Health Insurance Coverage Protection Commission - Study on Individual and Group Health Insurance Market Stability
HB1112 would expand Maryland law governing PFAS chemicals in two main ways: it creates new, specific civil filing deadlines for personal injury and wrongful death claims tied to PFAS exposure, and it establishes a new prohibition on consumer products containing PFAS chemicals. For injury claims, the bill adds a new statute of limitations requiring actions to be filed within the earlier of 10 years from exposure or 3 years from discovery of the cause of injury. For wrongful death claims involving PFAS exposure, it similarly sets a filing deadline of the earlier of 10 years from death or 3 years from discovery of the cause of death. The bill also excludes PFAS-related claims from certain existing occupational disease and personal injury timing rules so that PFAS claims are governed by the new provisions instead.
On the regulatory side, the bill broadens the definition of PFAS chemicals in the Environment Article to include their use in consumer products, not just fire-fighting agents, fire-fighting equipment, food packaging, rugs, and carpets. It then adds a new section barring a person from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or distributing in Maryland any consumer product containing PFAS chemicals beginning July 1, 2026, unless the product is otherwise regulated under specified existing laws. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025, giving businesses and regulators time before the sales prohibition begins.
The bill’s impact would be significant for both litigation and product regulation. It would create a distinct legal pathway for PFAS-related injury and death claims, likely affecting plaintiffs, manufacturers, insurers, and courts by clarifying when such claims must be filed. It would also impose a broad market restriction on PFAS-containing consumer products in Maryland, potentially requiring product reformulation, supply-chain changes, compliance review, and enforcement planning by state agencies and affected industries.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a strong public-health and environmental protection approach toward PFAS, with an emphasis on limiting exposure and preserving access to civil remedies. Any contention would likely center on the breadth of the consumer product ban, the feasibility of compliance for manufacturers and retailers, and the expanded litigation exposure created by the new PFAS-specific limitations periods.
HB1112 would amend Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article to create PFAS-specific limitations periods for personal injury and wrongful death claims and to exclude PFAS claims from certain existing occupational disease and personal injury timing rules. It would also amend the Environment Article to expand the statutory PFAS definition to consumer products and prohibit, beginning July 1, 2026, the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or distribution in Maryland of consumer products containing PFAS chemicals, subject to specified exceptions for products already regulated elsewhere in state law.
No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no documented floor or hearing sentiment to summarize. From the bill text, the measure appears to be motivated by concern over PFAS exposure and consumer safety, suggesting a generally protective, public-health-oriented intent. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials means the level of support or resistance cannot be determined from the context given.
The likely points of contention are the scope and enforceability of the consumer product ban, the economic and compliance burden on manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, and the new PFAS-specific litigation deadlines. Industry stakeholders may object to the breadth of the prohibition and the expanded definition of PFAS chemicals, while plaintiffs’ advocates may support the bill’s clearer filing windows and carve-outs from existing limitations rules. Because no hearing transcript was provided, these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from recorded debate.