Ohio independent agents and their clients have experienced the benefits of tort reform firsthand. Lawmakers have made a meaningful impact by placing caps on non-economic damages – measures that have been critical in keeping insurance premiums affordable and preventing runaway jury verdicts that could otherwise reach millions of dollars beyond what cases would typically settle for or reasonable verdict expectations.
In this article, we will examine legislation in the Ohio House of Representatives that seeks to raise the non-economic damage caps. We will review the background on the current caps, outline the proposed increases, and highlight other elements of the legislation that could impact your clients, agency, and insurance industry. In addition, we will explore cases that are currently going through the Ohio court system that could have an impact on non-economic damages and shape the future of tort reform in our state.
In 2005, Ohio made significant tort reform efforts through the passage of Senate Bill 80. In this legislation, Ohio set limits on non-economic damages in a tort claim to a maximum of $350,000 for each plaintiff and a maximum of $500,000 for each occurrence in a claim. These caps remain in place today and have enabled a more stable judicial atmosphere in the state.
It is important to note that when we talk about non-economic damage caps, we are not talking about preventing individuals from being made whole. Economic damages address tangible losses like medical expenses and lost wages and have a clear, measurable value, while non-economic damages, such as “pain and suffering and emotional distress,” are far harder to measure.
House Bill 447 is recently introduced legislation that would increase non-economic damage caps in Ohio. Specifically, the bill seeks to raise non-economic damages from $250,000 to $415,000, increases the maximum cap from $350,000 to $580,000 per plaintiff, and raise the maximum per-occurrence cap from $500,000 to $830,000. Additionally, the legislation would require the Department of Taxation to adjust the dollar amount for damages on a yearly basis based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) changes. Most concerning, when proposed, HB 447 included a provision that removed the non-economic damage cap for certain catastrophic injuries in a medical malpractice suit.
The OIA Advocacy Committee recently voted to stand in opposition to this legislation and in strong alignment with the business community, medical professionals, and our carrier partners in preserving a fair and balanced legal environment. Allowing the opportunity for excessive verdicts to impact our state would place significant strain on our ability to recruit and retain physician talent and our ability to keep insurance premiums affordable and attainable.
Fortunately, HB 447 was recently amended in the House Judiciary Committee to remove the language that took out non-economic damage caps for certain catastrophic injuries in a medical malpractice suit. This removal was a welcome development, but does not change our association’s stance as opponents to the bill. Despite the amended legislation, the removal of the cap for non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits with severe injuries is currently a topic that is being discussed in Ohio’s court system.
Paganini v. Cataract Eye Center of Cleveland is a case regarding a suit brought forward after a severe injury to the defendant’s eye. This decision was heard by Ohio’s 8th District Court of Appeals. The 8th District ruled that the non-economic damage caps for catastrophic injuries were unconstitutional. This decision has been appealed and has been accepted by the Ohio Supreme Court. It is important to note that another case, Lyon v. Riverside, had the 10th District Court of Appeals rule that Ohio’s caps on non-economic damages for catastrophic injury are unconstitutional. This decision will likely be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
These decisions are impactful and will be important to keep appraised of as we continue to have conversations about non-economic damages. OIA has a proud history of proactively supporting Ohio Supreme Court Justices who practice judicial restraint and interpret the law rather than trying to create law from the bench. We will be sure to keep members informed as these rulings are decided.
OIA Government Affairs will be engaging as opponents on HB 447 and will keep members appraised of the latest with these key court decisions. Please contact George Christy, OIA’s Government Affairs Manager, at george@ohioinsuranceagents.com if you would like to provide feedback on this issue or on any of OIA’s legislative issues.
About the Author:
George Christy joined the Ohio Insurance Agents (OIA) as the new Government Affairs Manager in January 2025. George brings experience from his previous roles at the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). At ODOT, he was part of the communications team, and he worked on legislative and regulatory issues with the Legislative Affairs team. George brings experience from his work on state legislative campaigns, his time as a Legislative Aide in the Ohio House of Representatives, and his roles at a state agency. George grew up in Delaware County and is a graduate of The Ohio State University where he studied Political Science and Economics.
