Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Healthcare Liability topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate concurs to raise non-economic malpractice cap to $500,000 over five years, adds inflation adjustment

2375021 · February 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 195, which raises the cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases from $250,000 to $500,000 over five years and provides a 2% annual inflation adjustment thereafter, was concurred in by the Senate on a recorded vote.

Senator Hurts presented House Bill 195, which would raise the statutory cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases from $250,000 (a figure that dates to 1995, according to the sponsor) to $500,000 over five years, with a 2% annual inflation adjustment thereafter. "What this bill does, it raises that over 5 years to $500,000. And then after that, it moves on to a 2% inflation adjustment factor," Hurts said.

Senator Olson offered a constitutional caution. "Caps on damages are unconstitutional," Olson said, noting Montana constitutional provisions on full legal redress and jury-trial rights. Olson said removing or raising caps is the better remedy, but described herself as a "reluctant yes" because the bill modestly improves an existing cap.

The sponsor said the bill applies only to non-economic damages and that economic damages (medical bills, lost earnings, etc.) remain uncapped. "This does not apply to other items that you may get awarded," Hurts said, listing categories such as past and future medical bills and loss of income.

The Senate voted to concur on the bill by a recorded tally reported as 48 in favor and 2 opposed. The carrier and supporters stressed the measure balances predictability for insurers and meaningful recovery for patients and families; opponents raised constitutional concerns about caps on jury awards.