To amend sections 2305.01, 2307.80, 2315.18, 2315.21, 2323.43, 2744.05, and 3345.40 of the Revised Code to increase the dollar caps on noneconomic damages and punitive or exemplary damages in civil actions and to provide a procedure for the Department of Taxation to make annual adjustments of those caps based on the consumer price index.
HB447 would raise Ohio’s statutory caps on noneconomic damages and punitive or exemplary damages in a range of civil actions, including general tort claims, product liability claims, medical claims, and certain claims involving state universities, political subdivisions, and other covered defendants. The bill also adds a mechanism for the Ohio Department of Taxation to adjust those dollar caps each year based on changes in the consumer price index, with the adjusted amounts certified and reported annually to the General Assembly.
In general tort actions, the bill increases the cap on noneconomic damages from the current lower amount to higher dollar thresholds and similarly raises the cap on punitive damages, including a separate cap for small employers and individuals. It preserves existing exceptions for cases involving catastrophic injuries, wrongful death, and certain intentional or criminal conduct, and it continues to exclude contract disputes and some medical-related claims from the general tort cap framework. The bill also retains or updates special rules for product liability, including protections for FDA-compliant drugs and devices and for products that comply with applicable government safety standards, subject to fraud exceptions.
The bill would amend and repeal portions of sections 2305.01, 2307.80, 2315.18, 2315.21, 2323.43, 2744.05, and 3345.40 of the Revised Code, changing Ohio’s damages framework across multiple categories of civil litigation. It would increase the maximum recoverable noneconomic and punitive damages in covered cases, require bifurcated procedures and special findings in punitive-damages cases, and direct the Department of Taxation to annually index the caps for inflation using the CPI. The bill would affect plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, employers, product manufacturers and suppliers, health care providers, political subdivisions, and state universities or colleges by expanding potential exposure to damages while preserving several statutory limitations and exceptions.
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears to be policy-driven and pro-plaintiff in the sense that it seeks to increase damage caps and preserve recovery for noneconomic harm, while still retaining structured limits and defenses for defendants. Because the bill was only introduced and there are no recorded votes or committee transcript snippets, there is no documented public debate in the provided materials to indicate broader support or opposition. The measure appears to be framed as a modernization of existing caps through inflation indexing rather than a wholesale repeal of damage limits.
The main points of contention likely concern the size of the cap increases, whether noneconomic and punitive damages should be expanded at all, and whether annual CPI indexing would steadily raise liability exposure over time. Defendants’ interests—such as businesses, manufacturers, small employers, public entities, and state universities—would likely favor maintaining tighter limits, while plaintiffs’ advocates would likely support higher caps and inflation adjustments to preserve the real value of awards. Additional friction may arise over the bill’s special rules for product liability, FDA-regulated drugs and devices, and the continued exceptions for catastrophic injury, wrongful death, and intentional misconduct.