AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 32-12.1-03 and 32-12.2-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the statutory caps for liability of political subdivisions and the state; and to provide an effective date.
HB 1142 revises North Dakota’s Governmental Liability Act by increasing the statutory caps on money damages that may be recovered against political subdivisions and the state. The bill amends the liability limits in sections 32-12.1-03 and 32-12.2-02 of the Century Code, raising the per-person and per-occurrence caps on a phased schedule through July 1, 2026. Under the bill, the limits increase from the current levels to higher amounts in 2025 and then to $500,000 per person and $2 million per occurrence for political subdivisions, and $500,000 per person and $2 million per occurrence for the state, after the transition date.
The bill keeps the existing framework that allows claims only for negligence or wrongful acts by employees acting within the scope of employment, while preserving the many statutory immunities and exclusions already in law. Those immunities include discretionary acts, legislative and judicial functions, public-duty claims, claims caused by third parties, and several state-specific exclusions such as tax collection, snow and ice on certain highways and sidewalks, environmental contamination, and contract-based liability. The bill also retains the rule that punitive or exemplary damages may not be awarded against the state or political subdivisions.
In practical terms, HB 1142 would increase the potential financial exposure of both the state and local governments in tort claims, while leaving the basic structure of sovereign immunity and governmental immunity intact. It would affect state agencies, counties, cities, school districts, and other political subdivisions, as well as claimants seeking damages for injuries caused by government employees or government-owned property. It also preserves the requirement that any judgment above the statutory cap against the state requires legislative appropriation.
The overall sentiment reflected in the votes was strongly favorable, with the bill passing the House 86-1 and the Senate 46-1. That margin suggests broad bipartisan support for updating the liability limits, likely reflecting a consensus that the caps should be adjusted upward for inflation or changed conditions. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate detailed arguments in favor or against the bill.
The main point of contention appears to be the size of the increase in liability exposure for taxpayers and public entities, since raising caps can increase the amount governments and insurers may have to pay on claims. The near-unanimous votes indicate that any opposition was limited and likely centered on cost, risk management, or concern about expanded exposure rather than disagreement with the underlying liability framework.
HB 1142 amends North Dakota Century Code sections 32-12.1-03 and 32-12.2-02 to raise the statutory damage caps applicable to political subdivisions and the state, while preserving the existing immunity exceptions and procedural rules under the Governmental Liability Act. It changes the maximum recoverable amounts for personal injury and single-occurrence claims and updates the effective dates so the higher limits apply on a phased basis through June 30, 2026 and after that date. The bill affects the state, local governments, their employees acting within the scope of employment, insurers, and claimants bringing tort claims against government entities.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, as shown by overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers and only one dissenting vote in each. The vote totals suggest lawmakers generally agreed that the liability caps should be increased, likely as a routine update to the existing statutory scheme. Because there were no committee transcripts included, the record does not show extended public disagreement or a developed opposition narrative.
The likely area of disagreement is whether increasing the liability caps exposes the state and political subdivisions to greater fiscal risk, higher insurance costs, or larger taxpayer-funded judgments. Supporters appear to have favored modernizing the caps and maintaining the existing liability framework, while the lone dissenting votes suggest some concern about the financial consequences of expanding government exposure. No specific committee objections or stakeholder disputes are available in the provided record.