4 civil liability changes that failed to pass in MD General Assembly

Listen to this article

Maryland lawmakers preserved the status quo on damages in civil litigation, choosing not to limit the state’s liability for bus crashes or allow plaintiffs to recover more money for pain and suffering.

The Maryland General Assembly considered at least four bills with significant implications for plaintiffs — and the plaintiffs’ bar — at its annual legislative session, which concluded Monday night.

The bills would have ended the cap on noneconomic damages, capped the Maryland Transit Administration‘s liability in personal-injury cases and lowered the standard for punitive damages. A fourth would have allowed driverless vehicles in Maryland — with no one to sue in the event of crashes.

Noneconomic damages

Lawmakers again introduced a bill to eliminate the cap on noneconomic damages and again were unsuccessful.

Personal injury victims and the plaintiffs’ bar have long advocated for an end to the cap, which increases by $15,000 every year and will be $980,000 for lawsuits initiated after Oct. 1 of this year. Most states and jurisdictions — including Virginia and Washington, D.C. — do not cap noneconomic damages

Noneconomic damages are not quantifiable, unlike medical bills, lost earnings or damaged property. They are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for subjective harms including pain and suffering, intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life. They are also distinct from punitive damages, which are meant to punish defendants.

Defendant institutions and the insurance industry argue that ending the cap would increase insurance costs and hurt the economy.

Juries frequently award noneconomic damages in the millions of dollars. In March, for example, a Prince George’s County jury awarded a nearly $19 million verdict to a woman in a medical malpractice case, but the cap on noneconomic damages meant she would see less than $4.5 million.

This year’s bill, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher, D-Montgomery, and Del. Natalie Ziegler, D-Howard and Montgomery, would have ended the cap for personal injury and wrongful death actions. In March, the House Judiciary Committee sent it to summer study, shelving it for another year.

Nancy Egan, of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, has advocated to keep the cap.

“Marylanders are paying more for everything these days and property and casualty insurers are laser-focused on working to keep costs down,” Egan stated in an email provided by a spokesperson. “The legislature knows that expanding legal liability for small businesses costs the consumer, and we commend them for holding the line in 2026.”

The Maryland Transit Administration

The MTA Reform Act changed the governance structure of the agency that runs Maryland’s buses and trains, allowing for more input from local stakeholders on Baltimore-area transit projects.

As introduced, the bill would have capped the agency’s total tort liability — not just noneconomic damages — at $400,000, the same as for other state agencies.

Unlike other government agencies, the MTA is not subject to the Maryland Tort Claims Act and is responsible for all economic damages suffered by personal injury claimants.

The bill passed but without the $400,000 cap. It was sponsored by Sen. Cory McCray, D-Baltimore City, and Del. Marc Korman, D-Montgomery. Gov. Wes Moore has yet to sign it.

Driverless vehicles

A bill sponsored by Ziegler and Sen. Sara Love, D-Montgomery, would have created a regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles, allowing companies such as Waymo to operate on Maryland roads.

As written, the bill defined the “operator” of a driverless vehicle as the car’s “automated driving system,” meaning the “hardware and software that are collectively capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers noted that an automated driving system couldn’t be named as a defendant in the event of a crash and urged lawmakers to amend it. The bill was debated in committees in March and did not advance.

Punitive damages surcharge

Another bill would have made it easier to win punitive damages, requiring plaintiffs to prove gross negligence rather than actual malice.

Punitive damages are meant to serve as a deterrent; they are not tied to the direct harm suffered by the plaintiff. They are not awarded very often because of the high bar required to prove actual malice.

In a housing case won by Maryland Legal Aid in February, a Baltimore City jury ordered two landlords to pay $500,000 in punitive damages for operating without a permit and maintaining substandard living conditions.

In another housing case, the defendants were ordered in November to pay $10 million in punitive damages after they failed to conduct a background check on an employee who attacked two residents and set them on fire.

Sponsored by Del. David Moon, D-Montgomery, the bill would have added a surcharge on top of punitive damages for the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, the landmark education reform law. The punitive damages legislation was never introduced in the Senate and was debated at one House committee hearing.

This story has been updated with Egan’s statement.