SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR MODOT PRIVATE CONTRACTORS (SECTION 537.600)

This act provides that private contractors and subcontractors when acting within the scope of a government contract with the Missouri Department of Transportation ("Department") shall have the same sovereign or governmental tort immunity as a public entity. The immunity shall commence upon the official notice to proceed and continue after the Department formally accepts the completed project.

This provision is identical to HB 2437 (2026) and is substantially similar to HB 2926 (2026) and HCS/HB 1067 (2025) and is similar to SB 559 (2025), SB 117 (2023), HB 101 (2023), SB 832 (2022), HB 2598 (2022), SB 497 (2019), and HB 2386 (2018).

PURCHASE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CLAIMS (SECTION 537.610.1)

As it relates to political subdivisions purchasing liability insurance for tort claims made against the political subdivision, this act defines the term "purchase" to refer only to the direct acquisition of insurance coverage by a governing body and not any indirect action by contract or otherwise.

This provision is substantially similar to a provision in HCS/HB 1718 (2026), SB 454 (2025), HB 142 (2025), SB 1346 (2024), and HB 2690 (2022).

CAPS ON DAMAGES FOR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CLAIMS (SECTION 537.610.5)

This act provides that the applicable cap on the amount of damages that may be awarded for a claim against the state or its public entities shall be the limitation in effect on the date of the accident or occurrence giving rise to the claims.

This provision is identical to SB 1467 (2026) and a provision in HCS/HB 1718 (2026).

KATIE O'BRIEN

Under the act, a county, city, incorporated town, or village shall not perform any road project unless it reimburses any non-rate-regulated utility provider, as defined in the act, that incurs labor costs for facility relocation due to such maintenance or project. A county, city, incorporated town, or village shall be authorized to pay such facility relocation labor costs as part of the cost of the road project.

A county, city, incorporated town, or village shall notify non-rate-regulated utility providers that have permitted infrastructure within a planned or existing public right-of-way within 90 days after a road project is added to the project schedule that may require the provider to relocate its infrastructure for the road project. The notification shall include an estimated project schedule and timeline, including the anticipated year of construction. Within 90 days after receipt of the notification, the non-rate-regulated utility provider shall respond to the county, city, incorporated town, or village with an estimated time frame and projected labor cost for the relocation of the provider's infrastructure. The response shall include a draft relocation schedule within or adjacent to the existing or planned public right-of-way.

The act shall not require a county, city, incorporated town, or village to reimburse a non-rate-regulated utility provider for the removal or relocation of facilities placed in the public right-of way in violation of state or local permitting requirements.

Currently, video service cabinets are required to be removed or relocated at the expense of the video service provider. Under the act, the cabinets are required to be removed pursuant to the provisions of the act or current law, as applicable.

The State Road Fund shall be used for reimbursing non-rate-regulated utility providers for any labor costs associated with facility relocation due to road maintenance or construction.

The Department of Transportation shall reimburse non-rate-regulated utility providers for any labor costs associated with facility relocation that are required due to road maintenance, construction, or other right-of-way work activity. Notification requirements by the Department and response requirements by the non-rate-regulated utility provider are described in the act.

The act shall not require the Department to reimburse a non-rate-regulated utility provider for the removal or relocation of facilities placed in the public right-of-way in violation of state law or local permitting requirements.

Under the act, subject to certain exceptions, the removal and relocation of utility facilities as a result of construction projects required by the Highways and Transportation Commission shall be made at the expense of the owners unless otherwise provided by the Commission. Currently, if the owner fails to relocate the utility facilities, the cost of relocating the utility facilities shall be collected from the owner. Under the act, the cost of relocating the utility facilities shall be the responsibility of the Commission or the owner.

The act is identical to HCS/HB 2155 (2026), similar to SB 489 (2025), provisions in HCS/SB 1039 (2024), provisions in HCS/HB 2056 (2024), provisions in SCS/HCS/HB 1746 (2024), and SCS/SB 1018 (2024).

JULIA SHEVELEVA

TAYLOR MIDDLETON