Civil Actions - Tortious Injury to or Death of Pet - Compensatory Damages (Buddy's Law)
Summary
SB581, known as Buddy’s Law, increases the cap on compensatory damages available to a pet owner when a person tortiously injures or kills a pet. Under current Maryland law, an owner may recover the pet’s fair market value before death and reasonable and necessary veterinary costs, but total damages are capped; this bill raises that cap from $10,000 to $25,000. The bill applies to domesticated animals and expressly excludes livestock.
The measure amends Section 11-110 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. It does not create a new cause of action, but it expands the amount of money a court may award in existing civil actions involving injury to or death of a pet. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025, and will affect tort defendants, pet owners, insurers, and courts handling these claims.
Impact
SB581 changes Maryland civil liability law by increasing the statutory ceiling on compensatory damages for tortious injury to or death of a pet from $10,000 to $25,000. The amendment affects the damages remedy under Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 11-110, while leaving the underlying liability standard and the definition of compensatory damages intact. It is likely to increase exposure for individuals or entities found liable for harming a pet and may affect settlement values and insurance considerations in pet-injury cases.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate 47-0 and the House 137-1, and the committee report was favorable. The strong vote totals suggest general agreement that the existing damages cap was too low and should be updated to better reflect the value of pets and associated veterinary costs.
Contention
The main point of policy contention is the appropriate level of the damages cap for pets. Supporters of the bill likely view the increase as a needed recognition of pets as valued family members and a more realistic limit on recoverable losses, while any opponents would be concerned about higher liability exposure, increased litigation costs, and potential insurance impacts. The bill also preserves the exclusion for livestock, so the change is limited to domesticated companion animals rather than agricultural animals.