Civil Actions - Noneconomic Damages - Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
Summary
HB113 would repeal Maryland’s statutory caps on noneconomic damages in civil cases involving personal injury and wrongful death. Under current law, recoveries for pain and suffering and other nonpecuniary harms are limited by § 11-108 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, with separate rules for personal injury and wrongful death claims and annual inflation adjustments. This bill deletes that section in its entirety, which would eliminate the statewide ceiling on noneconomic damages for covered tort actions.
The bill is prospective only and would apply to causes of action arising on or after its effective date of October 1, 2025. It would not affect claims that arose before that date. In practical terms, plaintiffs in future personal injury and wrongful death cases could seek full noneconomic damages without the current statutory limits, and courts would no longer need to reduce jury awards to fit within the cap.
Impact
HB113 would substantially change Maryland tort law by repealing the existing noneconomic damages cap for personal injury and wrongful death actions in Article – Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 11-108. That would remove the current $500,000 base cap, its annual adjustments, the special wrongful death allocation rules, and the requirement that judges reduce verdicts exceeding the cap. The bill would likely increase potential exposure for defendants and insurers in future civil cases and could increase recoveries for injured plaintiffs and wrongful death claimants.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be a plaintiff-oriented tort reform measure with no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials. The sponsor list suggests support from a group of delegates, but there is no transcript evidence of opposition or endorsement. Because the bill would eliminate a longstanding damages limitation, it is likely to draw strong interest from both civil plaintiffs’ advocates and defense/insurance interests, even though no formal sentiment is captured in the supplied record.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether Maryland should continue limiting noneconomic damages in tort cases. Supporters would likely argue that the cap unfairly restricts compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of companionship, especially in serious injury and wrongful death cases. Opponents would likely argue that removing the cap could increase liability costs, raise insurance premiums, and create less predictable verdict exposure for businesses, health care providers, and other defendants. No specific committee disagreements are available in the provided materials, but those are the central policy fault lines raised by the bill.