Repealing Maryland’s Damages Cap Would Drive Up Costs for Families, Small Businesses and Patients, Broad Coalition Warns Lawmakers

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - A broad coalition of businesses and healthcare providers have urged lawmakers to reject proposals to repeal, escalate, or create exceptions to Maryland's cap on noneconomic damages, following the House Judiciary Committee's interim study briefing on damages Tuesday.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association warned that any increase beyond the scheduled, incremental approach already in place would burden Maryland families, small businesses, and patients with higher costs. Maryland's hospitals, employers, and civil defense bar raised similar concerns in comments submitted to the Committee.

According to Robert Enten, counsel for APCIA: "Maryland's cap is what allows insurers to look at the risk in this state and price it with confidence." Non-economic damages do not have a factual basis for determining damages, he added.

"If you change the current system of incremental annual increases, you open the door to the kind of unpredictable, outsized verdicts we're seeing in other parts of the country. Insurers can't absorb that uncertainty for free. It shows up in premiums," Enten said.

Maryland Employers for Civil Justice Reform Coalition emphasized that the current law effectively balances competing interests.

"The instinct to allow unlimited awards for emotional harm, on top of what may already be a large award for medical expenses, lost income, and other economic losses, must be balanced against the adverse effects that unconstrained and unpredictable damage awards have on homeowners, drivers, businesses, and Maryland's economy," the coalition wrote.

The Coalition also noted the broad coalition that opposes removing or changing the way the cap increases.

"The only persons supporting these measures are plaintiffs' lawyers," the coalition wrote. "Opponents include Maryland drivers, homeowners, other purchasers of insurance, consumers, taxpayers, employers, health care providers, insurers, the hospitality and transportation sectors, and small businesses across a spectrum of industries."

"Such self-interested efforts by proponents, seeking unlimited increases in the fees they extract from their clients who are victims of negligence, have no place in the public policy of Maryland."

The Committee heard testimony about multiple proposals, including repealing the cap for personal injury and wrongful death claims. Other proposals include raising the cap, an Oklahoma-style exception for catastrophic injuries, and removing the cap in all wrongful death cases. APCIA says these "middle ground" options carry much of the same risk.

Unpredictable verdicts mean higher costs for everyone

Maryland families already face challenges paying the bills. The cost of living has gone up for years now and inflation is once again on the rise.

Expanding liability for small businesses would add to the burden on Maryland families, who already pay $3,694 a year because of the way litigation increases costs, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform.

"When verdicts go up, the bill isn't paid by some faceless company. It's paid by Maryland families, small businesses, nonprofits, hospitals and local governments. Prices for goods and services go up, and that drives up the cost to insure all those things," Enten said.

One of the increased costs, if caps on non-economic damages are raised or eliminated, is likely to be insurance premiums.

An independent actuarial study by Pinnacle Actuarial Resources examined a 2024 proposal, that would have raised the cap to $1.75 million and increased its annual escalator. The study found the change would likely have raised personal auto rates by as much as 19 percent, commercial auto liability premiums by as much as 30 percent, and general liability premiums for businesses by up to 14.2 percent. Repealing the cap outright would likely push costs higher still.

"In this time of affordability and economic stress, this would only add to the cost of doing business in the state which would translate to higher cost to all consumers," Enten said.

The state's insurance regulator takes no position on the legislation. But during the briefing, Courtney Thornton, Associate Commissioner of Property and Casualty for the Maryland Insurance Administration, affirmed that previous guidance from the MIA remains true: "Increases in awards and increases in settlements in anticipation of higher awards may result in increased loss costs for insurers."

Maryland allows broader recovery than its neighbors

As of October 1, 2026, Maryland's cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury cases is $980,000, and it rises automatically every year. In wrongful death cases, total noneconomic damages can reach $2.45 million. Economic damages, including medical bills, lost wages, and future care, remain unlimited.

Cap opponents often point out that neighboring states have no cap. But many of those states sharply limit what families can recover in wrongful death cases to begin with, while Maryland does not.

The District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania do not allow survivors to recover for grief or mental anguish, and New York and Pennsylvania largely confine wrongful death recovery to economic losses. New York's governor has vetoed legislation to expand that recovery four times in recent years. Maryland's statute expressly allows survivors to recover for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and loss of companionship, guidance, and care.

In addition, "the National Association of Insurance Commissioners found that premium rates were lower in states that regulated the amount of noneconomic damages," the Maryland Chamber of Commerce noted.

A Broad Coalition Opposes Changing the Current System

"Plainly stated, if the cap on noneconomic damages is removed, there will be more frequent excessive verdicts for a wide range of businesses and nonprofit organizations, along with lengthy appeals," the Maryland Chamber wrote.

Maryland adopted its cap in 1986, after the Governor's Task Force to Study Liability Insurance concluded that "the civil justice system can no longer afford unlimited awards for pain and suffering." The Maryland Defense Counsel warned that repeal could thrust the state back into an insurance crisis.

And the Maryland Motor Truck Association noted that "Maryland is not mentioned a single time" in the latest "Judicial Hell Holes " report issued by Americans for Tax Reform.

"We have seen verdicts like $280 million in Georgia, $260 million in Texas, $165 million in New Mexico, and $1 billion in Florida. Recognizing these shocking amounts, states like Florida, Iowa, Montana, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin have all taken aim at lawsuit abuse," the MMTA said. "Maryland should not be moving backward while other states are driving forward to protect this hardworking industry."