SB1558

Who is covered? Family Code §264.170 already treated a nonprofit contracting with the Department of Family and Protective Services as a single source continuum contractor—a lead provider of community-based child-welfare services—as charitable for these services. The law extends that treatment to nonprofits contracting with the department or a lead contractor to provide community-based care or child-welfare services. It includes employees, volunteers and caregivers providing services for the entity. It does not cover every unrelated nonprofit activity. Final law; Prior contractor-liability law; Community-based care definitions.

The Family Code limits apply within the scope of the entity’s qualifying contract or the person’s duties for the entity, and only with the required insurance in effect when the personal-injury, death or property-damage cause of action accrues. The existing Chapter 84 framework generally uses minimum coverage of $500,000 per person and $1 million per occurrence for bodily injury/death, and $100,000 per occurrence for property damage, with specified alternative coverage arrangements, including a $1 million combined single-limit policy. These amounts are existing framework requirements, not a new compensation award created by SB1558. Final law; Chapter 84 conditions and exceptions.

The new protection. Subject to its claimant test and exceptions, new §84.0068 protects the entity from damages resulting from an employee’s, volunteer’s or caregiver’s act or omission when, at the relevant time, the entity has:

• Completed timely criminal background checks required by law.
• Confirmed before engaging the person, and at least every five years afterward, that the person is not listed in a state registry/database as ineligible to supervise or treat children.
• Reported known misconduct allegations as required by law.
• Taken timely, proportionate administrative or personnel action for deficient performance.
• Required child-sexual-abuse prevention training at least every five years and training on reporting child abuse and neglect. The latter training is required, but this provision does not assign it the same five-year interval.

A service-based claimant seeking to hold the entity responsible for another person’s act—called vicarious liability—must show all three: the entity was not in substantial compliance with a listed requirement when the act or omission occurred; the requirement was designed to prevent that specific type of harm; and the noncompliance contributed to the harm. Failure of a requirement is not by itself an automatic damages award. Final law, §1.

What remains outside a blanket shield? The new provision expressly preserves liability for the entity’s own gross negligence and says it must not be construed to limit claims otherwise authorized by state or federal law, or government administrative, regulatory or prosecutorial action. Existing §84.007 also excludes intentional acts, willful negligence and conduct showing conscious indifference or reckless disregard from Chapter 84. These provisions must be read together; the bill does not establish that every claim survives, or that every claim is barred. Final law; Existing chapter exceptions.

Changes during passage: the introduced bill used “good standing” immunity language. The Senate substitute replaced that with a more specific entity-liability rule, required timely and proportionate action for deficiencies rather than only gross deficiencies, changed the causation wording from a “substantial” to a “contributing” factor, added express preservation of other claims/government enforcement, and broadened the contracted-service description beyond foster/adoption services. Introduced; Senate substitute.

Perry’s adopted April 28 Senate amendment changed the covered conduct from “negligence” to an “act or omission,” tied compliance to the time of that conduct and to the relevant person, and changed the express gross-negligence exception from the worker/caregiver’s gross negligence to the entity’s. All five edits survived in the final text. Dutton’s May 27 House amendment proposed deleting “substantial” from two references to compliance in the claimant test; it was tabled, so those words remain. The House committee and final text match the Senate-passed version. Perry amendment; Dutton amendment; Senate-passed; House committee; Version index; Amendment dispositions; Final law.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Qualifying nonprofits gain a defense tied to screening, training, reporting and personnel practices. Children and families pursuing covered claims face a specified burden to connect the entity’s noncompliance to the harm, while the stated exceptions and other-law protections remain. Neither lower insurance premiums nor improved child safety is established by the act itself, and a particular lawsuit’s result depends on its facts and applicable law. Final law.

The March 22 introduced, April 12 substitute and May 13 Senate-passed fiscal notes anticipate no significant state fiscal impact and no local-government fiscal impact, assuming agency and court-administration costs can use existing resources. Their short immunity descriptions do not replace the final law’s conditions and exceptions. They do not quantify private insurance savings or the value of claims affected; the act makes no appropriation. Original fiscal note; Substitute fiscal note; Senate-passed fiscal note; Final law.