Two Ohio Governors Speak Out on SB 117

Two Ohio governors speak out on SB 117

Ted Strickland's veto statement

Just hours after his inauguration, Governor Ted Strickland was advised that the ten days to veto Senate Bill 117 had not yet passed. He sent an aide to retrieve the bill, neither signed nor vetoed, from the Secretary of State and then vetoed it. The statement he issued is shown below in full. Emphasis (bold face) added.

STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE VETO OF AMENDED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 117 from the 126th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

January 8, 2007

Under Article II, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, the Governor may veto any bill. I am vetoing Amended Substitute Senate Bill 117 for the following reasons.

Amended Substitute Senate Bill 117 greatly weakens current protections provided to consumers in the State of Ohio. This effort to amend the Consumer Sales Practices Act and arbitrarily limit awards to victims for noneconomic damages to only $5,000 does not allow consumers defrauded by companies to seek appropriate justice.

While weakening protections for consumers, at the same time the bill strengthens protections for companies that may have been responsible for products that have harmed and even continue to harm children and others in Ohio. This prevents cities from being able to seek justice on behalf of their citizens.

I will not allow this legislation in its current form, which drastically undermines current consumer protections, to go into effect during my administration.

I have signed this veto message on January 8, 2007 in Columbus, Ohio.

_____________________________

Ted Strickland, Governor

For this statement on the governor's web site, click here.

On August 1, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down Governor Ted Strickland's veto of SB 117.

Bob Taft's statement of his
reasons for not signing SB 117

On January 5, 2007, just three days before the end of his term of office, Governor Bob Taft announced that he would not sign Senate Bill 117, but would let it become law without his signature. His statement is shown below in full. Emphasis (bold face) added.

"I have decided to allow Amended Substitute Senate Bill 117 become law without my signature. While there are many provisions in this bill that I endorse, there is one that I cannot support. Because the Ohio Constitution precludes me from exercising a line item veto, I feel my only course is to not sign the bill.

"I support the General Assembly's determination to prevent insurance companies from attempting to hide behind attorney-client privilege in instances where that privilege has been abused to aide or further the commission of bad faith, fraud, or criminal misconduct by the insurance company. Such a measure certainly protects our insurance consumers in situations where they are at their most vulnerable.

"I also support changes made by the General Assembly to recognize that causes of action based upon the design, manufacture, and supply of products are best addressed under Ohio's products liability law and should not be treated as public nuisance claims. Liability should attach in such cases only where it can be proven that a specific manufacturer is responsible for the product.

"Had the foregoing been the only provisions in SB 117, I would have readily signed it. However, I cannot agree with the General Assembly's amendment to the Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) which limits damage awards for noneconomic harm to the very small amount of $5,000. Even though consumers, including victims of predatory lending, will still have a private right of action under the CSPA, and actions may still be brought at the initiative of the Attorney General, SB 117's amendment weakens the Act with respect to predatory lending and all other consumer transactions. It encourages potential offenders to engage in a cost-benefit analysis and build the low level of potential damages into their business plans. This limit is unjustifiably low given the limits on noneconomic damages that I signed into law when the General Assembly enacted comprehensive lawsuit reform in 2004. Similar limits (up to $350,000 per person or $500,000 per occurrence) will afford predictability under the CSPA while providing a more significant deterrent for those who would otherwise prey upon vulnerable consumers.

"I encourage the General Assembly to revisit this issue in its current session."