In particular rights and immunities, providing for liability for wrongful death of companion animal.
Summary
HB2387 would create a new civil cause of action in Pennsylvania for the wrongful death or injury of a companion animal. If a companion animal is killed by another person or another animal through intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct, the owner could recover the animal’s market value plus up to $15,000 in noneconomic damages for the loss of companionship, society, love, and affection. For companion animals that are injured but do not die, the bill allows recovery of market value and up to $5,000 in noneconomic damages, along with veterinary and continued care costs. Punitive damages would also be available when the harm was intentional.
The bill defines “companion animal” broadly to include many domestic and some feral animals, as well as certain exotic or native birds and reptiles, but excludes agricultural animals, game species, and federally regulated research animals. It also specifies that the new damages caps do not limit other civil claims, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it directs the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to adjust the dollar amounts every three years for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB2387 would amend Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by adding a new section on liability for wrongful death of companion animals. It would expand available civil remedies beyond ordinary property-value recovery by authorizing noneconomic damages for emotional and relational loss, plus punitive damages in intentional cases, while also setting exclusions for public-health and animal-welfare actors and for certain livestock-related killings. The measure would affect pet owners, animal owners whose animals cause harm, veterinarians as part of valuation evidence, and courts tasked with assessing damages and applying the new statutory definitions and inflation adjustments.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer- and pet-owner protection measure that recognizes the emotional value of companion animals. The structure of the bill suggests a sympathetic posture toward owners seeking compensation for the loss or injury of pets, while still preserving limits and exceptions for certain public and agricultural contexts. Because there is no transcript or voting history provided, there is no documented opposition or support to gauge legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s apparent policy intent.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the availability of noneconomic damages for animals, the size of the caps, and the breadth of the definition of “companion animal.” Opponents may argue that allowing emotional-loss damages for pets departs from traditional property-damage rules and could increase litigation or insurance exposure, while supporters are likely to emphasize that pets are family members and that market value alone is inadequate compensation. Additional areas of debate may include the exclusion for livestock-related incidents, the carve-out for governmental and nonprofit public-health or animal-welfare actors, and whether the bill’s broad animal definitions could create uncertainty in application.