SB2290 revises North Dakota law governing exemplary damages, also known as punitive damages, in civil cases. The bill amends the definitions section for “fault” and “malice” and rewrites the procedures a court must follow before exemplary damages may be claimed. Under the bill, a plaintiff may not request exemplary damages in the original complaint; instead, the plaintiff must later move to amend the pleadings and support the request with affidavits or deposition testimony. The court must then determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a factfinder to consider exemplary damages, and if so, the case may proceed to a separate determination on compensatory damages and then exemplary damages.
The bill also sets substantive limits and standards for awards. It bars consideration of a defendant’s financial condition or net worth, caps exemplary damages at the greater of two times compensatory damages or $250,000, and requires clear and convincing evidence that the amount is consistent with specified factors such as reprehensibility, relationship to the harm, concealment, profitability, and related criminal sanctions. It further limits exemplary damages against product manufacturers and sellers when the product complied with applicable federal requirements, with exceptions for concealment or illegal payments to regulators. The bill also specifies when a principal may be liable for an agent’s conduct and creates a special rule for motor vehicle accidents involving bodily injury where the driver had a recent conviction for impaired-driving offenses.
The bill’s impact is to narrow and structure the circumstances under which North Dakota courts and juries may award punitive damages, while preserving the remedy in cases involving oppression, fraud, actual malice, and certain drunk-driving related crashes. It affects civil tort litigation generally, product liability cases, employer/principal liability, and motor vehicle injury lawsuits. It also changes pleading practice by requiring a post-filing motion to seek exemplary damages rather than allowing such damages to be demanded at the outset.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a wide margin, indicating broad bipartisan support for the changes. No committee testimony or recorded debate was provided, so there is no documented public controversy in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention inherent in the bill are the balance between limiting punitive awards and preserving deterrence for serious wrongdoing. Potentially affected parties include plaintiffs in tort actions, defendants facing punitive-damage claims, product manufacturers and sellers, employers or principals, and drivers involved in alcohol- or drug-related injury crashes. The special product-liability and motor-vehicle provisions suggest the bill aims to reduce exposure in some cases while keeping punitive damages available in especially blameworthy conduct.
SB2290 amends North Dakota Century Code sections 32-03.2-01 and 32-03.2-11 to tighten the procedural and substantive rules for exemplary damages in civil actions. It requires a separate motion to amend pleadings to add an exemplary-damages claim, sets evidentiary thresholds for court approval, limits admissibility of net-worth evidence, caps awards, and adds specific defenses and liability rules for product manufacturers/sellers and principals. It also creates a targeted rule allowing exemplary-damages consideration in certain bodily-injury motor vehicle cases involving recent impaired-driving convictions.
The bill appears to have received broad and largely uncontroversial support. It passed the Senate 45-0 and the House 88-5, suggesting strong bipartisan agreement on the need to clarify and limit exemplary-damages procedures. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded detailed debate in the supplied materials.
The likely points of contention are policy-based rather than procedural: whether the bill makes punitive damages too difficult to obtain, whether the $250,000-or-double-compensatory cap is too restrictive, and whether the product-liability safe harbor unduly shields manufacturers that comply with federal standards. Another possible area of debate is the special treatment of drunk-driving related injury cases, which preserves punitive-damages exposure in those circumstances. The available voting record shows little visible opposition, but the five House no votes suggest some members may have objected to the bill’s limits on plaintiffs’ recovery or its protections for defendants.