Collateral Source

The collateral source rule bars the admissibility of evidence at trial to show that a plaintiff’s losses have been compensated from other sources, such as the plaintiff’s insurance or workers compensation. “Collateral source” refers to damages awarded to plaintiffs for inflated medical expenses that were never actually incurred.

The Problem

The collateral source rule keeps important information relevant to the determination of damages from reaching the jury. It allows plaintiffs to be compensated twice for the same injury.

ATRA’s Position

ATRA supports permitting the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments at trial or requiring awards to be offset by the amount paid to plaintiffs by collateral sources, less the amount paid by the plaintiff to secure the benefit. Advancing legislation to allow actual evidence of the medical expenses incurred will bring transparency to damage awards for medical bills.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Collateral Source
Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 2703, SB 2708 (1987): N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-92.

Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments other than workers’ compensation and life insurance benefits.

New Jersey
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 1571 (1987): N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-06.

Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments other than life insurance or insurance purchased by the recovering party.

North Dakota
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 567 (1987).
Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, unless the source of reimbursement has a subrogation right under state or federal...
Montana
Collateral Source Rule Reform: H.B. 393 (2005); § 490.715. R.S.Mo.
Modifies the collateral source rule to allow the actual amount of paid medical expenses to be introduced into evidence rather than the amount billed. ...
Missouri
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 700 (1987).
Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, but provided that a defendant who presents collateral source payments as evidence...
Missouri
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 5154 (1986).
Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments after the verdict and before judgment is entered.  Permits courts to offset awards...
Michigan
Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 2078 (1986): Minn. Stat. Ann. § 548.36.
Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments only for the court’s review.  Provides for awards to be offset by collateral sourc...
Minnesota
Collateral Source Rule Reform: LD 2513 (1990): Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24 § 2961.
Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments, where the collateral sources have not exercised subrogation rights within 10 days afte...
Maine
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 551 (1988).
Mandates that juries be advised of collateral source payments and subrogation of rights of collateral payers.  The statute allowing the admission of e...
Kentucky
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 2693 (1988).
Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, where damages exceed $150,000.  Provides for awards to be offset when the court a...
Kansas


Collateral Source News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Collateral Source

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Collateral Source
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Letter Urging Veto or Amendments to House Bill 449 / Senate Bill 229 in Virginia
...
Virginia
Corporate Flight from Delaware: The Impact of Escalating Shareholder Litigation and Legal Uncertainty
Unpredictable court rulings and a wave of lawyer-driven, profit-seeking litigation are destabilizing Delaware’s historic dominance for corporat...
Delaware
New York Local Legal Services Advertising 2024-2025
Trial lawyers and aggregators increasingly spend large sums of money on television, digital, and print advertising to recruit new clients. In 2025, i...
New York
Murphy v. Rio Rancho Center
(New Mex. Ct. App., filed March 5, 2026): Arguing that the double-digit punitive multipliers likely violate due process. The U.S. Supreme Court has s...
New Mexico
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Monsanto v. Durnell
(U.S., filed March 2, 2026): Arguing that requirements for herbicide labeling should not be made case-by-case in litigation sparked by a flawed IARC ...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Cowan v. Dr. Slann et.al.
(N.D., filed February 23, 2026): Arguing that reasonable limits on medical liability improve the health care system for doctors and patients and Nort...
North Dakota
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Oregon Local Legal Services Advertising 2021-2025
Trial lawyers and aggregators increasingly spend large sums of money on television, digital,and print advertising to recruit new clients. In 2025, it...
Oregon
The Junk Science Playbook
The Machine That Sparks and Supports Mass Tort Litigation Introduction and Executive Summary Mass tort litigation is a sprawling, profit-driven...
Bio-Lab, Inc. v. Fannie Tartt et al.
(GA, filed January 20, 2026): Arguing that traditional tort law and persuasive decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous state high courts do ...
Georgia
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Sanctionable: The unsupported, exaggerated, and suspicious claims plaguing our nation’s courts
There is growing concern that many lawsuits filed in our nation’s courts are unsupported, involve manufactured or exaggerated injuries, or stem from ...
California, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.