Maryland’s Debate Over Raising or Repealing Tort Limits

In Maryland personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits, damages are generally divided into two categories: economic and non-economic. Economic damages are objective, quantifiable financial losses, including past and future medical bills, rehabilitation costs, lost wages, and loss of earning capacity. Non-economic damages are often referred to as “pain and suffering” and include physical pain, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of companionship, and loss of enjoyment of life.

When a person suffers an injury, the impacts are both financial and deeply personal. Medical bills and lost wages can be calculated through receipts, records, and pay stubs, but how do you put a price tag on permanent physical disfigurement, the loss of a limb, ongoing pain, or emotional harm?

These questions arise against the backdrop of the current litigation environment. A drive on almost any highway reveals attorney billboards every few feet, advertising multimillion-dollar recoveries to potential clients. Television ads make similar claims, or emphasize that lawsuits are extremely costly, implicitly suggesting to the jury pool that plaintiffs need larger awards to cover those costs. How do we control the push toward excessive damages?

In Maryland, an answer has been statutory limits known as “damages caps.” These caps restrict the amount an injured person can recover for these intangible losses. So how do damages caps work? Crucially, juries are not told about these caps during trial. If a jury hears a deeply moving case and awards $3 million for pain and suffering, the trial judge is legally required to reduce that verdict to the statutory limit after the verdict is entered.

Maryland first enacted limits on non-economic damages to stabilize insurance markets and curb liability costs for businesses and healthcare providers. Under Maryland’s statutory framework, the base cap for non-economic damages increases annually to account for inflation, typically by $15,000 each year. Currently, for personal injury and wrongful death actions, the cap sits just under $1 million, with provisions allowing multipliers of up to 150% when there are multiple wrongful death beneficiaries. Medical malpractice claims are not included in this framework because they operate under a separate statute, Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code § 3-2A-09.

Maryland lawmakers have repeatedly introduced bills aimed at significantly raising the caps or repealing them altogether. Proponents argue that caps disproportionately punish children who are rendered permanently disabled and individuals left with lifelong disfigurement, particularly when they have low baseline economic damages, such as lost wages. Others argue that caps infringe on the constitutional right to a jury trial by allowing a legislature, far removed from the facts of a case, to override a jury’s careful evaluation of the evidence. Finally, many argue that caps fail to provide an adequate safety net because they have not kept pace with skyrocketing medical and lifestyle costs.

On the other side of the debate are those who argue that caps provide vital predictability and that removing them would trigger skyrocketing liability insurance premiums, drive physicians out of the state, and increase the cost of consumer goods and services. Some also point to developments in other states and argue that these caps maintain the statutory guardrails needed to prevent emotional, runaway jury verdicts from destabilizing the civil litigation system. In Maryland, juries frequently award millions of dollars for noneconomic damages, including a March 2026 case where a plaintiff was awarded $19 million, though the medical malpractice cap reduced this to $4.5 million.

The debate reflects competing concerns about fair compensation, accountability, and economic predictability. As a result, the damages cap has sparked intense lobbying and legislative friction in Annapolis, as recent as April 2026 when the legislature preserved the existing damages cap. As the General Assembly continues to weigh adjustments and reform proposals, the future of Maryland tort law hangs in a delicate balance between ensuring that injured individuals are fairly compensated, promoting accountability, and maintaining predictable economic stability. Setliff Law will continue to monitor developments in this area and keep our clients informed about changes that may affect their businesses and litigation matters.

If you have questions about this article, please contact Michael Jacquez (mjacquez@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1262, or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1261.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Because every legal matter is different, readers should consult with qualified counsel regarding their specific circumstances.