The Senate plan has one major difference from one that cleared the House last month: The Senate version has caps on the awards victims can claim. That also makes the Senate plan cheaper -- $25 million compared to the House's $40 million.
Jennifer Holmes told the Senate committee that caps are a bad idea because some victims' medical bills and lost wages will easily surpass the 400-thousand dollar cap. Her husband Pat died in the bridge collapse.
"Everybody has their own unique story," she said. "I've met many people who are either survivors or who lost someone, but everybody - they're dealing with a lot of stuff. I just think it's really sad that people are continuing to go through such struggles."
The Senate sponsor, Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, said caps are the fairest for taxpayers, in part, because there are already caps in place for cases like these.
"If someone were hit by a state trooper on a high-speed chase and suffered injury that broke their back, made them paraplegic, brain injury, needed long-term care, it'd be millions of dollars' worth of losses," Latz told reporters after the committee meeting. "If they were to bring a claim against the state, they'd be subject to the $400,000 cap."
Attorney Chris Messerly, who is representing a number of survivors of the bridge collapse, said a hard cap on settlements could lead him to advise victims to reject settlement offers and challenge the state's liability limits in court.
A conference committee will likely come up with a compromise between the two versions, once the Senate bill passes.
(The Associated Press contributed to this report)
MPR News is Reader Funded
Before you keep reading, take a moment to donate to MPR News. Your financial support ensures that factual and trusted news and context remain accessible to all.