House advances bill adding evidentiary requirements and optional hearing before alleging punitive damages

Representative Nicastro sponsored House Bill 302, which revises procedures for seeking leave to amend a complaint to add punitive damages. Nicastro said the bill resolves a statutory conflict from a 2023 change and requires plaintiffs to submit affidavits and documents supporting punitive-damages allegations, and gives either party the right to request an evidentiary hearing with cross-examination on the support submitted.

Nicastro said the evidentiary hearing will let the court "fully understand the evidence" and could reduce overall judicial workload by resolving punitive-damages disputes earlier. Opponents, including Representative Griffith and Representative Staffman, argued the bill could increase court work and litigation costs, describing the proposal as creating "a trial before the trial" and saying it could disadvantage injured plaintiffs in complex cases (for example asbestos or creosote contamination suits) who discover evidence later in discovery.

Representative Nicastro replied that the bill allows amendment during discovery when evidence emerges and that hearing procedures are under judicial control; he said judges can limit the hearing to short, controlled examinations.

The House voted 54 in favor and 46 opposed on second reading; the clerk recorded that "House Bill 302 has passed second reading." The floor debate focused on balancing judicial resources, litigation fairness and timely resolution of complex civil cases.

Why it matters: HB 302 would change civil-procedure practice in Montana courts for a subset of claims involving punitive damages. Proponents said it improves judicial economy and earlier case triage; opponents said it risks increasing cost and delaying access for plaintiffs in serious injury cases.