[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6612770,"mediaKeyId","2879303-df114b6df1cec3574047627ff8b01569","parentId",2879303,"title","Committee hears bill to lower Child Victims Act caps and limit recoveries; survivor attorneys warn of constitutional problems","audioSeconds",3864,"startMs",2088000,"endMs",5952000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2879303-df114b6df1cec3574047627ff8b01569&start=2088&end=5952","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2879303-df114b6df1cec3574047627ff8b01569/thumbnail_2088000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6612770/Maryland/Committee-hears-bill-to-lower-Child-Victims-Act-caps-and-limit-recoveries-survivor-attorneys-warn-of-constitutional-problems","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612770-376c83389cbf6919a0b3a37d26a8f46b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183540&Signature=cp5GP56mwgYmh39R~RXsG~DO~l06TCSLiwv22BDp~5MIFJ9Izcw0VQ6ELu4aj4-uPpvkswNYB2kPAvw9Np-3GzGUzIKMyqCjGqy7NE0E0NVqg5T-ifRbw8WuryzH~bDOJ8J01WfNVnwSxaH1p4HWVZy31ozPdZhhzlcnkCRdC67zTaYSpsu30SWqWpgjg-VA~terZ6JriWzYLkzYGVK5I2B9m67F35qgqdTIz-q6u8IH~Iex8TiA5h6M1PWUlB34ylcMlz4gG7oFZTSrDmZIg5H8t4laGVgjBHySTdP8STLNTJV4I7DzUffMw9Q3UJ6HAUSDgmWocX8h9uDv869Ppw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judicial Proceedings","date","2025-04-04T20:55:04.997Z","article","The Judicial Proceedings Committee heard House Bill 1378 on April 4, 2025. A presenter appearing for Chair Wilson outlined a package of changes to caps and fee rules under the Child Victims Act (the 2023 law that revived certain civil claims for survivors of child sexual abuse).

Key provisions described by the presenter: for claims barred on or before October 2023, caps against private entities would drop from $1,500,000 to $700,000 and caps against governmental defendants would drop from $890,000 to $400,000, effective June 1, 2025. The bill would also treat all \"claims\" from one person as a single claim for the purpose of the cap, rather than permitting multiple per‑occurrence recoveries, and it sets attorney fee rules for future cases that go forward after June 1, 2025: 25% for cases that go to trial and 20% for settlements. The bill contains uncodified language asking the judiciary’s rules committee to study how cases under the act are being handled for judicial efficiency.

Presenters and committee members repeatedly stressed the financial and procedural stakes. The presenter said roughly 1,500 lawsuits have been filed against state entities so far and reported the attorney general’s office believes another roughly 4,000 potential claims may be poised to be filed. The presenter also said negotiations with plaintiffs’ counsel covering a large share of pending cases have generally treated each person as a single claim for purposes of a cap.

Survivor advocates and attorneys in opposition said the proposal would run afoul of constitutional protections because the 2023 law conferred vested rights when the governor signed it. \"It is not constitutional,\" attorney Corey Stern said, arguing that vested rights to causes of action cannot be retroactively reduced. Stern told the committee that under Maryland law, rights conferred by statute vest at enactment and cannot be taken away without providing a reasonable time to bring claims.

Tom Yost, representing MAJ and survivor clients, urged the committee to narrow any change and said the bill as written broadly reduces recoveries for private actors while addressing a state budget concern. He proposed limiting changes to a narrower subset of claims—he suggested juvenile detention center cases as a principal focus—and floated alternatives such as capping per abuser rather than per person.

Committee members asked detailed procedural questions. Senator West, Senator Long and others asked whether complaints filed before the June 1 effective date would be governed by the prior law; the sponsor’s representative said the intent is that suits filed prior to June 1 would remain subject to the law in force at filing but acknowledged judicial challenges would be likely. Senators and speakers debated whether amended complaints that add plaintiffs or otherwise change party composition would \"relation back\" to an earlier filing date; the presenter and several attorneys said courts would have discretion and that the issue is likely to be litigated.

The hearing included multiple references to recent court rulings: an appellate decision referred to in the hearing (State v. Michael Young) was cited by opponents as illustrative of per‑incident caps being applied in other tort contexts, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Doe litigation and Maryland Supreme Court rulings were discussed as precedent shaping the constitutional analysis.

Opponents urged the committee to report the bill unfavorably or, if it proceeds, to narrow retroactive effect and provide a longer, explicit window for claimants to file. Several attorneys recommended that if the General Assembly moves forward it should allow more than the roughly eight weeks between the hearing date and the June 1 effective date to avoid depriving people of vested rights.

No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee concluded testimony and moved to adjourn after additional member questions.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 4/4/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","A sponsor‑presented bill would lower damage caps under the Child Victims Act and treat multiple claims by 1 person as a single capped claim, effective June 1, 2025. Survivor attorneys and advocates told the Judicial Proceedings Committee the changes risk violating vested rights and face near‑certain litigation.","taxTitle","Judicial Proceedings Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15095,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6612779,"Panel hears bill to bar landlords from banning small family child‑care homes in single‑family rentals",915,1159000,2074000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2879303-df114b6df1cec3574047627ff8b01569&start=1159&end=2074","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2879303-df114b6df1cec3574047627ff8b01569/thumbnail_1159000.jpg","/articles/6612779/Maryland/Panel-hears-bill-to-bar-landlords-from-banning-small-family-childcare-homes-in-singlefamily-rentals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612779-393d5682ca17da44c6bc48ab7dde36cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183541&Signature=ihazu~SXTWzaTBVtkzqVu9H0l3CjoDPPUOgCP2b~-cmrI03YK1e54EuCe4~mDM27ZWuQNqQTFk1X0PQcNsvLu~Fbpy4DC4FZp~1iOUNr4Xd0ECD2XlssIx33TDJJ9aCaZIjhRAqOtXqPVR-O3heDfMAibWkF5FLwVwbi1Chd8Y02P9wMFT80H~vX5Uqh0Pwm8OS7T7-D-jt6071Kz9cehGExk9A7tr2OA8jcM-1GgoXuHVFSnY6GY3zKsNW~YgzAqVcAro9FSO7TH2tz8Gm1DT2D1nLw33ejvDBtJPmCsNSnsUxab3UK5711XSfj0baBmWtrIv7R--I6XejUhmTnWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Michelle Guyton presented House Bill 911 to the Judicial Proceedings Committee on April 4, 2025, proposing to stop landlords from barring the operation of small, licensed family child‑care homes in single‑family rental properties. The bill, as amended, would limit its reach to single‑family dwellings and would not change local zoning.

Guyton told the committee the change aims to address a child‑care shortage she said worsened during the COVID‑19 pandemic. \"Over COVID, we lost 25% of our child care spaces,\" she said, and family child‑care homes—\"usually run by primarily women and primarily women of color out of their homes\"—are an important local source of care and income. She said the amended bill permits operators only if they meet Office of Child Care requirements under the Maryland State Department of Education, including square footage, certification and insurance.

Under the version presented, family child‑care homes covered by the bill are limited to the smaller category of providers—\"You have up to 8,\" Guyton said—provided they meet state standards for staff, indoor and outdoor space and other regulations. She said landlords may require certificate(s) of liability insurance covering owners (including LLCs) and that, by negotiation, the bill allows liability coverage up to $1,000,000 though Office of Child Care regulations require $300,000.

The bill includes landlord notification provisions, allows landlords to collect an extra month’s deposit and requires tenants to provide proof of certification and insurance. Guyton said landlords may conduct inspections and must be notified if a provider’s certification lapses or insurance is not up to date. She emphasized that the tenant/operator, not the landlord, is responsible for meeting licensing and regulatory requirements: \"No. Absolutely not. The tenant is responsible for making sure that all the requirements are met,\" she said in response to a committee member’s question.

Committee members asked for clarifications on scope and safety. Senator West asked for the definition of a family child‑care home; Guyton replied that providers must be registered by the Office of Child Care and meet training, square footage and inspection requirements. Senator McGann raised a hypothetical about a basement with no exterior exit; Guyton said an arrangement without required exits would not meet Office of Child Care regulations and therefore would not be approved, and the landlord would not be responsible for installing exits.

Several members probed how lease provisions interact with the bill. Guyton said the amended measure was narrowed to single‑family homes after concerns about multifamily settings were raised and that the legislative process had accommodated property‑owner concerns through mutual negotiation. She said language prohibiting \"unreasonable limitations or conditions\" is intended to bar denials by landlords after a provider meets statutory qualifications.

Bill Castelli of the Maryland Realtors was present and, Guyton said, signaled a shift from opposition to neutrality following amendments.

Guyton closed by asking the committee for a favorable report. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing; members asked follow‑up questions and the chair moved to the next item when questioning concluded.

","Delegate Michelle Guyton told the Judicial Proceedings Committee that House Bill 911 would prohibit landlords from banning small, licensed family child‑care homes in single‑family rental properties, while keeping licensing, inspection and insurance requirements in place and excluding multifamily buildings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to lower Child Victims Act caps and limit recoveries; survivor attorneys warn of constitutional problems

Panel hears bill to bar landlords from banning small family child‑care homes in single‑family rentals