Pain, Suffering, and the Downfall of Damage Caps

There might not be words to describe your pain and suffering, but according to some state legislatures, there is a number. Damage caps tell plaintiffs how much their pain is worth and limit the amount they can recoup for non-economic losses.

Luckily, trends are catchy—even in the legal community. And thanks to a strong shift in attitude toward damage caps, eroding limits might be the next big thing.

Here are the updates for which states are striking down non-economic damage limits, where Michigan falls on this trend, and how the experienced attorneys at Sommers Schwartz can help you recover the damages you deserve.

What Is Pain and Suffering?

Economic damages account for the monetary cost of an injury, such as medical bills. Pain and suffering are non-economic damages that cover the human impact of an injury rather than its direct financial loss. Non-economic damages include things like:

• Physical pain from the injury.
• Ongoing discomfort of disability.
• Emotional distress (anxiety, depression, trauma, etc.).
• Loss of enjoyment of life (the inability to pursue hobbies and relationships the way you did before).
• Disfigurement or loss of normal function.

Damages from pain and suffering don’t come with a receipt. This makes assigning a monetary amount difficult to calculate and incredibly subjective—after all, how can you quantify the loss of a limb or mobility? For that matter, what’s the dollar amount of depression and anxiety?

Damage Caps: Your Suffering Has Limits

To keep things more predictable, roughly half of the states in the U.S. have damage caps. Damage caps are legislatively imposed limits on the amount someone can recover for pain and suffering. They do not apply to medical bills or other measurable financial losses.

Those in favor of damage caps argue that these limits:

1. Control unpredictability and keep similar injuries within a similar price range.
2. Lower insurance and healthcare costs, stabilizing the insurance market.
3. Prevent runaway juries from awarding very large sums for no reason.
4. Encourage settlement agreements between opposing parties.

The problem with these limits, however, is that they assume every person and situation is the same. But while a hand might still be a hand, no matter who you are, losing one might look a little different to a concert pianist. Or would it? Can a standard limit truly apply to every situation? Many states are arguing: no.

The Logic Behind Eliminating Caps

Ultimately, the biggest problem with damage caps is that they limit compensation for the most severe injuries. They also can’t accommodate individual needs (like that concert pianist). As a result, many states are either amending damage caps or striking them down altogether.

States that have most clearly struck down damage caps in recent years include:

• Illinois.
• Florida.
• Washington.
• Arizona.
• Kentucky.
• Alabama.

Other states are showing signs of weakening limits. Recently, caps in Wisconsin, Kansas, North Dakota, and Oregon were struck down, only to be later reinstated with modifications. Similarly, Colorado, Montana, and California all elected to increase caps rather than eliminate them outright. And in Ohio, a court recently elected to selectively bypass its limits, while still keeping the cap in check. This means cap limits can be successfully challenged in certain situations.

Some States Are Holding Strong

While many states are trending towards removing or significantly weakening damage caps, not all are on board. In some states, limits are holding strong. Texas, Utah, Idaho, and Virginia, for example, not only have some of the lowest damage caps but are also among the most frequently enforced.

In North Carolina and New Mexico, courts and legislatures are reaffirming and even tightening caps. While others, like Michigan, are more in the middle. Here, damage caps aren’t being rolled back, but they aren’t getting much stricter, either.

For many plaintiffs, damages are predictable and tightly regulated, making individual recovery for pain and suffering much more difficult. However, that doesn’t mean the erosion trend won’t affect them at all.

Erosion Destabilizes the System

Erosion can destabilize a legal argument just as it does a beach. And while corroding damage caps in other states might not directly affect Michigan plaintiffs, they can still help.

Michigan courts are always free to consider outside decisions from other jurisdictions. These arguments aren’t binding, but can still be persuasive, since they demonstrate an overall shift in legal perspective and a compelling precedent for special treatment in certain situations.

Are You Affected by Pain and Suffering in Michigan?

At Sommers Schwartz, we understand how life-changing an injury can be. Whether you were injured in the workplace or from a defective product, we are committed to helping you set things right.

If you are seeking justice for pain and suffering, we want to hear from you. Contact Sommers Schwartz for a free consultation. Our team of highly experienced personal injury and product liability attorneys spans multiple jurisdictions, including Michigan, California, and Georgia. Together, we can help you fight for the justice you deserve.