McAuliffe vetoes legislation increasing Virginia’s exposure to nuisance suits

Governor Terry McAuliffe today vetoed Senate Bill 543, which would have required an award of attorneys’ fees and other costs when a plaintiff wins or settles an inverse condemnation suit for “damaging” property, even when such damage is de minimis.

The Governor originally amended the legislation to cap such damages in order to protect the Commonwealth against costly nuisance suits, but the General Assembly rejected his amendment.

The Governor’s full veto statement

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill 543, which requires an award of attorneys’ fees and other costs when a plaintiff wins or settles an inverse condemnation suit for “damaging” property, even when such damage is de minimis.

Money damages are already authorized for both takings of and damage to private property by government actions, through suits for inverse condemnation.  In the event of a permanent taking by a governmental entity, a plaintiff is entitled to his or her attorneys’ fees and costs.  Senate Bill 543 would extend the award of those fees and costs to suits in which a landowner’s property was not completely taken but only impaired, even if that impairment is nominal.

I am not opposed to the award of attorneys’ fees and costs in damages cases, within reason. As Governor, I am responsible for the fiscal health of Virginia, and I take my obligations as a steward of taxpayers’ money seriously.  Accordingly, I proposed an amendment to Senate Bill 543 seeking to cap attorneys’ fees and costs in damages cases to two hundred percent of the monetary award for the damage itself.  This would have eliminated the incentive for nuisance lawsuits by unscrupulous attorneys seeking to enrich themselves at taxpayers’ expense in those cases where any actual damage was de minimis.  The General Assembly elected to return Senate Bill 543 to me in its original form.  Without some safeguard against unlimited exposure of taxpayer funds to litigation costs for nuisance suits, I cannot support this legislation.