Source: https://protesolutio.com/2018/12/04/skys-the-limit-a-50-state-survey-of-damage-caps-and-the-collateral-source-rule/
Timestamp: 2020-08-06 07:38:43
Document Index: 323671311

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 920', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 09', '§ 09', '§ 09', '§ 09', '§ 09', '§ 09', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 52', '§ 768', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 34', '§ 34', '§ 34', '§ 668', '§ 668', '§ 60', '§ 920', 'Art. 2315', 'Art. 3546', '§ 11', '§ 2', '§ 600', '§ 548', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 538', '§ 510', '§ 27', '§ 2315', '§ 2315', '§ 2315', '§ 61', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 21', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 55', '§ 55']

Sky's the Limit? A 50-State Survey of Damage Caps and the Collateral Source Rule - Pro Te: Solutio
Sky’s the Limit? A 50-State Survey of Damage Caps and the Collateral Source Rule
Many state legislatures across the country have enacted statutory measures to limit the amount of compensatory and/or punitive damages recoverable by plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit. These limitations and the rationale behind them vary, sometimes widely and sometimes fractionally, from state to state. Similarly, many states have created varying rules regarding the scope and applicability of the collateral source rule, which states generally that “[p]ayments made to or benefits conferred on the injured party from other sources are not credited against the tortfeasor’s liability, although they cover all or a part of the harm for which the tortfeasor is liable.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A. In states where damages caps and/or the collateral source rule apply, early case analysis and even settlement evaluation will necessarily require an examination of these provisions. To assist in this examination, the following is a survey detailing each state’s damages cap provisions and the applicability of the collateral source rule.
In Alabama, state statute limits punitive damages to up to three times compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater. Ala. Code § 6-11-21(a). Punitive damages awards against small businesses (defined as having $2 million or less in net worth at the time of the occurrence) are capped at $50,000, or 10 percent of the business’ net worth, whichever is greater. Ala. Code § 6-11-21(b)–(c). In cases involving physical injury, the cap is raised to $1.5 million. Ala. Code § 6-11-21(d). These caps are removed altogether in actions for wrongful death or intentional infliction of physical injury. Ala. Code § 6-11-21(j). There is no corresponding cap on compensatory damages. In product liability actions, when evidence of collateral source payments is admitted, the plaintiff is entitled to introduce evidence of the cost of obtaining those payments, which are considered recoverable as damages. Ala. Code § 6-5-522.
Alaska law caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020(f). If the conduct is “motivated by financial gain and the adverse consequences of the conduct were actually known by the defendant,” the cap is raised to four times compensatory damages, four times the aggregate amount of financial gain received by the defendant as a result of the misconduct, or $7 million, whichever is greater. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020(g). Fifty percent of all punitive damages awards are deposited into the state’s general fund. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020(j). Non-economic damages are capped at the greater of $400,000 or the injured party’s life expectancy in years multiplied by $8,000. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.010(b). This cap is raised to the greater of $1 million or $25,000 multiplied by the plaintiff’s life expectancy in the event of “severe permanent physical impairment or severe disfigurement.” Alaska Stat. § 09.17.010(c). Alaska allows a post-verdict reduction in damages by the amounts received or to be received by the claimant as compensation for the same injury from collateral sources that do not have a right of subrogation by law or contract. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.070.
California has no cap on either punitive or compensatory damages, and the collateral source rule applies. See Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 257 P.3d 1130 (Cal. 2011).
In Colorado, punitive damages cannot exceed the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(1)(a). Though economic damages are not capped, non-economic damages cannot exceed $468,000, which may be increased by the court upon clear and convincing evidence to a maximum of $936,030. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(a). Colorado statute also reduces the verdict award by the amount paid by a collateral source; however, no reduction is allowed where the collateral payment arises from contractual obligations intended to benefit the injured party, such as private insurance or social security payments. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.6.
Connecticut does not cap compensatory damages, but in product liability actions, punitive damages cannot exceed two times the amount of compensatory damages awarded and can only be awarded “if the claimant proves that the harm suffered was the result of the product seller’s reckless disregard for the safety of product users, consumers or others who were injured by the product.” Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-240b. Connecticut statutory law reduces the verdict award by the amount paid by a collateral source. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-225a(a)–(b).
There are no caps on compensatory or punitive damages in Florida. In negligence cases, a court must reduce an award of economic damages by “all amounts that have been paid for the benefit of the claimant, or which are otherwise available to the claimant, from all collateral sources.” Fla. Stat. § 768.76(1). However, there is no reduction for collateral source payments for which there is a right of subrogation. Id. Any reduction is also offset by any amount paid by the claimant or a family member in order to secure the collateral payment. Id.
Compensatory and punitive damages are not capped in Georgia. The collateral source rule applies to bar admission of any evidence as to payments of medical, hospital, disability income, or other expenses of a tortious injury paid for by a plaintiff, governmental entity, or third party and taking credit towards the defendant’s liability in damages for such payments. Candler Hosp. v. Dent, 491 S.E.2d 868 (1997).
Hawaii does not place a cap on punitive damages, but non-economic damages are capped at $375,000. Hawaii law also provides for the recovery of the “reasonable value” of medical expenses. See Bynum v. Magno, 101 P.3d 1149, 1155–57 (2004). Discounted amounts paid by Medicare/Medicaid are inadmissible pursuant to the collateral source rule. See Id. at 1157.
Idaho caps non-economic damages at $250,000, but the cap is subject to increase or decrease in accordance with the average annual wage. Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1603(1). Punitive damages are capped up to three times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1604(3). Idaho law prevents double recovery due to collateral source payments. Although the plaintiff is allowed to present evidence of incurred medical expenses, the damages plaintiff is entitled to recover should be reduced by the amount actually paid by sources such as Medicare and Medicaid, and for which plaintiff is not obligated. Collateral sources shall not include: (1) “benefits paid under federal programs which by law must seek subrogation;” (2) “death benefits paid under life insurance contracts;” (3) “benefits paid by a service corporation organized under chapter 34, title 41, Idaho Code;” and (4) “benefits paid which are recoverable under subrogation rights created under Idaho law or by contract.” Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1606; see also Dyet v. McKinley, 81 P.3d 1236 (Idaho 2003).
While there is no cap on compensatory damages in Indiana (except in the medical malpractice context), punitive damages are capped at the greater of three times compensatory damages or $50,000, whichever is greater. Ind. Code § 34-51-3-4. In terms of collateral source, courts will allow the admission of evidence of collateral source payments except: (1) life insurance payments or death benefits; (2) insurance benefits for which the plaintiff or members of the plaintiff’s family have paid for directly; and (3) payments made by the United States or any subdivision thereof. Ind. Code § 34-44-1-2(1). Proof of the amount of money that the plaintiff is required to repay, including worker’s compensation benefits, as a result of the collateral benefits received and proof of the cost to the plaintiff or to members of the plaintiff’s family of collateral benefits received by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s family are also admissible. Ind. Code § 34-44-1-2(2)–(3).
Iowa has no cap on either compensatory or punitive damages. Evidence and argument as to the previous payment or future right of payment of actual economic losses incurred or to be incurred as a result of the personal injury for necessary medical care, rehabilitation services, and custodial care except to the extent that the previous payment or future right of payment is pursuant to a state or federal program or from assets of the claimant or the members of the claimant’s immediate family is admissible under Iowa law. Iowa Code Ann. § 668.14(1). If this evidence is admitted, the court shall also permit evidence and argument as to the costs to the claimant of procuring the previous payments or future rights of payment and as to any existing rights of indemnification or subrogation relating to the previous payments or future rights of payment. Iowa Code Ann. § 668.14(2).
Though there is no cap on compensatory damages in Kansas (except in medical malpractice actions), punitive damages are capped at the lesser of either the defendant’s annual gross income (or if inadequate, then 50 percent of the defendant’s net worth) or $5 million. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3702(e). Kansas follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A, which provides: “(1) A payment made by a tortfeasor or by a person acting for him to a person whom he has injured is credited against his tort liability, as are payments made by another who is, or believes he is, subject to the same tort liability;” and “(2) Payments made to or benefits conferred on the injured party from other sources are not credited against the tortfeasor’s liability, although they cover all or a part of the harm for which the tortfeasor is liable.”
Kentucky does not cap either compensatory or punitive damages, and it applies the collateral source rule without exception and allows for the recovery of all expenses, regardless of payment to the plaintiff by a collateral source. See O’Bryan v. Hedgespeth, 892 S.W.2d 571 (Ky. 1995).
Though Louisiana does not place a cap on compensatory damages, punitive damages are generally disfavored unless authorized by statute. As of now, punitive damages are allowable only under limited circumstances, such as intoxicated driving, criminal sexual activity with minors, and storage/disposal of toxic waste. See, e.g., La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 2315.3. The Louisiana choice of law rules also provide that punitive damages may not be awarded except: “(1) [b]y the law of the state where the injurious conduct occurred and by either the law of the state where the resulting injury occurred or by the law of the place where the person whose conduct caused the injury was domiciled; or (2) [b]y the law of the state in which the injury occurred and by the law of the state where the person whose conduct caused the injury was domiciled.” La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 3546. The collateral source rule applies in Louisiana. See Bozeman v. State, 879 So. 2d 692 (La. 2004).
Proposed legislation in Maine caps non-economic damages at $500,000 and $250,000 in wrongful death cases. See 2018 Me. Legis. Serv. Ch. 402 (H.P. 91) (L.D. 123). These caps do not apply in any other context. The collateral source rule applies. See Werner v. Lane, 393 A.2d 1329 (Me. 1978).
In Maryland, there is no cap on economic or punitive damages, but non-economic damages must not exceed $845,000. Per statute, the cap on noneconomic damages increases by $15,000 on October 1 of each year. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108. The collateral source rule applies. See Corapcioglu v. Roosevelt, 907 A.2d 885 (Md. App. 2006).
There is no cap on compensatory damages in Massachusetts (except in medical malpractice actions), but there is no entitlement to punitive damages except as provided by statute. For example, a defendant “shall be liable in . . . (3) punitive damages in an amount of not less than five thousand dollars in such cases as the decedent’s death was caused by the malicious, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of the defendant or by the gross negligence of the defendant.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229 § 2(3). The collateral source rule applies in Massachusetts. See Law v. Griffith, 930 N.E.2d 126 (Mass. 2010).
Compensatory damages are not capped in Michigan (except in medical malpractice cases), but punitive damages are not available except by statute. However, “exemplary damages” are awardable to compensate a plaintiff for mental anguish, humiliation, outrage, or increased injury to the plaintiff’s feelings that he or she suffers due to the defendant’s willful, malicious, or wanton conduct or reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s rights. See Peisner v. Detroit Free Press, 364 N.W.2d 600 (Mich. 1984). The collateral source rule has been abrogated in part by statute, and the procedure for reducing a plaintiff’s personal injury award by the amounts paid by a third party is set forth within that statute. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.6303.
There is no cap on either compensatory or punitive damages in Minnesota. Minnesota has abrogated the traditional collateral source rule by statute, which allows a reduction (upon motion) in a verdict by the amount of collateral sources paid on behalf of the plaintiff, except where a subrogation right has been asserted, but that reduction is subsequently offset by “amounts that have been paid, contributed, or forfeited by, or on behalf of, the plaintiff or members of the plaintiff’s immediate family for the two-year period immediately before the accrual of the action to secure the right to a collateral source benefit that the plaintiff is receiving as a result of losses.” Minn. Stat. § 548.36.
Mississippi currently has a $1 million cap on noneconomic damages for all civil actions except medical malpractice actions, which caps noneconomic damages at $500,000. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-60. Mississippi has a complicated statutory scheme for capping punitive damages, which centers on the defendant’s net worth. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(3)(a). The collateral source rule is applicable and has no exceptions. See Busick v. St. John, 856 So. 2d 304 (Miss. 2003).
There is no cap on compensatory damages in Missouri (except in medical malpractice cases, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.210), and the previous cap on punitive damages (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.265) was held to be unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. Lewellen v. Franklin, 441 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. 2014). The collateral source rule applies. See Porter v. Toys ‘R’ Us-Delaware, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
There is no cap on compensatory damages in Montana. Though Montana statute caps the amount of punitive damages at $10 million or 3 percent of defendant’s net worth, whichever is less, the constitutionality of this cap is uncertain. The cap was held unconstitutional by two Montana district court judges in 2014, but the Montana Supreme Court has not ruled. See Olsen v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. DV 11-304, 2014 WL 5040001 (Mont. Dist. Sept. 19, 2014); Butte Local Dev. Corp. v. Masters Grp. Int’l, Inc., No. DV-11-372, 2014 WL 2895577 (Mont. Dist. Mar. 25, 2014). Courts in Montana must reduce the amount of a verdict that was more than $50,000 if the plaintiff will be fully compensated, not including courts costs and attorney fees. There is no right to subrogation except specifically granted by state or federal law. If an insurance policy reduces the award, several factors are considered in the reduction. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-308.
There is no general cap on compensatory damages (except in medical malpractice cases), but Nebraska has declared punitive damages to be unconstitutional. See Miller v. Kingsley, 230 N.W.2d 472 (Neb. 1975). The collateral source rule applies generally, “[b]ut if the tort-feasor contributed in some way to the benefits provided to the injured person, then the tort-feasor might be entitled to mitigation of damages.” Strasburg v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 839 N.W.2d 273, 275 (Neb. 2013).
Ohio caps non-economic damages at $250,000 or three times the amount of economic damages, whichever is greater, with a maximum of $350,000 per plaintiff and $500,000 per occurrence. Oh. Rev. Code § 2315.18. Punitive damages are capped at two times compensatory damages. If the defendant is a small employer or an individual, the cap is two times compensatory damages or 10 percent of their net worth, whichever is less, with a maximum of $350,000. Oh. Rev. Code § 2315.21. The statute contemplates certain situations where the caps on punitive damages are not applicable, such as when the injury, death, or loss resulted from the defendant’s intentional conduct and the defendant has been convicted of a felony with the element of purposely/knowingly and that felony is the basis of the tort action. In terms of collateral source, a defendant can introduce evidence of any amount of collateral source except if the source has a mandatory self-effectuating federal right of subrogation, a contractual subrogation, or a statutory subrogation, or if the source pays a benefit in the form of a life insurance or disability payment. The defendant can also introduce evidence of a life insurance/disability payment when it was paid by the employer and the employer is the defendant. Oh. Rev. Code § 2315.20.
For bodily injury cases, there is no cap on economic damages, but non-economic damages are capped at $350,000. However, if the conduct is deemed to be reckless, grossly negligent, fraudulent, intentional, or with malice, the cap is removed. 23 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 61.2. Oklahoma statute caps punitive damages at $100,000 or the amount of actual damages, whichever is greater, when the defendant is found to have acted in reckless disregard for the rights of others (Category I). 23 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 9.1(B). Category II punitive damages are capped at $500,000, twice the amount of actual damages, or the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant or insurer as a direct result of the conduct causing the injury to the plaintiff and other persons or entities, whichever is greater, when the defendant is found to have acted intentionally and with malice toward others. 23 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 9.1(C). Finally, Category III punitive damages are not capped and are appropriate only when there has been a showing by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he defendant has acted intentionally and with malice toward others, and when “there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant . . . acted intentionally and with malice and engaged in conduct life-threatening to humans.” 23 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 9.1(D). The collateral source rule applies in Oklahoma. See Mariani v. State ex rel. Okla. State Univ., 348 P.3d 194 (2015).
There is no general cap on compensatory damages, except in medical malpractice actions where there are certain limitations on non-economic damages. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-32-220. Punitive damages are capped at three times the amount of compensatory damages to each claimant or $500,000, whichever is greater; however, if the court determines that the wrongful conduct was motivated by unreasonable financial gain and that the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct and high likelihood of injury was approved by agent/director/officer or that the defendant’s actions could subject them to a felony conviction, the cap is raised to four times compensatory damages or $2 million, whichever greater. If the court determines that the defendant had intent to harm, has pled guilty/been convicted of a felony in relation to the claim, or was under the influence of alcohol/drugs/prescription drugs/glue/aerosol/toxic vapor at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct, the cap is eliminated. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-32-530. The collateral source rule applies in South Carolina. See Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank of S.C. v. Gregory, 463 S.E.2d 317 (S.C. 1995).
There is no general cap on compensatory or punitive damages in South Dakota. There are specific caps on compensatory damages in medical malpractice and death or injury of a “voluntary rodeo contestant.” S.D. Codified Laws § 21-3-13. The collateral source rule applies with a statutory exception in medical malpractice actions. See Papke v. Harbert, 738 N.W.2d 510 (S.D. 2007).
Tennessee caps non-economic damages at $750,000, which is raised to $1 million if the plaintiff suffers catastrophic injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-102. The cap is eliminated entirely if the defendant had a specific intent to inflict serious physical injury; intentionally falsified, destroyed, or concealed records of evidence to avoid liability; was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant or stimulant; or whose actions result in a felony conviction. Id. In general, punitive damages are capped at the greater of two times the amount of compensatory damages or $500,000, and the cap is lifted if there is specific intent to inflict serious physical injury; the defendant intentionally falsified, destroyed, or concealed records of evidence to avoid liability; the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant or stimulant; or the defendant’s actions resulted in a felony conviction. Tenn. Code Ann. 29-39-104. Punitive damages are not available in a civil action involving a drug or device if the drug or device conformed to FDA standards or was an over-the-counter drug or device marketed pursuant to federal regulations; was generally recognized as safe and effective and as not being misbranded pursuant to the applicable federal regulations; and satisfied in relevant and material respects each of the conditions contained in the applicable regulations and each of the conditions contained in an applicable monograph. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104(d)(1). This exemption does not apply if the manufacturer withheld or misrepresented material information relevant to the harm the claimant allegedly suffered. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104(d) (2). The collateral source rule generally applies but has been abrogated in the medical malpractice context. See Dedmon v. Steelman, 535 S.W.3d 431 (Tenn. 2017).
The Washington Supreme Court has deemed caps on non-economic damages to be unconstitutional. See Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 771 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1989). Punitive damages are expressly prohibited unless authorized by statute. Algaier v. Bank of America, N.A., 2015 WL 12867009, *3 (E.D. Wash. July 23, 2015). There is no statutory exception for claims under the Washington Products Liability Act. Bryant v. Wyeth, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1214, n. 5 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (“Washington’s prohibition on punitive damages applies to the WPLA claims.”). The collateral source rule applies. Johnson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 953 P.2d 800 (Wash. 1998).
There is no general cap on compensatory damages, but a cap exists in the medical malpractice context. See W. Va. Code § 55-7B-8. There is similarly no cap on punitive damages. In West Virginia, trial courts deduct collateral source payments from the jury’s verdict per statute. W. Va. Code § 55-7B-9a.
An Oddity: Approval and Regulatory …
What Does Your Dismissal Without Pr…
Elizabeth E. Chance, Diana M. Comes, et al.