May 1, 2026 | Compensation, Missouri Personal Injury, Personal Injury
If you’ve been following Missouri legislative news, you may have heard about a significant proposed change to the state’s personal injury laws. A bill working its way through the Missouri General Assembly could cut the time injured residents have to file a lawsuit from five years down to just two — a dramatic shift that has sparked fierce debate among lawmakers, advocacy groups, insurance companies, and everyday Missourians. Here’s what you need to know about where this legislation stands, who’s pushing for it, who’s pushing back, and what it could mean for you.
Under existing Missouri law, specifically Missouri Revised Statutes Section 516.120, the statute of limitations for filing a personal injury claim is five years, meaning claims must be filed within five years of discovering the injury. This applies to the broad range of personal injury scenarios most people encounter, from car accidents and slip-and-fall incidents to workplace injuries and general negligence claims.
Statutes of limitations are designed to ensure the integrity of evidence and prevent people from threatening lawsuits indefinitely. The five-year window has long given injured Missourians meaningful time to recover, understand the full extent of their injuries, consult with legal counsel, and decide how to proceed. However, that window may soon close — significantly. FindLaw
In early 2025, the Missouri House of Representatives passed House Bill 68, which seeks to reduce the statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The period would be reduced to two years for personal injuries that occur after August 28, 2025.
HB 68 was sponsored by State Rep. Matthew Overcast, a Republican from Ava, who aimed to bring Missouri in line with other states that have shorter time limits for filing personal injury lawsuits.
Rep. Overcast has been vocal about his reasoning. “Missouri’s outdated five-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims is among the longest in the nation — far exceeding the standard in 45 other states. This isn’t just a legal technicality; it’s an issue of economic vitality and judicial efficiency. By reducing the statute of limitations to two years, we will help Missouri businesses thrive while preserving evidence, reducing legal uncertainties, and streamlining the litigation process,” he said in a public statement.
Following a House vote of 92-42, HB 68 moved to the Missouri Senate for further review and debate.
One of the most notable — and controversial — aspects of this legislation is that it combines two very different legal reforms into a single bill. Alongside the reduction in personal injury deadlines, the House amended HB 68 to include language extending the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims. Under the amendment sponsored by Rep. Brian Seitz of Branson, survivors would have 20 years after turning 21 — or three years from the time they discover the abuse caused their injury or illness, whichever is later — to file a lawsuit. This change replaces the current 10-year limitation.
It is the fourth year Rep. Seitz has sponsored legislation aiming to increase the window for childhood sexual abuse survivors to file civil claims, and the second year that proposal has been combined with legislation that would reduce the statute of limitations for personal injury claims — part of an effort by lawmakers to stave off opposition from the insurance lobby.
The pairing of these two causes has made the bill politically complex. Supporters of child abuse protections who oppose the personal injury change find themselves in a difficult position, and critics argue this is precisely the point.
Proponents of reducing the personal injury statute of limitations make several key arguments.
Supporters argue that the current five-year timeframe is excessive compared to the two-year limit in 25 states and a three-year limit in 16 other states. Missouri’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims is higher than all but two states — Maine and North Dakota.
Rep. Overcast has framed the bill largely as an economic development issue, arguing that a shorter window creates a more predictable legal environment for businesses. Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe has also prioritized legal reforms that reduce excessive litigation costs and promote a more business-friendly climate, positioning Missouri as a national leader in economic development.
Supporters believe the change will encourage quicker resolutions of claims, lower insurance costs, and create a more business-friendly legal environment. The argument is that claims brought sooner are supported by better evidence — witnesses whose memories are fresh, medical records that are recent, and accident scenes that are less altered by time.
The bill has drawn support from powerful stakeholders. The bill won support from State Farm, the Missouri Association of Insurance Agents, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Missouri Association of RV Campgrounds. Insurance industry representatives argued in Senate hearings that the personal injury portion of the bill would help attract businesses to Missouri.
Opposition to the bill has been equally vocal, and it comes from multiple directions.
Critics argue that two years is simply not enough time for many injured people to understand the full scope of their damages, especially in cases involving serious or slow-developing injuries. Opponents said the change would stymie access to justice for those who are injured and seeking redress, with one state representative saying, “This is designed to protect insurance companies, not you.”
Democrats accused insurance lobbyists of using the child abuse bill to impose shorter limits on personal injury lawsuits, arguing that critics of the personal injury provisions should not have to choose between protecting children and protecting injury victims.
Democratic state Sen. Karla May of St. Louis told The Independent that the personal injury claims portion of the bill “needs to die” and that insurance companies are “holding these children hostage” with the measure. “If we try to reduce the time period from five to three years, that only benefits insurance companies and corporations,” May said.
Sara Schuett, executive director of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, told reporters that “insurance companies are the ones stopping good language from moving forward.”
As of late April 2026, the legislation has hit significant turbulence in the Missouri Senate. The bill stalled in the Missouri Senate after Democrats accused insurance lobbyists of using it to impose shorter limits on personal injury lawsuits.
The legislation has also evolved in the Senate. The bill as introduced would have shortened the statute of limitations for most personal injury claims from five to two years, but Rep. Seitz negotiated to bring the limit to three years. It would also reduce the window for uninsured motorist claims from 10 to three years.
The childhood sexual abuse portion of the bill has also been revised. While the House passed a version that would increase the childhood sexual abuse statute of limitations to 20 years after the survivor turns 21, the Senate amended the bill to allow survivors to file claims until age 65.
The Senate Republican handling the bill has been measured in his stance. State Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair told reporters that above all, he is “in support of getting this child sex abuse statute of limitations reform across the finish line,” adding of the personal injury claims provision, “I’m not saying that I’m opposed to the policy. I’m not saying I’m in support of the policy.”
Even some Republicans have questioned the legislative strategy. Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin of Ste. Genevieve asked why the provisions were combined, saying, “It seems like we might have log-rolled this issue onto your bill, which was fantastic, to potentially try to get something that might be a little more controversial along the line.”
You can track the current status of HB 68 on FastDemocracy and read the original Missouri House press release about its passage at house.mo.gov.
Whether the final deadline lands at two years or three, the practical implications for ordinary residents are real. Right now, under the current five-year rule, an injured person has substantial time to:
A shorter deadline compresses all of that. Whether it’s a car accident or a workplace injury, claimants will need to act swiftly to preserve their right to seek compensation and justice.
It’s also worth noting that certain types of injuries are already subject to shorter windows under current Missouri law. Medical malpractice cases must be filed within two years of the incident or discovery of harm. If HB 68 passes in its current or amended form, general personal injury claims would be brought closer to that already-tight malpractice standard.
Missouri law does have some limited exceptions to consider. The “discovery rule” exists, under which the filing clock doesn’t start running until injuries are “capable of ascertainment.” Additionally, if the defendant leaves the state in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit, the time they were absent may not count toward the deadline. However, the courts have not provided especially clear guidance on how broadly these exceptions apply, and relying on them is never a guaranteed strategy.
This legislation doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s part of a broader national trend of tort reform efforts pushed by business groups and insurance industries in multiple states. For context, FindLaw’s breakdown of Missouri statutes of limitations and Nolo’s Missouri personal injury guide both offer helpful overviews of how these laws currently function and why they matter to everyday residents.
The debate over HB 68 reflects a fundamental tension in tort law: balancing the interests of defendants — businesses, insurers, and property owners who want legal certainty — against the rights of injured plaintiffs who need adequate time to pursue justice. That tension is not going to be resolved easily, and it’s one that Missourians across the political spectrum feel strongly about.
Fill out the form below to schedule a free consultation with Craig
