Maryland 2025 Regular Session

Maryland House Bill HB0456

Caption

Howard County - Alcoholic Beverages - Gift Basket Permit Ho. Co. 2-26

Summary

HB0456 creates a new civil cause of action and limitations framework for claims involving child nonsexual abuse and neglect. It defines “child,” “neglect,” and “nonsexual abuse,” and allows a person who was abused or neglected as a child to file a damages action despite otherwise applicable statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, and certain governmental tort claim limits. In general, the bill requires such actions to be filed within the later of 20 years after the victim turns 18 or 3 years after the defendant is convicted of a related crime. The bill also sets a cap on noneconomic damages for these claims at $1.5 million in certain cases, while preserving other existing liability caps and immunity provisions for local governments, county boards of education, and the State. It amends multiple sections of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, the Education Article, and the State Government Article to make clear that claims for nonsexual child abuse or neglect are treated similarly to sexual abuse claims for purposes of liability limits, insurance coverage, sovereign immunity, and interlocutory appeals. The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it expands the ability of survivors of childhood abuse and neglect to bring civil claims that would otherwise be time-barred, including claims against public entities. It also requires county boards and the State to maintain or recognize higher liability coverage limits for these claims, and it creates a specific appellate path for motions to dismiss based on limitations or repose defenses when a revival law is challenged as unconstitutional. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so the general sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at expanding remedies for survivors and aligning nonsexual abuse and neglect claims with existing child sexual abuse revival provisions, suggesting a remedial and victim-centered policy approach. The main points of contention likely center on retroactive application, revival of previously barred claims, and increased exposure for the State, local governments, and school boards. Opponents would likely focus on fairness, finality, fiscal liability, and insurance costs, while supporters would emphasize accountability, access to justice for survivors, and the difficulty many victims face in coming forward within ordinary limitation periods.

Impact

HB0456 would amend Maryland civil liability law to create a new limitations and damages regime for child nonsexual abuse and neglect claims, including claims against the State, local governments, and county boards of education. It would also revise insurance and sovereign-immunity provisions so that these claims are subject to higher liability thresholds similar to child sexual abuse claims, and it would authorize interlocutory appeals in certain dismissal rulings involving limitations or constitutional challenges to revival legislation.

Sentiment

No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from discussion or voting. The bill text indicates a strong pro-survivor, remedial intent, but it also signals likely concern about retroactivity and public liability exposure. Overall, the measure appears designed to expand access to civil remedies for victims of childhood abuse and neglect, while preserving capped liability rather than eliminating governmental protections entirely.

Contention

The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s retroactive application to previously barred claims, the revival of stale cases, and the financial exposure imposed on public entities and insurers. Supporters would likely argue that survivors of child nonsexual abuse and neglect need extended time to recognize and act on harm, especially when the abuse occurs in custodial or institutional settings. Opponents would likely object to reopening old claims, the uncertainty created for defendants, and the increased costs for the State, local governments, and school systems.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.