Senate Bill 111, authored by Senator Seba, was reported with amendments by the Senate Insurance Committee after extended debate over whether the bill would protect insureds from excess judgments or unfairly limit claimants' rights.

Seba told the committee the bill is intended to "give insurers a fighting chance in court" and to confine a judicially created cause of action to clearer statutory terms. He framed the bill as targeting the Louisiana Supreme Court’s Kelly decision, which the sponsor said read a cause of action into a statute; Seba said he was not trying to eliminate bad‑faith remedies but to limit them where an insurer has a good‑faith dispute about liability or medical causation.

"What I'm trying to do is to take that back out," Seba said of the Kelly decision. He explained the bill would preserve bad‑faith claims when insurers act without a legitimate liability or causation defense, but would bar a bad‑faith action where the insurer had a bona fide dispute, adequate opportunity for discovery, or the claimant had not presented a settlement offer within policy limits.

Supporters from the insurance industry said the bill would curb a practice they described as encouraging excessive settlements and increasing costs. Kellen Matthews, testifying for State Farm, told the committee insurers face additional costs — including paying dual defense counsel — when excess‑judgment claims are pursued and then assigned to plaintiffs.

The Louisiana Association for Justice opposed the measure. Brian Katz argued the current statute requires satisfactory proof of loss before bad‑faith liability and that the bill’s proposed changes, particularly provisions tied to a demand within policy limits and to discovery timing, would create unfair procedural burdens for injured claimants and could push injured parties into litigation earlier.

Committee members debated several practical scenarios, including cases with delayed treatment, multiple accidents, and uncertainty about policy limits. Senator Foyle secured a commitment from the bill sponsor to work on one provision (paragraph e in committee discussion) to clarify its effect on policyholders; Senator Seba said he would consider narrowing or deleting that clause before floor debate.

A roll‑call vote recorded in committee approved reporting the bill with amendments: 7 senators voted yes and 2 voted no.

Votes at a glance: Motion to report Senate Bill 111 with amendments carried on a roll‑call vote (Yeas: Talbot, Bass, Edmonds, Foyle, Myers, Seba, Wheat; Nays: Barrow, Plessis).