Kentucky SB 195 Tort Reform: What the 2026 Law Means for Crash Victims

What SB 195 Changes at a Glance

Senate Bill 195, titled “An Act relating to participants in the legal system,” was sponsored by Senators C. Richardson, D. Douglas, G. Elkins, R. Girdler, S. Meredith, and G. Williams. The General Assembly passed it during the 2026 Regular Session, and it became law without Governor Andy Beshear’s signature on April 12, 2026 as 2026 Acts Chapter 97. The full text of the bill is available on the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission website.

The law touches several statutes that govern how Kentucky crash and injury cases are handled. The most significant changes appear in the Kentucky Revised Statutes covering comparative fault, pre-suit notice, unfair claims settlement practices, seatbelt evidence, and medical expense recovery.

The bill also voids assignments of insurance claims, limits recoverable medical expenses to amounts actually paid (not amounts billed), forbids disclosure of liability insurance policy limits to a jury, and allows juries to apportion fault to immune nonparties such as employers covered by workers’ compensation. Background reporting is available from the Lexington Herald Leader.

The 50% Comparative Fault Bar

For decades, Kentucky followed a pure comparative fault system under KRS 411.182. A crash victim who was 30% at fault could still recover 70% of their damages. A victim who was 70% at fault could still recover 30%. Recovery scaled with responsibility, and no percentage of fault automatically wiped out a claim.

SB 195 changes that. Under the new version of KRS 411.182, a claimant whose share of fault is 50% or more cannot recover anything. The bar is triggered at exactly 50%, which is stricter than Indiana’s neighboring 51% rule, where a plaintiff must be more than 50% at fault before recovery is blocked.

Insurance adjusters are already using this change as leverage. A claim that would have settled comfortably at 60/40 in the claimant’s favor under the old law now faces real pressure to be argued down to 50/50 so the carrier owes nothing. Crash investigation, witness statements, scene photos, and accident reconstruction work matter more than ever, because the difference between 49% fault and 50% fault is now the difference between a full case and zero recovery.

The Indiana comparison is worth knowing because insurance companies operating across state lines often look to Indiana case law to argue Kentucky claims. Indiana’s 51% bar, codified at Indiana Code 34-51-2-6, gives plaintiffs a small cushion that Kentucky no longer provides. Plaintiffs’ counsel familiar with the old Kentucky regime have flagged this gap, including in coverage from Indiana’s Barsumian Armiger Law Firm.

The 60-Day Pre-Suit Notice Requirement

SB 195 adds a 60-day pre-suit notice requirement before most personal injury actions can be filed. The notice provision is layered into KRS 413.140 for personal injury claims and KRS 367.220 for Kentucky Consumer Protection Act claims.

Before a claimant can file a lawsuit, written notice must be sent to the prospective defendant identifying the claim and the relief sought. The defendant then has 60 days to respond. The statute of limitations is tolled during the notice period, meaning the clock pauses while the 60 days run. After the 60-day window closes, the claimant can file suit if the matter has not been resolved.

This requirement adds two months to every contested case. For most crash claims, that means an extra layer of paperwork and a longer pre-litigation window during which an insurer can collect more information, record statements, and frame the case before a complaint is ever filed. The notice itself becomes a formal document that locks in claim theory early, so it must be drafted with the same care as a complaint.

Notice requirements are not new to Kentucky. The state already requires pre-suit notice in medical malpractice and government tort claims contexts. SB 195 expands that pattern to most personal injury actions.

Third-Party Bad Faith Eliminated

One of the most consequential pieces of SB 195 is the change to KRS 304.12-230, the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. The new version limits the statute’s reach to insurers handling their own policyholders. The old version of the statute, paired with the now-repealed KRS 304.12-220 definition of “person,” allowed third-party claimants — meaning crash victims pursuing the at-fault driver’s insurance — to bring bad faith actions when the carrier mishandled a claim.

SB 195 ends that. After the law’s effective date, only first-party policyholders can sue an insurance company under the unfair claims statute. A crash victim who is wrongfully delayed, lowballed, or strung along by the at-fault driver’s insurer no longer has a direct bad faith remedy under Kentucky’s unfair claims act.

The bill also voids assignments of insurance claims. A common workaround in some bad faith disputes was to have an insured assign their rights against the carrier to the injured claimant as part of a settlement. SB 195 forecloses that mechanism, which further insulates carriers from third-party pressure.

Other Changes That Affect Kentucky Crash Cases

Seatbelt Non-Use as Evidence

The amended KRS 189.125 now allows evidence of seatbelt non-use to come into a trial only when the defendant shows it was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The old rule blocked seatbelt evidence almost entirely. Under SB 195, that evidence will be more common in serious-injury cases where biomechanical engineers can connect lack of restraint use to specific harm.

Medical Expenses Limited to Amounts Paid

SB 195 caps recoverable medical expenses at the amount actually paid by the claimant or on their behalf, not the amount billed. Hospitals and providers routinely bill at sticker rates that are several multiples of what insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid actually pay after contractual write-downs. The new rule shifts the recovery floor down to the paid amount. Health-insured Kentuckians will see a smaller medical-bill component in their settlement totals than uninsured Kentuckians for the same injuries.

Insurance Policy Limits Hidden From the Jury

SB 195 forbids disclosing the at-fault driver’s liability insurance policy limits to the jury. Defense counsel and insurers have long pushed for this, since juries that learn there is, for example, a $250,000 policy in play will sometimes anchor verdicts to that ceiling. Plaintiffs’ lawyers used limits disclosure to make sure juries understood the coverage available. Under the new law, that information stays out of the trial.

Apportionment to Immune Nonparties

The bill allows juries to apportion a percentage of fault to nonparties who are immune from suit, such as employers protected by Kentucky’s workers’ compensation exclusivity. In a workplace-related crash, an injured worker who already collected workers’ compensation from the employer can now have additional fault assigned to that employer in a third-party case, reducing what the third-party defendant pays.

Pre-Litigation Notice for Medical Malpractice

SB 195 imposes a written medical opinion requirement under KRS 411.167 before a medical malpractice action can move forward. While our firm does not handle medical malpractice cases, this provision is part of the same bill and signals the broader posture of SB 195: layering procedural hurdles between injury and recovery.

What This Means for Your Claim

SB 195 raises the stakes on every Kentucky crash case. The 50% bar punishes contested liability. The 60-day notice extends timelines. The end of third-party bad faith removes one of the strongest pressure points on insurance carriers. The medical expense cap and policy-limits gag rule cut into the value side of the case.

Cases that close quickly under the old rules will close more slowly under SB 195. Cases that turned on close calls of fault will face stiffer carrier resistance. Cases where the carrier dragged its feet will lose the threat of a bad faith counter-claim.

None of that is a reason to stop pursuing a claim. It is a reason to handle the claim with more discipline. Detailed crash reconstruction, prompt scene investigation, full medical workup with paid-amount documentation, and tight notice drafting all matter more under the new law than they did under the old one. Kentucky still has fault-based recovery, still has uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, and still has juries that compensate real injuries when the case is built well.

For more on how Kentucky crash claims are handled now, see our Kentucky car accident overview and our breakdown of truck and commercial vehicle cases. If you were hurt in a crash on or after the SB 195 effective date, the choices made in the first 30 days will shape the entire claim.