Tort reform is a tax on PI firms that run inefficient practices.

It's a tailwind for firms that don't.

In the last 18 months, several states have materially changed the economics of plaintiff practice. Most PI operators are framing this as a defensive story — how do we survive the new rules. That framing is already wrong. Tort reform is a forcing function that rewards efficiency, speed, and case selection. For firms with AI leverage, each one of these changes expands the gap between you and the next firm on the list.

Here's what's happening in the three jurisdictions that matter most this quarter.

Missouri: 5 → 2

The Missouri legislature is debating a bill that would cut the personal injury statute of limitations from 5 years to 2. If it passes, it doesn't just shorten the window. It restructures the economics of Missouri PI practice.

What changes operationally:

  • Intake windows compress. The client who walks in 4 years after a crash is gone.
  • Case screening has to be faster. The cost of saying yes to a weak case is now much higher relative to what you could do with the same time on a new qualified matter.
  • Older cases in your pipeline get squeezed — ones you've been sitting on waiting for medical clarity need to move.

The AI leverage:

  • Intake automation that screens and qualifies in the first call — not over 2 weeks of paralegal back-and-forth — saves 20% of your intake capacity. Directly converts to signed cases.
  • AI medical-record review cuts case maturation time. When you're running on a 2-year clock, every week you shave between intake and demand is a week of lost compounding recovered.

The firms that respond to a tighter SoL with "hire more paralegals" are the ones that get rolled up by 2027. The firms that respond with AI-compressed operations are the ones buying them.

Florida: HB 837 (the 4 → 2 + 51% bar)

Florida already bit. HB 837, enacted in 2023, cut the PI statute from 4 years to 2 and shifted comparative negligence so that plaintiffs found more than 50% at fault recover nothing.

The 51% bar is the quieter change, and the more consequential one.

What changes operationally:

  • Case selection matters 10x more. Taking a case where your client is even plausibly 51% at fault is now lighting $75K on fire per file.
  • Screening has to evaluate liability not just from the intake call but from crash reports, dash-cam data, medical records, and social footprint — cross-referenced fast.
  • Firms that rely on bulk intake and high-volume TV spend are the most exposed. The economics assume 80%+ of signed cases pay out. Florida makes that assumption brittle.

The AI leverage:

  • AI-assisted liability screening that pulls police reports, geocodes crash locations, and flags probable fault attribution before you sign the fee agreement.
  • Structured intake conversations designed to surface the 20% of red flags most likely to trigger the 51% bar at trial.

Florida isn't killing PI practice. It's killing generic PI practice. A firm that signs better cases and settles them faster is fine. Arguably better than fine.

Georgia: SB 69

Georgia went a different direction: third-party litigation funding reform. As of January 1, 2026, TPF agreements are discoverable and funders have to register with Georgia's Department of Banking and Finance.

What changes operationally:

  • Your funded cases now carry new disclosure obligations. Cases you would have funded in 2024 may not pencil in 2026.
  • The TPF-funder universe contracts. Funding cost goes up. Your effective cost of capital on long-tail cases goes up with it.
  • Defense counsel is going to make TPF discovery a procedural tax on your practice even when it doesn't change the outcome.

The AI leverage:

  • Case velocity becomes the answer. The firm that closes cases 30% faster uses TPF less, because fewer cases need the runway.
  • AI-assisted demand-package generation — what used to take 40 paralegal hours taking 4 — compresses time-to-settlement directly.
  • Portfolio-level visibility (which cases are burning calendar, which are ready to move) reduces the need for funding on cases that were ready to close but sat on a partner's desk for a quarter.

The unified playbook

Three different states. One common thread.

Each reform punishes operational slack. The firm that depends on wide intake funnels, slow maturation, and deep case backlogs is the firm getting repriced by legislators in real time.

The firm that runs AI-efficient intake, compresses medical review from weeks to days, and moves demand packages with force is unaffected by reform, because the reform is priced out of their cost base already.

Everything PIMP publishes from this point is downstream of that observation. You can't regulate against efficient firms.

Next move: The PIMP Field Manual newsletter ships playbook breakdowns weekly — each one a single operational change a PI firm can run next week. Subscribe here. If you want us to audit your intake funnel against one of the reforms above, book a recon call.

Stack wins.