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 actions, medical claims, product liability claims, actions against political subdivisions, and claims involving state universities or colleges. 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 reported to the General Assembly and then substituted for the prior caps on a set annual schedule.
The bill revises multiple sections of the Revised Code to replace existing dollar limits with higher amounts and to make those limits inflation-sensitive going forward. It preserves existing exceptions where certain claims are not subject to caps, such as wrongful death actions and cases involving specified severe permanent injuries, and it continues to exclude punitive damages against political subdivisions. It also retains procedural rules such as bifurcated trials for punitive damages claims, limits on what juries may be told about damage caps, and special rules for product liability, medical malpractice, and public-entity defendants.
HB447 would directly amend Ohio’s tort damages framework by increasing recoverable noneconomic and punitive damage ceilings and by tying those ceilings to annual CPI-based adjustments administered by the Department of Taxation. The bill would affect litigation involving personal injury, product liability, employment discrimination claims treated as tort actions, medical and related professional claims, political subdivisions, and state universities or colleges, while leaving existing exclusions and special rules in place. If enacted, courts would apply the new higher caps and the annual adjusted amounts in place of the current statutory figures.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, with no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials. As a result, there is no documented public sentiment from hearings or floor action in the record supplied here. Based on the bill’s content alone, it appears designed to expand potential recoveries for injured plaintiffs while preserving a capped-damages structure, suggesting a policy approach that is reform-oriented rather than a wholesale repeal of damage limits.
The main point of contention is likely to be the increase in damage caps, which would be viewed by supporters as updating outdated limits and by opponents as increasing liability exposure for businesses, health care providers, public entities, and universities. Another likely issue is the bill’s inflation-adjustment mechanism, which would automatically raise caps over time and reduce legislative control over future changes. The bill also preserves several carve-outs and special protections, so debate may focus on whether the exceptions are too narrow or too broad, especially in medical, product liability, and public-sector cases.