Sentences with phrase «imposes damage caps»

Colorado imposes damage caps when the state of Colorado or a local governmental agency, governmental subdivision, municipality, or city is the defendant.

Colorado law imposes damage caps for non-economic damages in the following manner, with amounts periodically adjusted for inflation:

Colorado also imposes damage caps based on particular causes of action.

Not exact matches

In their report for CAP, Kelly and her co-author, Tracey Ross, write that climate change «imposes an unfunded mandate on state and local governments and the American people to manage these risks and foot the bill for the damages.»

Instead, the cap is imposed on the non-economic damages for such losses as grief, sorrow, loss of enjoyment of life, physical and mental pain and suffering, or emotional distress.

The ABA on Monday sent a letter to House lawmakers urging a no vote on a bill that imposes a federal cap of $ 250,000 on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice...

One of the exceptions was for general damages recovered from a personal injury claim, however a maximum cap was imposed on this exception of $ 100,000.00 in most circumstances.

Legislatures throughout the country have imposed caps on «non-economic» damages, which can be ridiculously low.

Mr. Michels authors an article, «Patient Safety vs. Corporate Profits: MICRA - A Slap on the Wrist; A Slap in the Face,» published by the Advocate magazine discussing MICRA, a $ 250,000 imposed cap on general damages in medical malpractice.

Virginia law does not impose a general cap on damages that would apply to limit your recovery in truck accident cases, although Virginia Code Section 8.01 - 38.1 limits compensation for punitive damages to $ 350,000.

Some states impose a cap on the amount of punitive damages awarded to a plaintiff.

A federal law imposes a liability cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded to train accident victims after a crash.

The SCC imposed a cap of $ 100,000 (as of 1978) on non-pecuniary damages.

If leg - islatures have imposed caps on punitive damages through using a certain multiple of the compensatory damages or a certain flat dollar amount, then the wealthy defendant will simply view the punitive damages award as just a tax or a cost of doing business.

The least of the reasons, in my view, is that the SCC doesn't want to revisit the trilogy cap (or any other judicially imposed, common law, restriction on damages awards).

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.