punitive Damages % 4 40 29 5 - 3.6 7
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 8 31 38 8 - 3.5 17
Discovery % 11 45 26 3 - 3.8 7
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 7 41 24 3 - 3.7 6
Non- economic Damages % 3 40 31 4 - 3.5 10
Judges' Impartiality % 9 50 24 2 1 3.7 20
Judges' Competence % 7 53 24 - - 3.8 13
Juries’ Predictability % 1 46 31 4 1 3.5 10
Juries’ Fairness % 2 51 29 3 - 3.6 11
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 2 59 27 3 - 3.7
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 6
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 1
Political influence/ interference 1
Environment for business disputes 1
Statutory reform 1
Prejudice issues 1
Contributory negligence 1
Legislature 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
71
Table 54
North Dakota
2006 Overall Ranking: 12
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 51)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 10 37 39 - - 3.7 21
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 8 41 41 - 2 3.6 17
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 8 31 31 6 - 3.5 8
Punitive Damages % 12 27 31 4 2 3.6 5
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 10 37 25 16 - 3.5 14
Discovery % 10 41 29 4 2 3.6 18
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 4 43 29 8 2 3.5 27
Non- economic Damages % 14 39 31 - 2 3.7 4
Judges' Impartiality % 16 47 24 6 - 3.8 13
Judges' Competence % 8 55 24 4 - 3.7 19
Juries’ Predictability % 4 33 47 6 - 3.4 18
Juries’ Fairness % 10 43 33 4 - 3.7 9
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 6 49 37 - - 3.7
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 2
# of respondents who named each item
Admissibility of expert testimony 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
72
Table 55
Ohio
2006 Overall Ranking: 19
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 139)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 9 47 29 6 - 3.7 20
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 46 35 8 2 3.4 25
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 4 35 31 7 - 3.5 14
Punitive Damages % 6 37 37 6 1 3.5 13
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 6 42 36 8 1 3.5 16
Discovery % 6 53 26 5 1 3.6 15
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 5 45 32 4 - 3.6 14
Non- economic Damages % 3 44 37 5 1 3.5 17
Judges' Impartiality % 7 50 29 6 - 3.6 25
Judges' Competence % 8 52 29 5 - 3.7 25
Juries’ Predictability % 1 40 37 9 1 3.4 19
Juries’ Fairness % 5 44 37 4 - 3.6 17
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 55 33 5 1 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 15
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trial 2
Tort reform legislation 2
Fee issues 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
73
Table 56
Oklahoma
2006 Overall Ranking: 33
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
% 8 38 37 3 2 3.5 31
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 3 33 42 13 2 3.2 35
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 4 25 33 6 3 3.3 25
Punitive Damages % 6 27 30 14 4 3.2 28
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 4 23 43 14 4 3.1 36
Discovery % 3 42 40 5 2 3.4 34
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 4 28 42 6 3 3.3 38
Non- economic Damages % 4 35 32 15 4 3.2 33
Judges' Impartiality % 8 38 38 5 3 3.5 34
Judges' Competence % 5 42 36 7 2 3.4 35
Juries’ Predictability % 2 35 38 11 2 3.3 27
Juries’ Fairness % 5 35 37 11 1 3.4 28
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 3 36 49 6 2 3.3
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 11
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 1
Joint and several liability rules 1
Statute reform 1
Tort reform legislation 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
74
Table 57
Oregon
2006 Overall Ranking: 30
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
% 7 40 22 3 - 3.7 18
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 3 38 36 11 3 3.3 32
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 3 21 29 4 3 3.3 26
Punitive Damages % 4 22 33 19 3 3.1 32
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 6 31 36 10 2 3.3 25
Discovery % 7 39 31 11 - 3.5 29
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 8 25 33 4 1 3.5 24
Non- economic Damages % 4 26 39 9 4 3.2 34
Judges' Impartiality % 12 49 22 6 1 3.7 22
Judges' Competence % 9 52 25 4 2 3.7 26
Juries’ Predictability % 2 28 39 9 4 3.2 33
Juries’ Fairness % 4 33 36 8 2 3.4 30
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 2 40 45 9 - 3.4
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 12
# of respondents who named each item
Court resources/ funding/ staffing 3
Reform punitive damages 1
Environment for business disputes 1
Statutory reform 1
Legislature 1
Discovery issues 1
Timeliness for trial 1
Predictability of the system 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
75
Table 58
Pennsylvania
2006 Overall Ranking: 31
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
% 8 46 22 5 - 3.7 16
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 40 39 12 1 3.3 31
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 3 25 32 10 3 3.2 31
Punitive Damages % 2 30 41 8 4 3.2 27
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 32 41 11 2 3.3 29
Discovery % 3 45 34 8 1 3.4 32
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 1 45 25 4 3 3.5 23
Non- economic Damages % 4 30 38 10 3 3.3 28
Judges' Impartiality % 10 46 27 4 4 3.6 28
Judges' Competence % 8 43 32 5 3 3.5 31
Juries’ Predictability % 1 32 39 10 3 3.2 31
Juries’ Fairness % 4 39 32 10 1 3.4 24
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 44 41 11 - 3.4
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 22
# of respondents who named each item
Joint and several liability rules 4
Competency of lawyers and judges 3
Timeliness for trial 2
Election of judges 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
76
Table 59
Rhode Island
2006 Overall Ranking: 26
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
% 3 43 27 2 1 3.6 26
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 36 38 10 - 3.4 27
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% - 26 29 8 1 3.3 27
Punitive Damages % - 32 33 10 1 3.3 24
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 2 33 34 10 3 3.3 28
Discovery % 4 34 41 3 - 3.5 28
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 5 38 22 5 - 3.6 16
Non- economic Damages % 1 34 34 8 - 3.4 24
Judges' Impartiality % 9 38 29 10 1 3.5 33
Judges' Competence % 11 35 32 8 - 3.6 30
Juries’ Predictability % 3 23 47 3 - 3.3 22
Juries’ Fairness % 4 30 41 1 1 3.5 23
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 4 41 38 8 - 3.5
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 5
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trial 1
Political influence/ interference 1
Local/ state issues/ location driven 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
77
Table 60
South Carolina
2006 Overall Ranking: 42
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 95)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 4 39 25 13 2 3.4 39
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 1 33 42 16 2 3.2 39
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 1 25 28 15 3 3.1 39
Punitive Damages % 1 25 39 13 6 3.0 34
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 1 23 48 16 3 3.0 43
Discovery % 1 42 36 7 3 3.3 38
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 1 24 42 12 2 3.1 43
Non- economic Damages % 1 18 46 14 4 3.0 43
Judges' Impartiality % 3 40 35 12 4 3.3 41
Judges' Competence % 2 31 51 5 4 3.2 45
Juries’ Predictability % 2 23 46 12 2 3.1 36
Juries’ Fairness % 1 24 41 16 1 3.1 42
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 1 28 52 16 1 3.1
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 14
# of respondents who named each item
Tort reform legislation 3
Political influence/ interference 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
78
Table 61
South Dakota
2006 Overall Ranking: 7
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
% 13 38 32 2 - 3.7 12
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 14 41 30 5 - 3.7 6
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 11 21 34 2 2 3.5 7
Punitive Damages % 11 25 32 7 2 3.5 12
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 20 25 34 7 - 3.7 3
Discovery % 7 45 36 - 2 3.6 17
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 2 39 36 5 - 3.5 26
Non- economic Damages % 13 34 30 7 2 3.6 8
Judges' Impartiality % 18 41 27 4 - 3.8 9
Judges' Competence % 13 43 34 2 - 3.7 22
Juries’ Predictability % 5 39 36 7 - 3.5 13
Juries’ Fairness % 5 43 38 2 - 3.6 13
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 13 39 36 4 - 3.7
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 3
# of respondents who named each item
Admissibility of expert testimony 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
79
Table 62
Tennessee
2006 Overall Ranking: 29
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
% 6 47 33 4 2 3.6 30
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 5 48 30 8 3 3.5 24
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 32 30 6 3 3.3 22
Punitive Damages % 3 37 35 9 4 3.3 23
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 1 39 40 11 2 3.3 27
Discovery % 2 46 39 6 1 3.5 30
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 2 39 36 4 4 3.4 30
Non- economic Damages % 3 39 35 8 2 3.4 23
Judges' Impartiality % 8 45 30 7 3 3.5 32
Judges' Competence % 6 45 32 6 4 3.5 33
Juries’ Predictability % 6 28 42 10 2 3.3 25
Juries’ Fairness % 3 41 38 6 3 3.4 25
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 2 43 39 9 3 3.3
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 6
# of respondents who named each item
Supreme court decisions 1
State issues 1
Prejudice issues 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Legislature 1
Election of judges 1
Medical malpractice 1
Statutory reform 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
80
Table 63
Texas
2006 Overall Ranking: 43
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 243)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 11 28 26 16 5 3.3 41
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 6 27 36 18 8 3.0 43
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 7 23 26 20 8 3.0 41
Punitive Damages % 10 23 24 20 12 3.0 36
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 29 34 14 7 3.1 40
Discovery % 10 30 32 12 5 3.3 39
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 6 30 30 12 2 3.3 35
Non- economic Damages % 5 24 36 14 7 3.1 42
Judges' Impartiality % 5 30 34 16 7 3.1 44
Judges' Competence % 7 30 37 14 4 3.2 44
Juries’ Predictability % 3 25 37 17 7 3.0 43
Juries’ Fairness % 5 22 35 21 8 3.0 43
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 5 30 36 20 7 3.1
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 39
# of respondents who named each item
Tort reform legislation 9
Election of judges 8
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
81
Table 64
Utah
2006 Overall Ranking: 17
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 103)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 9 30 30 5 - 3.6 27
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 49 33 4 - 3.6 16
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 3 25 31 3 - 3.5 13
Punitive Damages % 7 39 22 9 1 3.5 8
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 6 35 31 7 1 3.5 13
Discovery % 3 47 32 3 1 3.6 24
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 4 38 30 3 - 3.6 17
Non- economic Damages % 6 40 31 3 2 3.5 9
Judges' Impartiality % 13 42 26 4 - 3.7 19
Judges' Competence % 12 45 24 3 - 3.8 14
Juries’ Predictability % 5 31 37 5 - 3.5 14
Juries’ Fairness % 5 34 35 3 - 3.5 19
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 6 44 36 4 - 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 3
# of respondents who named each item
Competency of lawyers and judges 1
Wrongful death issue 1
Favor plaintiffs 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
82
Table 65
Vermont
2006 Overall Ranking: 24
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
% 5 44 28 - 3 3.6 25
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 5 38 36 7 - 3.5 23
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 25 31 8 2 3.2 28
Punitive Damages % 3 31 30 11 - 3.3 20
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 3 36 34 7 - 3.4 19
Discovery % 10 41 26 5 - 3.7 12
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 5 31 34 5 3 3.4 32
Non- economic Damages % 3 36 33 8 2 3.4 22
Judges' Impartiality % 7 44 30 5 - 3.6 26
Judges' Competence % 10 38 33 3 - 3.6 27
Juries’ Predictability % 7 36 34 7 2 3.5 15
Juries’ Fairness % 7 36 33 8 - 3.5 20
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 7 36 36 8 - 3.5
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 4
# of respondents who named each item
Local/ state issues/ location driven 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
83
Table 66
Virginia
2006 Overall Ranking: 3
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 121)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 22 41 15 2 1 4.0 1
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 16 54 16 3 1 3.9 2
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 6 40 21 2 - 3.7 2
Punitive Damages % 7 45 22 3 1 3.7 2
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 18 38 22 6 2 3.7 2
Discovery % 13 59 12 3 1 3.9 2
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 13 43 17 2 1 3.9 2
Non- economic Damages % 10 48 23 1 1 3.8 3
Judges' Impartiality % 20 55 10 1 1 4.1 2
Judges' Competence % 21 57 7 2 1 4.1 2
Juries’ Predictability % 5 37 36 2 2 3.5 12
Juries’ Fairness % 7 49 23 3 1 3.7 6
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 13 64 12 2 1 3.9
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 14
# of respondents who named each item
Timeliness for trial 5
Statutory reform 3
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
84
Table 67
Washington
2006 Overall Ranking: 28
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 139)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 3 38 31 5 1 3.5 35
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 32 40 9 1 3.3 30
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 2 19 33 6 3 3.2 35
Punitive Damages % Washington does not allow punitive damages in general
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 4 33 37 6 1 3.4 23
Discovery % 6 39 31 6 1 3.5 27
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 4 39 27 4 1 3.6 18
Non- economic Damages % 2 29 34 11 1 3.3 27
Judges' Impartiality % 8 45 26 4 1 3.7 24
Judges' Competence % 9 46 29 1 - 3.8 17
Juries’ Predictability % 1 21 45 11 1 3.1 39
Juries’ Fairness % 2 29 42 5 1 3.3 32
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 4 37 41 7 - 3.4
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 13
# of respondents who named each item
Statutory reform 2
Joint and several liability rules 1
Political influence/ interference 1
Tort reform legislation 1
Legislature 1
Medical malpractice 1
Admissibility of expert testimony 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
85
Table 68
West Virginia
2006 Overall Ranking: 50
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 137)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 1 18 27 26 10 2.7 50
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% - 13 23 37 20 2.3 50
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% - 6 18 30 28 2.0 49
Punitive Damages % - 8 21 33 23 2.2 44
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% - 12 41 21 15 2.5 50
Discovery % - 18 38 23 10 2.7 50
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% - 12 34 23 15 2.5 50
Non- economic Damages % - 9 29 31 18 2.3 50
Judges' Impartiality % 2 1 34 26 18 2.5 49
Judges' Competence % 2 13 35 28 12 2.6 50
Juries’ Predictability % 4 23 27 28 7 2.9 45
Juries’ Fairness % 1 14 27 31 15 2.5 48
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% - 12 28 34 20 2.3
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 20
# of respondents who named each item
Election of judges 2
Tort reform legislation 2
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
86
Table 69
Wisconsin
2006 Overall Ranking: 23
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
% 9 44 26 1 - 3.8 8
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 4 44 33 9 3 3.4 26
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 3 34 29 6 4 3.3 23
Punitive Damages % 5 28 34 11 5 3.2 26
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 7 38 33 7 3 3.5 18
Discovery % 5 55 26 3 1 3.7 13
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 4 40 27 4 5 3.4 28
Non- economic Damages % 4 36 26 14 5 3.2 32
Judges' Impartiality % 18 41 27 5 - 3.8 11
Judges' Competence % 15 50 21 5 - 3.8 10
Juries’ Predictability % 3 48 27 5 - 3.6 5
Juries’ Fairness % 5 52 20 6 - 3.7 7
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 5 48 35 6 3 3.5
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 13
# of respondents who named each item
Cap on damages 2
Medical malpractice 2
Timeliness for trial 1
Reform punitive damages 1
Joint and several liability rules 1
Supreme court decisions 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
87
Table 70
Wyoming
2006 Overall Ranking: 16
Ratings on Key Elements of State Liability Systems ( n= 66)
" A" " B" " C" " D" " F"
Mean
Grade
Ranking
Within
Element
Having and Enforcing
Meaningful Venue
Requirements
% 9 26 30 8 - 3.5 32
Overall Treatment of Tort
and Contract Litigation
% 11 33 32 8 - 3.6 18
Treatment of Class Action
Suits and Mass
Consolidation Suits
% 9 24 26 5 2 3.5 9
Punitive Damages % 11 26 32 6 2 3.5 9
Timeliness of Summary
Judgment or Dismissal
% 12 27 30 5 3 3.5 8
Discovery % 15 32 35 - - 3.8 6
Scientific and Technical
Evidence
% 11 21 35 5 - 3.5 20
Non- economic Damages % 11 33 26 6 5 3.5 15
Judges' Impartiality % 18 38 24 3 - 3.9 7
Judges' Competence % 15 35 27 5 2 3.7 24
Juries’ Predictability % 6 29 30 8 5 3.3 24
Juries’ Fairness % 14 27 29 9 - 3.6 14
OVERALL STATE
GRADE
% 9 39 30 6 - 3.6
ADDITIONAL ISSUES STATE SHOULD ADDRESS TOTAL
N= 1
# of respondents who named each item
Prejudice issues 1
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
88
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
89
METHODOLOGY
AN OVERVIEW
The 2006 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 1,456 in-house
general counsel or other senior litigators at companies with annual revenues of at least $ 100 million.
Interviews averaging 24 minutes in length were conducted by telephone and took place between November 28, 2005
and March 7, 2006.
SAMPLE DESIGN
A representative sample of companies with annual revenues of at least $ 100 million annually was drawn using a
sample from IdExec primarily, and Dun & Bradstreet and InfoUSA to supplement our sample. Alert letters were
sent to the general counsel at each company. In order to reach the desired number of final interviews, more letters
were sent out or faxed to potential participants than the final number of completed interviews. 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 this letter appears in Appendix B.
The sample was segmented into two main groups. Of the 1,456 respondents, 88 were from insurance companies,
with the remaining 1,368 interviews being conducted among public corporations from other industries. The
proportion of interviews with insurance companies represents 6% of the total sample. Typically, in the universe of
companies with $ 100 million or more in revenues, insurance companies represent 6% of this population. Since
property casualty insurance companies have extensive experience with state liability systems, for the purposes of this
study we worked to ensure that our proportion of insurance companies matched the overall population.
Respondents had an average of 19 years of relevant legal experience ( including their current position), had been with
their company an average of 10.1 years, and had been in their current position an average of 6.9 years.
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWING PROCEDURES
The 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study utilized Harris’ computer- assisted telephone interviewing ( CATI)
system, whereby trained interviewers call and immediately input responses into the computer. This system greatly
enhances reporting reliability. It reduces clerical error by eliminating the need for keypunching, since interviewers
enter respondent answers directly into a computer terminal during the interview itself. This data entry program does
not permit interviewers to inadvertently skip questions, since each question must be answered before the computer
moves on to the next question. The data entry program also ensures that all skip patterns are correctly adhered to.
The on- line data editing system refuses to accept punches that are out- of- range, it demands confirmation of responses
that exceed expected ranges, and asks for explanations for inconsistencies between certain key responses.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
90
In order to achieve high respondent participation, in addition to the alert letter, numerous telephone callbacks were
made in order to reach the respondent and conduct the interview at a convenient time for the respondent.
Once a qualified respondent was identified, the respondent was first asked about their familiarity with several states.
First, 24 states out of the list of 50 possible states were presented to the respondent. Within these 24 states, 17 states
presented were the following: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. These states
were prioritized in order to get a sufficient number of evaluations, since in the past years of this study, data for these
states were based on fewer evaluations. The remaining 7 states were randomly selected from the leftover states not
mentioned above.
Respondents were then given the opportunity to name any other state, aside from the states already presented, and
specify if they are very or somewhat familiar with that state.
If the respondent was very or somewhat familiar with a given state, the respondent was then given the opportunity to
evaluate that state’s liability system. The respondent had the opportunity to evaluate up to 15 states. If the respondent
was familiar with any state from the list of 17 mentioned above, then that state was automatically included. If this
number was less than 15, then the balance was randomly selected from the remaining group of states with which the
respondent was very or somewhat familiar.
On average, each respondent evaluated 6 states.
CHANGES IN RANKINGS
This year the rankings were adjusted in order to provide a broader reflection of state liability issues. This
year, the two new items that states are evaluated on are having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements and
non- economic damages. Additionally, ratings on the treatment of class action suits also includes mass consolidation
suits this year, while in prior years it did not. These changes were instituted in order to get a more inclusive score for
each state, as well as fill in some of the gaps from previous years rankings.
As a result, most states’ rankings have changed at least somewhat; however, some changes are more significant than
others. Delaware and Nebraska continue to be ranked at the top ( one and two, respectively, in both 2005 and this
year), and the bottom four states ( West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama) remain the same, but their
order has changed this year.
Changes in rank may reflect a variety of factors. First, the addition of the two factors to our rankings system has
changed the parameters of the rankings. Second, the litigation environment in the state may have improved or
worsened due to such factors as legal rulings, changes in the composition of the bench, or legislative or rulemaking
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
91
changes that affect litigation. Third, perceptions of the litigation environment in each state may be driven by a
variety of subjective assessments such as the reputation of the courts and interviewees’ experiences with individual
litigation matters. Fourth, the score may have been affected by changes in sample size. This year, we kept our
overall number of people interviewed the same as the previous two years. While the overall sample size for each
state has remained close, there are some states that have some fluctuations. Much of this is due to overall knowledge
of the state due to similar factors as those mentioned previously in this paragraph. Factors such as legal rulings or
prominent court cases may have brought attention to certain states at the expense of others. This will have an impact
on the states each of our respondents rank.
SIGNIFICANCE TESTING
Reliability of Survey Percentages
It is important to bear in mind that the results from any sample survey are subject to sampling variation. The
magnitude of this variation ( or error) is affected both by the number of interviews— the base size— and by the level
of the percentages expressed in the results.
Table A- 1 shows the possible sample variation that applies to percentage results for this survey. The chances are 95
in 100 that a survey result does not vary, plus or minus, by more than the indicated number of percentage points from
the result that would have been obtained if interviews were conducted with all persons in the universe represented by
the sample. For example, if the response for a sample size of 300 is 30%, then in 95 cases out of 100, the response in
the total population would have been between 25% and 35% (+/- 5%). Note that survey results based on subgroups
of small size can be subject to large sampling error.
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
92
Table A- 1
Recommended Allowance for Sampling Error of Proportions ( Plus or Minus)
Survey Percentage Result
Sample Size 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50%
900 2 3 3 3 3
800 2 3 3 3 3
700 2 3 3 4 4
600 2 3 4 4 4
500 3 4 4 4 4
400 3 4 4 5 5
300 3 5 5 6 6
200 4 6 6 7 7
100 6 8 9 10 10
50 8 11 13 14 14
US Chamber of Commerce — 2006 State Liability Systems Ranking Study
93
Significance of Differences Between Proportions
Sampling tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results from different surveys or from different parts of a
sample from the same survey ( subgroup analysis). Table A- 2 shows the percentage difference that must be obtained
before a difference can be considered statistically significant. These figures, too, represent the 95% confidence level.
To illustrate, suppose the two percentages in question are 34% and 25%. More specifically, suppose that one group
of 300 has a response of 34% “ yes” to a question, and an independent group has a response of 25% to the same
question, for an observed difference of 9 percentage po