A non-economic damages cap is a statutory ceiling on the amount a court can award for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-financial losses. Approximately 30 US states impose some form of cap, most applying only to medical malpractice. Outside the US, Canada imposes a judicially created cap via the Andrews trilogy, while the UK, Ireland, and European jurisdictions use published guideline bands rather than hard statutory ceilings.
Most US caps apply only to medical malpractice. The biggest: California MICRA (phased increase post-AB 35), Texas ($250K for all physicians), Colorado ($1.5M for actions filed from 2025). Canada caps non-pecuniary damages at about C$470,000 (Andrews trilogy, as applied in 2025). UK and Ireland use guideline bands, not hard caps. Caps do not apply to economic damages (medical bills, lost wages) in any jurisdiction.
What is and is not capped
| Component | Typically capped? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pain and suffering | Yes (where caps exist) | The primary target of damages caps |
| Loss of enjoyment of life | Yes | Included in non-economic damages |
| Emotional distress | Yes | Part of general damages |
| Medical expenses | No | Economic, uncapped in all jurisdictions |
| Lost wages / earning capacity | No | Economic, uncapped |
| Punitive damages | Separate caps | Different statutory framework; see punitive damages caps |
US caps: the major states
| State | Scope | Cap amount | Key statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Medical malpractice | $350K (2023), rising $40K/yr to $750K | MICRA, as amended by AB 35 |
| Texas | Medical malpractice | $250K per claimant for all physicians; up to $500K for institutions | CPRC §74.301 |
| Colorado | All tort claims | $1,500,000 for actions filed from 1 January 2025 | CRS §13-21-102.5, as amended by HB24-1472 |
| Ohio | General tort | $250K or 3× economic, whichever is greater | ORC §2315.18 |
| Florida | Modified post-HB 837 (2023) | Various; prior med-mal caps struck down | HB 837 (2023) |
| Idaho | General tort | $538,425.04 from 1 July 2026, adjusted each July | IC §6-1603 |
| Indiana | Medical malpractice | $1.8M total ($500K from the provider) | IC §34-18-14-3 |
| Virginia | Medical malpractice | $2.75M total for acts from 1 July 2026, rising to $2.95M by 2030 | Va. Code §8.01-581.15 |
Constitutional challenges to caps
Damages caps have been challenged as unconstitutional in numerous states, with mixed results. Courts in Florida (2014, 2017), Illinois (2010), and Georgia (2010) struck down caps as violating equal protection, right to jury trial, or due process guarantees. Courts in Texas, California, and Colorado have upheld their caps.
The Canadian Andrews cap
In 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada imposed a judicial cap on non-pecuniary damages in the Andrews trilogy. The original cap was C$100,000 (1978 dollars). It is indexed to CPI inflation under the Lindal mechanism; a 2025 British Columbia judgment used about C$470,000 for the most catastrophic injuries. Economic damages (future care costs, lost income) are uncapped.
UK and Irish approaches
Neither the UK nor Ireland imposes a hard statutory cap on non-economic damages. Instead, both use published guideline frameworks that function as soft caps:
- England & Wales: The Judicial College Guidelines set bands by injury type and severity. The top of the most severe band (quadriplegia) is approximately £379,000.
- Ireland: The Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021) set bands by injury. The Book of Quantum was replaced by the PIAG framework.
- UK Whiplash Reform: The Civil Liability Act 2018 imposes a statutory tariff (£275 to £4,975 for injuries from 31 May 2025) for whiplash injuries of 24 months or less. This is a hard cap for the specified injury type.
European frameworks
| Country | Approach | Effective cap? |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | Baremo (Law 35/2015), mandatory points-based scale | Yes, the Baremo is binding |
| Italy | Tabelle Milanesi, percentage-of-impairment scale | Soft cap, widely followed but not statutory |
| Germany | Schmerzensgeldtabelle, case-law compilation | Soft cap, persuasive, not binding |
| France | Nomenclature Dintilhac, heads of loss framework | No cap, full judicial discretion |
How caps affect settlement strategy
In capped jurisdictions, the cap functions as a ceiling on the non-economic component of the claim. This has three practical effects on settlement:
- Predictability increases. Both sides know the maximum non-economic award, which narrows the negotiation range.
- Bargaining power shifts. In states without caps, the threat of a large jury verdict gives the claimant bargaining power. Caps remove that upside risk for the insurer.
- Focus shifts to economic damages. Since economic damages are uncapped, the claimant's strategy shifts toward maximising documented medical costs, future care needs, and lost earning capacity.
Frequently asked questions
What are non-economic damages caps?
Which US states cap non-economic damages?
Does the UK cap non-economic damages?
Are damages caps constitutional?
Does Canada cap non-economic damages?
Sources
- California MICRA, as amended by AB 35 (2022)
- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §74.301
- Colorado Revised Statutes §13-21-102.5
- Ohio Revised Code §2315.18
- Florida HB 837 (2023)
- Supreme Court of Canada, Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. [1978] 2 SCR 229
- Judicial College Guidelines, 16th edition
- Civil Liability Act 2018 (UK), Whiplash Reform tariffs
- Personal Injuries Guidelines, Judicial Council (Ireland, 2021)
- Baremo de Daños y Perjuicios, Law 35/2015 (Spain)