WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1349

relative to exemptions from multi-family zoning requirements for small or low-density communities.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jennifer Mandelbaum

HB 1349 would raise noneconomic damages caps in medical malpractice claims, increasing potential recovery over time but failed to advance in 2025.

Inexpedient to Legislate: MA VV 02/19/2026 HJ 5 P. 23
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1349

Summary — North Dakota HB 1349 (2025)

Title: An Act to amend and reenact section 32‑42‑02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to liability limits for health care malpractice actions or claims

Status: Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 30, nays 61)
Introduced: November 15, 2024
Primary sponsors: Representatives Koppelman, O’Brien, D. Ruby, Vetter; Senators Hogan, Sickler, Roers, Kessel
Companion: SB 711

Purpose / intent

HB 1349 proposed to raise the statutory cap on noneconomic damages in health‑care malpractice claims. The sponsor language and committee amendments would have increased the maximum award available for pain and suffering/other noneconomic losses (currently capped) and established a schedule of higher caps over time.

Key provisions

  • Current law (pre‑bill): noneconomic damages in a health‑care malpractice action are capped at $500,000 per claimant/family regardless of the number of defendants or claims.
  • HB 1349 (as amended in committee) would change section 32‑42‑02 to raise that cap. The committee draft contains two alternative/companion amendment texts; principal elements include:
    • Immediate statutory replacement of the $500,000 cap with larger amounts (variously shown as $1,000,000).
    • A multi‑year staged increase schedule (committee language examples):
    • July 1, 2026 — $1,500,000
    • July 1, 2027 — $2,000,000
    • July 1, 2028 — $2,500,000 (one draft shows $3,000,000 for this date)
    • A provision stating the liability limits do not apply to malpractice actions brought on behalf of an unborn fetus.
    • Juries would not be informed of the statutory cap; if a jury award exceeds the cap, the court must reduce the award to comply with the statutory limit.
  • Transitional / timing language in the committee report:
    • One section (temporary schedule) was drafted to be effective through June 30, 2029 (then expire).
    • Another section was written to become effective July 1, 2029 (appearing to provide a later effective version/transition); the committee language appears to present alternative or staged enactments.

Who would be affected

  • Plaintiffs: injured patients and their families — would be entitled to higher noneconomic damage awards under malpractice verdicts or settlements (subject to the cap schedule).
  • Health care providers and facilities: increased potential liability exposure.
  • Insurers and self‑insured health care entities: potential for higher claim payouts and upward pressure on malpractice insurance premiums or reserve requirements.
  • Courts: would continue to be required to reduce jury awards that exceed the statutory cap.

Procedural/timeline notes

  • Committee action: Judiciary/Health committees considered and reported amendments (committee report dated Feb 3, 2025).
  • The bill was placed on calendar and reached second reading but failed on second reading by a vote of 30–61.
  • Because the measure failed second reading, it did not advance to final passage and did not become law during the 2025 session.

Potential policy implications (concise)

  • Raising the cap increases potential compensation to malpractice victims for noneconomic harms (pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life).
  • It may increase malpractice liability costs for providers and insurers; opponents often cite concerns about higher insurance premiums or access/costs of care, while supporters argue it better compensates severely injured patients and keeps award limits current with inflation/medical costs.
  • The exclusion for unborn‑fetus claims preserves the current special treatment for those causes of action.

Note: The legislative record provided includes multiple versions and edits; the committee report presents alternative text and phased effective/expiration dates. The bill ultimately failed to pass the legislature.

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

Sign in to ask a question.