WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 2290

AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 32-03.2-01 and 32-03.2-11 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to when a court or jury may give exemplary damages.

69th Legislative Assembly (2025-26) Introduced by Sean Cleary and 5 co-sponsors

North Dakota SB 2290 tightens punitive damages: it creates a two-step process with strict proof, caps awards, and restricts evidence to limit when and how exemplary damages may be

Filed with Secretary Of State 03/26
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 2290

Note — source materials
- The packet you provided contains texts from multiple states (North Dakota, Illinois, Mississippi) and assorted legislative actions. This summary focuses on the North Dakota enrollment text titled “Senate Bill No. 2290” (69th Legislative Assembly) that amends North Dakota Century Code sections 32‑03.2‑01 and 32‑03.2‑11 (exemplary/punitive damages). If you want summaries of the other, unrelated items (Illinois data‑center bill, Mississippi amendments), tell me and I will prepare those separately.

Summary — North Dakota SB 2290 (2025)
Purpose and intent
- SB 2290 revises North Dakota’s law governing when a court or jury may award exemplary (punitive) damages in non‑contract tort actions. The bill clarifies definitions (fault, malice), establishes procedural steps before a plaintiff may seek exemplary damages, sets evidentiary standards, limits admissible evidence, places a statutory cap on awards, and defines circumstances in which exemplary damages are disallowed or limited.

Key provisions
- Definitions (amends § 32‑03.2‑01)
- “Fault” is broadly defined to include negligence, recklessness, strict liability for product defects, breach of warranty, misuse, failure to mitigate, etc.
- “Malice” means (a) a direct intention to injure or (b) a reckless disregard of another’s rights and consequences.

  • Procedure to seek exemplary damages (amends § 32‑03.2‑11)

    • A complaint may not initially seek exemplary damages. After filing, a party must move to amend pleadings to claim exemplary damages.
    • The motion must allege legal basis and be supported by affidavits or deposition testimony; the opposing party may respond similarly.
    • The court must permit the amendment if, after reviewing submitted evidence, it finds there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by the trier of fact (preponderance standard) of oppression, fraud, or actual malice.
    • Pleadings amended under this section relate back to the commencement of the action for tolling statutes of limitation.

  • Trial procedure and evidence

    • Either party may elect that the factfinder first decide compensatory liability before exemplary damages; evidence relevant solely to exemplary damages is not admissible during the compensatory phase.
    • Evidence of the defendant’s financial condition/net worth is not admissible when exemplary damages are considered.

  • Cap on exemplary damages

    • If exemplary damages are awarded, the amount may not exceed the greater of (a) two times compensatory damages or (b) $250,000.
    • The jury must not be informed of this limit; any jury award exceeding the cap must be reduced by the court.

  • Standard of proof to recover exemplary damages

    • At trial, recovery of exemplary damages requires the finder of fact to determine by clear and convincing evidence that the award is consistent with enumerated principles and factors (reasonable relationship to harm, degree of reprehensibility/duration, concealment, profitability of wrongful conduct, and relevant criminal sanctions).

  • Manufacturer/seller defense

    • Exemplary damages may not be awarded against a manufacturer or seller if the product complied with federal statutes, federal safety regulations, or had premarket federal approval — unless the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the manufacturer knowingly withheld/misrepresented material information to the federal agency or made an illegal payment to secure approval.

  • Vicarious liability for agents

    • Exemplary damages against a principal for an agent’s act are allowed only if proved by clear and convincing evidence that one of several conditions is met (authorization by principal/managerial agent, recklessness in hiring a known‑unfit agent, managerial agent acting in scope, or ratification).

  • Motor vehicle special rule

    • In bodily‑injury motor vehicle actions, exemplary damages may be considered under the motion procedure if clear and convincing evidence shows the accident was caused by a driver who within the prior five years had been convicted of an impaired‑driving offense and was operating with specified impairment conditions (BAC ≥ .08, under influence of controlled substance, refusal to test, or volatile chemical use). Prior convictions for such offenses are admissible at trial.

Who is affected
- Plaintiffs seeking punitive/exemplary damages in tort suits (higher procedural burden; two‑stage standards).
- Defendants (potential reduction in maximum exposure; protections for manufacturers compliant with federal law; limits on evidence of net worth).
- Courts (new pre‑trial motion/affidavit process and standards to allow amendment; obligation to reduce excessive jury awards).
- Insurers and attorneys (strategic changes in pleadings, discovery and trial practice).
- Victims of certain motor vehicle incidents (special pathway to punitive damages when prior DUI history exists).

Procedural/timing aspects
- Plaintiffs cannot plead punitive damages initially; must move to amend after filing and must support motion with affidavits/deposition evidence.
- Court uses a preponderance‑level review to allow amendment; trial recovery requires clear and convincing proof.
- Amended pleadings relate back for statute‑of‑limitations purposes.

Potential impacts (practical effects)
- Likely reduces the frequency/size of punitive awards through procedural thresholds and a statutory cap.
- Strengthens defendant protections (especially product manufacturers complying with federal requirements).
- Shifts litigation strategy: plaintiffs must develop evidentiary support early (affidavits/depositions) before claiming exemplary damages; defendants may succeed in excluding net‑worth evidence and narrowing punitive exposure.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a side‑by‑side comparison of current law vs. changes made by SB 2290.
- Summarize the unrelated Illinois SB 2290 (data center/quantum facility) or the Mississippi amendments included in the packet.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.