Amended again, Grieving Families Act set to pass and seek Hochul’s approval

New York lawmakers are hoping that the third time’s the charm for legislation that would update the state’s wrongful death statute. Lawmakers are passing the Grieving Families Act after the Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed it twice in the past with new changes they hope will get her on board.

State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly Member Helene Weinstein sponsored the legislation, which would update the state’s nearly 180-year-old law governing wrongful deaths to allow families to seek emotional damages. Currently, they can only sue for financial damages, like lost wages. 

State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly Member Helene Weinstein sponsored the legislation, which would update the state’s nearly 180-year-old law governing wrongful deaths to allow families to seek emotional damages. Currently, they can only sue for financial damages, like lost wages. 

The law right now excludes people like Kurt Kiess, who lost his adult son after a drunk driver crashed into the Uber his son was taking. Since Keiss had no major financial loss due to his son’s death, and his son had no dependents like children or a spouse, he nor anyone else had cause of action to bring a lawsuit. “Nobody knows the current law, because you never want to be me,” Kreiss said. He wasn’t involved in political advocacy until his son died, but after his experience sought to get the law changed. “I think that when you explain the current law to anybody in New York state, they're shocked by it,” Kreiss said. Though he’s hopeful that this year will be different, he was disappointed by Hochul’s two previous vetoes.

Lawmakers introduced changes to the legislation last year in response to Hochul’s first veto in hopes that she would sign it, such as narrowing the definition of close family members, but she once again shot it down. City & State previously reported that she proposed making significant amendments during post-session negotiations. For example, her version would have only applied to the death of children 18 and under, would not expand eligible family members at all, and replace the phrase “grief and anguish” with “pain and suffering.” It also would have sunsetted in three years. The proposal was a non-starter for lawmakers and advocates for the legislation. 

This year, Hoylman-Sigal and Weinstein have introduced additional tweaks, though they don’t go as far as what Hochul had proposed. The newest version further scales back the expansion of eligible family members, limiting it to spouses or domestic partners of the deceased, the decedent’s distributees, and “any person standing in loco parentis to the decedent, and any person to whom the deceased stood in a position of in loco parentis.” The previous version of the bill had proposed expanding the list to include children foster-children, step-children, step-grandchildren, parents, step-parents, step-grandparents and siblings. Other changes that Hochul had pitched, like reducing the statute of limitations from three to two years, were not included in the latest version.

“We continued to try to be responsive to the governor’s concerns and narrow the class of individuals eligible under the Grieving Families Act without gutting the intention of the bill,” Hoylman-Sigal said. He added that conversations about the legislation have not started with the governor’s office, but he hopes they can “bridge the difference” by passing the bill again and beginning discussion before the end of the year. “In a way, we’re negotiating through vetoes,” Hoylman-Sigal said, hopeful that this latest rewrite won’t get another veto.

The Grieving Families Act has received pushback from business groups, who charged that expanding the law would place financial burdens on businesses, as well as by hospitals and the insurance industry, which have said that it would drive up medical insurance costs and liability premiums. Hochul said in her veto memo last year that the bill would have “unintended consequences” and cited “legitimate concerns” about increased insurance premiums and suggested it would “risk the financial well-being” of health care institutions. Supporters of changing the law to align with most other states in the country dispute the claims.

Earlier this year, Hochul said she “want(s) to have the conversation again,” but is hoping for more collaboration from the legislative side. Although others disputed the supposed lack of collaboration, Hoylman-Sigal is looking forward to working with Hochul to finally get the bill over the finish line. “The thought of us passing this bill again is that the executive will have more time to discuss this issue,” he said.