Pennsylvania Legislation

Caps on Non-economic Damages

2005 - 2006 Legislative Session

HB 423 was introduced in February of 2005 and referred to the Committee on State Government where it remains today. This bill was touted as part of the EmpowerPA package unveiled in June of 2005. The bill would amend the state constitution to allow the General Assembly to pass a statute to limit the recovery of noneconomic damages.

The bill must pass the House and the Senate by the end of the session. Then in 2007 the legislature has to go through the entire process again using the exact same language. If that happens, the language is put before the electorate in a referendum before the Constitution is actually amended.

If the Constitution is amended, legislation still needs to be passed and signed into law establishing the dollar amount for the cap and any exceptions. Thus, while there is much left to do we are continuing to push for this important provision.

Background on the 2003-2004 Legislative Session

In June of 2003 the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a bill to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to allow caps on non-economic damages in civil litigation.

In March of 2004, the Pennsylvania Senate passed a different bill to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to allow caps on non-economic damages in medical professional liability cases only. That bill, Senate Bill 9, was stalled in committee. The House offered up an interesting unprecedented attempt to force the bill out of committee - a discharge resolution. Unfortunately the resolution was defeated and the bill died in committee.

Not to be discouraged, the House passed House Bill 2722, nearly identical to Senate Bill 9. This bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee but the committee voted 10 – 4 to table the bill, effectively eliminating any likelihood of passage for the 2003-2004 legislative session.

Although we are disappointed that the General Assembly was unable to pass a constitutional amendment bill, we are encouraged by the fact that both chambers did pass practically identical legislation.