HB 302 revises Montana’s punitive damages statute and adds new procedural requirements before a plaintiff may amend a pleading to seek punitive damages. Under the bill, a request for punitive damages could not be included in the initial complaint; instead, after discovery begins, the party would need to move to amend and support the request with affidavits and documentation showing specific admissible facts establishing a triable issue on every element of punitive damages. If requested, the court would have to hold an evidentiary hearing before discovery closes, with live testimony subject to cross-examination, and the judge would be required to make specific findings based only on that hearing record.
The bill also changes how punitive damages are determined and reviewed. It requires clear and convincing evidence, directs that liability be decided by the trier of fact, and separates the liability phase from the amount phase by barring evidence of a defendant’s financial condition until after liability is found. It further requires judges to review punitive damage awards using a list of statutory factors, and authorizes the judge to increase or decrease a jury’s award after review. In addition, the bill creates a split distribution of punitive damages: generally, the award would be divided equally between the prevailing party and the state, with the state’s share deposited into the general fund, subject to deductions for litigation costs and limited attorney fees. Awards of $200,000 or less would be exempt from the state-sharing provision, and the state would have no right to intervene except to enforce or execute its judgment.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant for civil litigation, especially tort cases involving fraud, malice, and punitive damages. It would amend section 27-1-221, MCA, by tightening pleading and proof requirements, changing the timing and structure of punitive damages litigation, and creating a new state revenue interest in larger punitive damage awards. It would also affect plaintiffs, defendants, trial courts, and the Attorney General’s office by adding briefing, evidentiary, and findings obligations and by requiring notice to the state when punitive damages are awarded.
Overall, the bill appears to have been supported in the House but did not advance in the Senate. It passed the House Judiciary Committee and both House floor readings by narrow margins, suggesting divided views but enough support to move forward. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, it was sent to table unanimously, and the bill ultimately died in standing committee. The voting pattern indicates that the proposal was controversial and likely viewed differently by lawmakers concerned with civil justice reform versus those concerned about access to punitive damages and the added procedural burden on plaintiffs.
The main points of contention are likely the heightened procedural hurdles for seeking punitive damages, the requirement for an evidentiary hearing and detailed judicial findings, and the state’s claim to half of punitive damage awards above the threshold. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to curb speculative punitive claims and ensure stronger evidentiary screening, while opponents would likely argue that it makes punitive damages harder to obtain, increases litigation costs and delay, and diverts money from injured plaintiffs to the state.
HB 302 would amend Montana’s punitive damages statute, section 27-1-221, MCA, by imposing new pre-amendment briefing and evidentiary requirements, authorizing evidentiary hearings on punitive damages motions, and requiring judges to make specific findings before allowing such claims. It would also restructure the trial and review process for punitive damages, including a separate damages proceeding, judicial review of jury awards, and a new rule that generally splits punitive damage awards equally between the prevailing party and the state, with the state’s share deposited into the general fund. The bill would directly affect civil litigants, trial courts, and the Attorney General’s office, while excluding awards of $200,000 or less and cases involving the state from the new state-sharing provisions.
The bill’s path suggests mixed but ultimately insufficient support. It passed the House committee and floor with relatively close votes, indicating meaningful support but also substantial opposition. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was unanimously tabled, and the bill died in standing committee, showing that Senate members were not willing to advance it. The overall sentiment appears to have been divided, with the House more receptive than the Senate.
The most contentious issues are the bill’s restrictions on pleading punitive damages, the requirement for affidavits and admissible evidence before amendment, and the option for an evidentiary hearing with live testimony and cross-examination. Another major point of dispute is the bill’s redistribution of punitive damages, which would give half of most awards to the state and limit attorney fees from the state’s share. Supporters likely favored stronger screening of punitive claims and a state revenue component, while opponents likely objected to added litigation burdens, judicial control over jury awards, and reducing the plaintiff’s recovery.