Damages; economic and noneconomic loss compensation; bodily injury claims; limitation; mandatory liability insurance; effective date.
HB2932 would revise Oklahoma law governing damages in civil actions for bodily injury and certain motor vehicle accidents. The bill keeps economic damages uncapped, but generally limits noneconomic damages in bodily injury cases to $500,000. It creates higher or no caps in specified circumstances: up to $1 million for permanent mental injury that severely impairs employment or a reasonable standard of living, and no cap for permanent and severe physical injuries or for cases involving reckless disregard, gross negligence, fraud, or intentional/malicious conduct proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The bill also requires special verdict or fact-finding procedures so the court or jury separately identifies total compensatory damages, economic loss, noneconomic loss, and any findings on reckless, grossly negligent, fraudulent, or intentional conduct. It excludes claims under the Governmental Tort Claims Act and certain constitutional claims, and applies only to injuries occurring on or after the effective date. In a separate provision, it bars recovery of the first $100,000 in bodily injury and the first $100,000 in property damage for uninsured motorists involved in a motor vehicle accident, and it assigns court costs to uninsured owners/operators who sue and recover $100,000 or less.
The bill further preserves insurer subrogation rights and clarifies that a claimant’s insurer may recover amounts paid on behalf of the insured above the first $100,000 in bodily injury and property damage losses. It would be codified primarily in Title 23, with a related new section addressing uninsured motorist recovery limits and insurer reimbursement rights in Title 47-related accident claims. The effective date is November 1, 2026.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show formal debate or amendments. The bill’s caption and structure suggest a tort-reform approach aimed at limiting noneconomic damages and reducing recoveries for uninsured motorists, while preserving full recovery for serious injuries and egregious misconduct. The overall sentiment in the available record is neutral to supportive in drafting tone, but no direct legislative sentiment can be inferred from votes or discussion.
The main points of contention likely center on whether the noneconomic damage cap is too restrictive for injured plaintiffs, whether the uninsured-motorist penalty unfairly limits access to compensation, and whether the exceptions for severe injury and misconduct are sufficiently broad. Potential supporters would include insurers, business groups, and tort-reform advocates; potential opponents would include plaintiff attorneys, consumer advocates, and injured-person advocates concerned about reduced recoveries.
HB2932 would amend Oklahoma’s damages statute in Title 23 by imposing a general cap on noneconomic damages in bodily injury cases, while preserving uncapped economic damages and creating exceptions for severe physical injury, severe mental injury, and egregious defendant conduct. It would also add a new statutory section limiting recovery for uninsured motorists in motor vehicle accidents and protecting insurer subrogation and reimbursement rights. The bill would affect plaintiffs in personal injury and auto accident cases, defendants, insurers, and courts handling verdict forms and damage allocations.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a tort-reform and insurance-cost-control policy approach, with protections for severe injuries and intentional or reckless misconduct. The available context does not show organized opposition or support, but the structure suggests the bill could draw mixed reactions depending on whether stakeholders prioritize compensation limits or liability reduction.
The likely points of contention are the $500,000 general cap on noneconomic damages, the $1 million cap for severe mental injury, and the uninsured-motorist provisions that deny the first $100,000 of bodily injury and property damage recovery. Opponents would likely argue these limits reduce compensation for seriously injured plaintiffs and penalize accident victims, while supporters would likely argue they curb excessive awards, discourage uninsured driving, and align damages with tort-reform goals. Another possible dispute is the breadth of the exceptions for reckless, grossly negligent, fraudulent, or intentional conduct, and whether the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard is too difficult to meet.