Critics say Washington state's Tort Study Committee left out the one group most affected by its work: survivors of abuse in state care. The 14-member panel, created by a legislative budget proviso to recommend ways to curb rising lawsuit payouts, drew public criticism in October 2026 for lacking anyone with lived experience of abuse, according to The Center Square. The complaint comes from the legislator who wrote the law requiring that kind of representation on the committee in the first place. Her objection, and the state's response, now shape what lawmakers will see when the panel's recommendations reach them ahead of the 2027 session.
Table of Contents
- What the committee is and why it exists
- Why critics say survivors were excluded
- What proposals are actually on the table
- The dissent inside the committee itself
- What happens next
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the committee is and why it exists
The Tort Study Committee is a 14-member panel formed under a Washington state budget proviso to study ways to reduce the state's rising tort liability costs. It was convened after Washington paid roughly $537 million in settlements and verdicts between July 2025 and June 2026, nearly 80% of it tied to misconduct claims against the Department of Children, Youth and Families, according to the Spokesman-Review. Those payouts pushed the state's self-insurance fund about $1.7 billion into the red. The committee's roster, published by the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings, includes plaintiff and defense attorneys, state and local government officials, Assistant Attorney General Brian Baker, attorney Alexander Dietz, and sexual-violence advocate Sara Mooney of the Sexual Violence Law Center, per the Office of Administrative Hearings roster.
The panel's report is due to lawmakers ahead of the 2027 legislative session. Its original deadline was Nov. 1, 2026, after a slow start caused by Gov. Bob Ferguson's delay in appointing two members, the Spokesman-Review reported.
Why critics say survivors were excluded
State Rep. Darya Farivar, D-Seattle, sponsored the law that required the committee to include people with lived experience of abuse. On Sept. 28, 2026, she emailed Gov.
Ferguson warning that the committee's direction "risks losing sight of the underlying crisis" of abuse in state care, according to The Center Square's report republished by the Spokesman-Review. Farivar said much of the committee's attention had gone to "proposals that would limit survivors' ability to seek restitution, including caps on damages and requiring claims to proceed through arbitration," rather than to prevention or accountability measures, per The Center Square. Debbie Driver, Ferguson's legislative director, responded that the committee's composition follows the original budget proviso that created it. Driver said the panel is aware of the "missing voices" and is weighing a recommendation to the legislature to broaden claimant representation in future work, The Center Square reported.
What proposals are actually on the table
The specific policy options critics object to are narrower than general "tort reform." According to The Center Square, the committee has discussed narrowing the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims, limiting when the state can be held liable, and capping the percentage attorneys can charge in fees. Each of these would directly affect how abuse claims against state agencies move through the system: These are the proposals Farivar flagged as going toward restricting recovery rather than preventing the underlying abuse or holding agencies accountable for it.
- A shorter statute of limitations would cut off more survivors before they can file, particularly those who take years to come forward.
- Limits on state liability would narrow which misconduct claims can even be brought against agencies like the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
- Mandatory arbitration would move claims out of open court and into a private process.
- Attorney fee caps could make it harder for survivors to find representation willing to take complex, long-running cases.
The dissent inside the committee itself
The disagreement was not confined to outside criticism. Five of the committee's 14 members signed a minority report, which The Center Square obtained ahead of the panel's majority report, according to the Spokesman-Review.
📨 Get Free Mass Tort Guides Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
That minority report exists because Farivar specifically asked that any dissent be allowed to include a full dissenting opinion along with the names of the members who dissented, rather than a brief procedural note. That means lawmakers reviewing the committee's work in 2027 will see two documents: the majority's recommendations and a named, substantive rebuttal from more than a third of the panel.
What happens next
The committee's findings go to the legislature ahead of the 2027 session, where lawmakers will decide which, if any, recommendations to turn into bills. Readers tracking claims against Washington state agencies, including abuse cases tied to the Department of Children, Youth and Families, should watch for legislation stemming from this report, since proposals like shortened filing deadlines or mandatory arbitration would change how new and pending claims are handled. Because the panel's own members are divided, and because the governor's office has acknowledged the "missing voices" problem Farivar raised, the makeup and mandate of any successor committee is also likely to be revisited before further recommendations move forward.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who created Washington's Tort Study Committee?
It was created by a legislative budget proviso to recommend ways to reduce the state's rising tort liability payouts, not by the legislature's abuse-survivor representation law alone.
Did the law requiring lived-experience representation get followed?
No. Rep. Darya Farivar, who sponsored that law, said the committee's makeup still excluded anyone with lived experience of abuse, and the governor's office acknowledged the "missing voices."
What specific changes could affect abuse survivors' lawsuits?
A shorter statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims, new limits on state liability, mandatory arbitration, and caps on attorney fee percentages.
Did the whole committee agree on its recommendations?
No. Five of the 14 members signed a named minority report dissenting from the majority's conclusions.
You Might Also Like
- Wrongful Death Mass Tort vs Alternatives: Legal Paths Compared
- Mass Tort Settlement Fund Guide 2026: Eligibility, Evidence, and Deadlines
- Mass Tort Discovery vs Alternatives: Legal Paths Compared