2025 Transportation Law Compendium: Litigation Practices (AI/Nuclear Verdicts) Question 1

Alabama has yet to enact a statute capping non-economic damages or limiting anchoring tactics. However, the Alabama Legislature is expected to reconsider a series of tort reforms that were introduced late in the 2024 legislative session but failed to pass. One of the reforms was a statute limiting non-economic damages to $1,000,000.

Alabama has yet to enact a statute capping non-economic damages or limiting anchoring tactics. However, the Alabama Legislature is expected to reconsider a series of tort reforms that were introduced late in the 2024 legislative session but failed to pass. One of the reforms was a statute limiting non-economic damages to $1,000,000.

Alaska has enacted statutory caps on non-economic damages in personal injury cases, which serve to limit awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and similar harms. Under Alaska law, the standard cap is $400,000 or the injured person’s life expectancy multiplied by $8,000, whichever is greater. In cases involving severe permanent physical impairment or disfigurement, the cap increases to $1 million or life expectancy multiplied by $25,000. These caps were introduced as part of tort reform efforts and are applied after the court adjusts for comparative fault. While Alaska does not have a specific statute addressing anchoring tactics, the damage caps effectively reduce the impact of such strategies by limiting the final award regardless of the initial figure presented. Thus, while anchoring may still occur during trial, its practical influence is curtailed by the statutory framework.

No. Article 2, Section 31 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits laws that limit the amount of damages that can be recovered for injury or death.

For more information, please contact:

ALFA International Headquarters
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1180
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 642-2532

Generally speaking, there is not a cap for non-economic damages in personal injury actions. The exception is under Proposition 213: if a plaintiff does not carry the minimum required automobile insurance, the plaintiff’s damages are limited to economic damages only.

To combat anchoring tactics of the Plaintiff’s bar in mini opening, opening statement, and closing arguments, we often file a Motion in Limine to preclude reference to the value of the Mona Lisa or other “priceless” objects. These seem to be granted on a case-by-case basis.

Because of the unduly imbalance that comes with awards on non-economic damages, the general assembly placed a limitation on such damages. C.R.S. § 13-21-102.5. The statutory caps inherently limit the potential for excessive awards, which may indirectly restrict the effectiveness of anchoring tactics.

• For actions filed after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2026: “the total amount of such damages that may be awarded must not exceed the sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars.” Id. at (3)(a)(II).

Connecticut permits both plaintiff and defense counsel to argue what is considered to be a “fair” recovery. We have used motions in limine to restrict the suggestion of value in opening arguments as prejudicial.

Delaware has not adopted any such statute. There are no caps for non-economic damages in Delaware. Yoder v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 2003 WL 26066796 at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 31, 2003) (“A cap on non-economic damages would be contrary to Delaware’s public policy, however, which favors no cap on such damages”); Marks v. Messick & Gray Const., Inc., 2000 WL 703657 at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 18, 2000) (“Delaware has a strong public policy against imposing any limitation on damages in order to ensure that its citizens receive the full recovery that the jury awards them”).

In Drs. Groover, Christie & Merritt, P.C. v. Burke, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals stated that “District of Columbia law… imposes no limitation on [non-economic] damages” in personal injury actions. ii No legislation has imposed such a cap to date.

There is nothing directly on point in Florida. However, where applicable in low-speed impacts, defendants should remember to consider attacking whether plaintiff suffered a “permanent injury” under Fla. Stat. §627.737(2). If plaintiff fails to meet one of the requirements under the statute, non-economic damages, including pain and suffering, may be precluded.

While Georgia does not have a cap on noneconomic damages, on April 21, 2025, the Georgia General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 68, a tort reform bill which sought to restructure the landscape of Georgia’s personal injury litigation.[i] As part of that bill, the Georgia General Assembly sought to prohibit “arbitrary anchoring” in lawyer’s closing arguments by requiring that arguments on noneconomic damages be rationally related to the evidence in the case.[ii] In particular, lawyers are prohibited from arguing “worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages,” and from “elicit[ing] any testimony regarding, or mak[ing] any reference to, any specific amount or range of amounts of noneconomic damages”.[iii] Lawyers cannot make reference to “objects or values having no rational connection to the facts proved by the evidence.”[iv] Thus, plaintiff’s attorneys can no longer reference high salaries, such as those of professional athletes and CEOs, or objects, such as valuable artwork, during their closings to anchor the jury.[v]

[i] Garrison Douglas, Press Secretary and Carter Chapman, Deputy Press Secretary, Gov. Kemp Unveils Plan to Tackle Tort Reform and Stabilize Insurance Costs for Hardworking Georgians, Governor Brian P. Kemp Office of the Governor, https://gov.georgia.gov/press-release/ (Jan. 30, 2025).

[ii] O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184.

[iii] O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184(b).

[iv] Id.

[v] Lawyers are prohibited from arguing “worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages,” and from “elicit[ing] any testimony regarding, or mak[ing] any reference to, any specific amount or range of amounts of noneconomic damages”. O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184(a)(1).

For more information, please contact:

ALFA International Headquarters
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1180
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 642-2532

Under Idaho Code § 6-1603, non-economic damages are capped at an amount that is subject to revision each July 1. As of July 2025, the cap is $509,013.28.iv Idaho courts have not yet determined whether the cap in place at the time of the incident or the time of suit applies. However, the cap does not apply if the tortfeasor’s conduct was shown to be willful or reckless. Idaho law does not prohibit or limit the use of anchoring tactics by any party, subject to the Idaho Rules of Evidence.

There is no cap on non-economic damages in Illinois. In Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, 179 Ill.2d 367 (1997), the Illinois Supreme Court found that the prior statutory damages cap “offends the special legislation clause of the Illinois Constitution.” Id. at 409. The Court went on to add that this invalidates legislative classifications that “have an artificially narrow focus and which appear to be designed primarily to confer a benefit on a particular private group without a reasonable basis, rather than to promote the general welfare” – in other words, arbitrarily applied. Id. at 395-96. In so determining, the court reasoned that such a cap on noneconomic damages “without regard to the facts or circumstances” is arbitrary, does not actually solve the problem that these damages are difficult to quantify, and contravenes the basic public policy principle that compensation in tort law is meant to make a plaintiff whole. Id. at 406.

With respect to anchoring tactics, plaintiffs are limited in personal injury actions in that they cannot claim a specific amount of money in a pleading “unless necessary to comply with the circuit court rules about where a case is assigned.” 735 ILCS 5/2-604.2(a). Additionally, defendants are permitted to inquire about the amount of damages sought from the plaintiff (i.e. medical expenses) via interrogatory. 735 ILCS 5/2-604.2(d). This prevents plaintiffs from alleging excessively high numbers early in the litigation.

No, non-economic damages are not capped.

In 2023, the Iowa Legislature passed a bill that limits liability for noneconomic
damages against trucking companies to $5 million. As a result, Iowa Code section 668.12A and Iowa Code section 668.15A were added to the Iowa Code.

Iowa Code section 668.12A provides that if a commercial motor vehicle employer stipulates that the person who caused damages that are the subject of the lawsuit was the employer’s employee and was acting within the course and scope of employment with the employer, the employer will not be liable for direct negligence in hiring. If the employer makes that stipulation and the employee’s negligence is found to have caused or contributed to causing the damages, the employer’s liability for negligent hiring will be adjudged solely based on respondeat superior (vicarious liability).

Iowa Code section 668.15A provides that the total amount recoverable, per plaintiff, against the owner or operator of a commercial motor vehicle for noneconomic damages for personal injury or death in a civil action involving the operation of a commercial motor vehicle, whether in tort or otherwise, is $5 million. The limitation on damages applies “regardless of the number of derivative claims or theories of liability in the civil action.” See Iowa Code § 668.15A. Noneconomic damages are defined as “damages arising from pain,
suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, emotional pain
and suffering, loss of chance, loss of consortium, or any other nonpecuniary
damages.” Iowa Code § 668.15A(1)(c).

However, the limitation on noneconomic damages will not apply if the court
finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the negligent act leading to the
claimed harm involved any of the following:

• Operating a commercial motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of
  .04 or more;
• Operating a commercial motor vehicle under the influence of a drug;
• A refusal to submit to required chemical testing;
• A felony involving the use of a motor vehicle;
• The use of a commercial motor vehicle involving the manufacturing,
  distributing, or dispensing of a controlled substances, not including the
  lawful transport for hire of a controlled substance;
• Knowingly operating a commercial motor vehicle without a proper
  license, or while the person’s commercial driver’s license is revoked, suspended, or canceled, or while the person is otherwise disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle; • Operating a commercial motor vehicle without the possession of a commercial driver’s license or commercial learner’s permit valid for the vehicle operated;
• Operating a commercial motor vehicle involving an act or practice of human trafficking;
• Reckless driving;
• Use of an electronic communication device while driving;
• Speeding fifteen miles per hour or more over the legal speed limit; or
• Violating any state or local law or ordinance restricting or prohibiting the use of a mobile telephone, computer, tablet, or other device that is not part of the vehicle while operating the vehicle.

There are currently no statutes in Kansas that limit non-economic damages for personal injury cases. A statute was adopted in 2019 that would cap non-economic damages for personal injury or death at $350,000 for actions accruing on or after July 1, 2022. K.S.A. § 60-19a02. This statute was soon after declared unconstitutional by the Kansas Supreme Court as a violation of the right to a jury trial, therefore overturning Kansas’s cap on non-economic damages. See Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd., 442 P.3d 509, 514 (Kan. 2019).

Additionally, Kansas has a statutory wrongful death cap of $350,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2022, which applies regardless of the number of heirs. See K.S.A. 60-19a02. This cap is the topic of much discussion, and we are of aware of at least one post-verdict motion that was granted and concluded that the wrongful death cap – like Kansas’ cap for non-economic damages – was unconstitutional. While this was not an appellate decision, the wrongful death cap is certainly under attack by the plaintiffs’ bar although it is still intact by Kansas statute.

Kansas has no statute targeting anchoring statutes directly. Anchoring remains governed by judicial decisions and jury instructions.

Kentucky has not adopted any statute that caps non-economic damages. In fact, Section 54 of the Kentucky Constitution explicitly prohibits the legislature from enacting such a statute. That section provides that, “The General Assembly shall have no power to limit the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to person or property.” KY. CONST. § 54.

Kentucky has not adopted any statute that prohibits or limits anchoring tactics.

Louisiana does not impose a general cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases. Courts have broad discretion in awarding non-pecuniary damages such as pain and suffering. Medical malpractice cases ARE capped at $500,000 (excluding future medical care payments under R.S. 40:1231.3).

There is no statute in Louisiana that prohibits or limits ‘anchoring’ strategies. Plaintiffs may legally withhold low economic damage figures to avoid anchoring jurors to a lower award. This remains a discretionary litigation strategy.

No. Maine’s wrongful death statute limits consortium damages. 18-C M.R.S. § 807(2) provides, “the jury may give damages not exceeding $1,000,000.00 . . . for the loss of comfort, society, and companionship of the deceased, including any damages for emotional distress arising from the same facts as those constituting the underlying claim, to the persons for whose benefit the action is brought.”

Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 11-108 caps non-economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death actions. Under the statute, non-economic damages are defined to include injury, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and loss of certain care. The statute explicitly excludes punitive damages. The cap on non-economic damages “slides” depending on the date of the accident. Various charts for the applicable noneconomic damages caps in Maryland are readily available online. Note that in a wrongful death case, there is a cap for the Estate’s claim if pre-impact fright or conscious pain and suffering can be proven, and then a separate cap for the wrongful death claim. If there are multiple claimants, the cap is 150% of the cap for any single claimant.

Maryland law does not specifically address or prohibit anchoring tactics in litigation.

For more information, please contact:

ALFA International Headquarters
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1180
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 642-2532

Yes, however Michigan only has statutory caps on non-economic damages for medical malpractice and product liability cases.

• Currently, there are no statutes capping non-economic damages for first-party or third-party auto claims.
• In a medical malpractice claim, damages for noneconomic loss recoverable by all plaintiffs is capped at $280,000.00 or $500,000, depending on the severity and cause of the injury (such as injury to the brain, spine or impaired cognitive capacity) iv
• In product liability actions, total non-economic damages are capped at $280,000, unless the defect in the produce caused death or permanent loss of a vital bodily function then damages are capped at $500,000.

Minnesota does not have any damages caps on economic or non-economic damages and has no restrictions or limitations on anchoring tactics. There are thresholds for recovering non-economic damages, however.v To recover for non-economic damages, the medical expenses incurred must exceed $4,000 or the injury must result in permanent disfigurement, permanent injury, death, or disability for 60 days or more.vi

Mississippi has a statutory $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases and a $1,000,000 cap on non-economic damages in all other cases. Miss. Code Ann. 11-1-60.

Missouri has enacted a statute capping non-economic damages, but the statute only applies to personal-injury actions against health care providers. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.210.2. The Missouri legislature has not adopted a statute capping non-economic damages applicable to all personal-injury actions.

Likewise, Missouri has not adopted a statute limiting anchoring tactics. In fact, the Supreme Court of Missouri has held that “dollar amounts for pain and suffering damages . . . may be brought up only in closing argument by the ‘argumentative suggestion’ of counsel.” Lester v. Sayles, 850 S.W.2d 858, 864 (Mo. banc 1993) (citing Graeff v. Baptist Temple of Springfield, 576 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. banc 1978)). In recent years, the Missouri legislature has considered legislation prohibiting anchoring tactics. See, e.g., S.B. 314, 103d Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2025) (providing that the “plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney shall not seek or make reference to a specific dollar amount or state a range for the jury to consider with respect to awards for noneconomic damages”).

As germane to trucking accidents no such cap exists. There are non-economic caps related to Medical Malpractice and Dram Shop actions.

No. Nebraska has no law capping non-economic damages in personal injury cases. The one exception is the $2.25 million statutory cap in medical malpractice actions under the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act. See NEB. REV. STAT. § 44-2825. During the 2025 legislative session, LB205 was introduced, which would have capped non-economic damages for transportation companies at $2.25 million to mirror the medical malpractice cap, but the bill did not advance through the legislative process. Further, Nebraska does not have any statutes limiting anchoring tactics.

Nevada has enacted statutes that specifically cap non-economic damages, but this limitation is confined to medical malpractice cases. Under current law, non-economic damages—including compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional distress—are capped at $510,000 as of 2025.

Outside of medical malpractice, Nevada imposes no statutory cap on non-economic damages. Plaintiffs may recover the full amount of non-economic damages as determined by the jury or judge. Accordingly, plaintiffs in transportation-related cases may seek the full measure of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, or loss of enjoyment of life, without limitation. Efforts to expand statutory caps into other areas of tort law have periodically surfaced in the Nevada Legislature, typically in response to large jury verdicts, but such measures have either failed to pass or have not withstood legal scrutiny.

Nevada does not restrict or regulate the use of anchoring tactics. Anchoring refers to the practice of suggesting a specific dollar figure in order to influence the jury’s sense of reasonableness and scale. Although Nevada appellate courts have not definitively ruled on the boundaries of this tactic, trial courts generally permit it so long as the proposed figures are not so extreme as to be considered unduly prejudicial or inflammatory.

While there is generally no cap on non-economic damages in New Hampshire, with respect to wrongful death cases, a surviving spouse’s loss of consortium claim is capped by statute at $150,000, and surviving children’s claims are capped at $50,000 per claimant. See RSA 556:12.

Additionally, unless allowed by statute, punitive damages, in general, are not recoverable. Under certain circumstances, the courts will allow “enhanced compensatory damages.” When an act is wanton, malicious, or oppressive, the aggravating circumstances may be reflected in an award of enhanced compensatory damages, which are sometimes called liberal compensatory damages. Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 87 (2006). Enhanced compensatory damages may be awarded only in exceptional cases. Id. “The mere fact that an intentional tort is involved is not sufficient; there must be ill will, hatred, hostility, or evil motive on behalf of the defendant.” Id. (quotations omitted). Some enhanced damages are awarded pursuant to New Hampshire statute. See, e.g., RSA 358-A:10 (New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, allowing for double or triple damages).

New Hampshire has not adopted any statutes limiting anchoring tactics.

New Jersey imposes no statutory cap on compensatory damages, including non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. The only limitation is on punitive damages, which are capped at $350,000 or five times compensatory damages, whichever is greater, under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.14.

As to anchoring, the Appellate Division in Henker v. Preybylowski, 216 N.J. Super. 513 (App. Div. 1987), likened anchoring tactics to impermissible “golden rule” arguments and curtailed their use at trial. Accordingly, if a Plaintiff uses a per diem or golden rule argument, defense counsel can object and request a Rule 1:7-1(b) instruction. Even absent objection, Henker shows appellate courts may still reverse if the misconduct was egregious. Henker makes it clear that remittitur is not always a safe harbor. If a verdict is not just high but tainted by prejudice or inflammatory advocacy, the entire verdict can be challenged. Because compensatory damages remain uncapped, anchoring arguments are a persistent threat.

At this time in New Mexico, no.

For more information, please contact:

ALFA International Headquarters
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1180
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 642-2532

The only statutory cap on non-economic damages in North Carolina is in the medical malpractice context, not transportation. Thus, in trucking and transportation litigation cases, there is no statutory limit on non-economic damages.

Regarding limiting anchoring tactics, there is an applicable North Carolina Rule of Evidence, Rule 414, which states that the admissible medical expenses are the amounts actually paid to satisfy the bill, regardless of the source of payment and/or the amounts actually necessary to satisfy the bills that have not been paid. Therefore, Rule 414 is an indirect limiting mechanism on anchoring tactics by restricting what the jury is allowed to see regarding medical expenses. Indeed, the operation of Rule 414 can result in plaintiff attorneys electing not to submit medical bills into evidence at all and instead focus on non-economic damages such as pain, suffering, trauma, loss of enjoyment, etc. By not submitting medical bills and allowing the jury to focus on non-economic damages, plaintiff attorneys attempt to avoid lowball anchoring and arguments from defense counsel that the plaintiff’s low economic damages justify a more modest award.

North Dakota enacted legislation increasing the cap on non-economic damage in health care practice cases in 2025, North Dakota House Bill 1349.

Section 32-42-02(1) of the Northern Dakota Code is amended to read that an action or claim may not exceed $1 million dollars, and the cap will rise from $1 million dollars to $1.5 million dollars on July 1, 2026, on July 1, 2027, a total of $2 million dollars and July 1, 2028, it would be a sum of $3 million dollars. Juries would not be informed of these caps; instead, courts will adjust any awards exceeding the limit.

In North Dakota no new statutes regarding restricting anchoring tactics in litigation were enacted in 2025 to limit such practices. Anchoring tactics refers to when a lawyer suggests an extremely high (or sometimes low) dollar figure for damages to the jury in order to set a psychological reference point.

After several attempts over thirty years, all of which were declared unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution, the General Assembly successfully passed caps on noneconomic damages in tort claims. Codified at RC 2315.18, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld these limitations against a facial challenge in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 2007-Ohio-6948, 116 Ohio St. 3d 468, 880 N.E.2d 420. The statute caps noneconomic damages at the greater of $250,000 or 3x the value of economic damages, to a maximum of $350,000 per plaintiff or $500,000 for each occurrence. To avoid the same fate as previous statutes, RC 2315.18(B)(3) carves out exceptions for “permanent and substantial” deformities, loss of limb, or bodily organ system, and injuries that alter the plaintiff’s ability to care for themselves. The trial court is vested with authority and responsibility to examine an award of noneconomic damages to determine compliance with the statute. RC 2315.19.

The same statute limits anchoring tactics by prohibiting consideration of certain evidence about the defendant when determining noneconomic damages, including the defendant’s alleged wrongdoing or guilt, wealth or financial resources, and any other evidence focused on punishment rather than compensation. RC 2315.18(C).

Importantly, the Ohio Supreme Court has upheld an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of RC 2315.18 in the context of a child abuse victim suing her abuser for psychological injuries after he was criminally convicted. Brandt v. Pompa, 2022-Ohio-4525, 171 Ohio St. 3d 693, 220 N.E.3d 703. The Court determined that the statutory carveouts in RC 2315.18(B)(3) did not encompass psychological injuries, and therefore the plaintiff was deprived of her “constitutional guarantee of due course of law” by the statute. Brandt, 2022-Ohio-4525, ¶ 32. Further, the Court rejected the separation of powers concerns discussed in Arbino.

Arbino and Brandt highlight the fact-intensive nature of the constitutionality of Ohio’s tort reform statutes and caution against too confident reliance on them, particularly when egregious psychological harms are involved.

Yes. In May 2025, Oklahoma enacted Senate Bill 453, reinstating caps on non-economic damages. A prior cap had been struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Beason v. I.E. Miller Services, Inc., 2019 OK 28, 441 P.3d 1107. Under the new law, non-economic damages are capped at $500,000 in personal injury cases, with the cap increased to $1 million for permanent mental injuries that severely impair daily life. No cap applies where the plaintiff suffers permanent and severe physical injury (e.g., disfigurement, loss of limb, incapacity to self-care) or where the defendant acted recklessly, with gross negligence, fraud, or intent. While Oklahoma has taken steps to rein in excessive verdicts through statutory caps, anchoring tactics remain unregulated and continue to pose a significant challenge in the courtroom.

Oregon used to impose a statutory $500,000 cap on non-economic damages, but the law was recently held unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court. Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc., 366 Or. 628, 468 P.3d 419 (2020).

Oregon now imposes a statutory $500,000 cap on non-economic damages for wrongful death actions only. ORS 31.710. However, there are several cases challenging the cap on non-economic damages in wrongful death cases that are currently pending in the Court of Appeals. See Estate of Grant Raymond Fisher v. Trevor Nicholas Lee, No. A181233 (Or. App. filed May 1, 2023). There is no cap on non-economic damages for standard negligence claims.

In actions against public bodies within the state, the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) establishes general limitations on the amount of damages that can be awarded. ORS 30.271-273. These general caps may limit both economic and non-economic damages.

Oregon has not adopted any statute limiting anchoring tactics. However, evidence presented must be relevant to the case. If arguments are merely speculative, as anchoring arguments may be, a judge may disallow them.

Pennsylvania has not adopted any statutes capping non-economic damages or limiting anchoring tactics.

Generally, there are no statues in Rhode Island capping non-economic damages. In personal injury cases, there are no caps on economic, non-economic or punitive damages. In wrongful death cases, punitive damages are not awarded, but there are no caps on recovery of economic or non-economic damages.

The only exception to this rule is in tort actions against the state of Rhode Island or a political subdivision thereof, in which recoverable economic damages are limited to $100,000. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-31-2.

Currently, there is no legal authority limiting anchoring tactics in Rhode Island. Whether a party may ‘argue a number,’ is up to the discretion of the trial court. Motions in limine asserting that counsel’s argument to the jury must be based on the evidence and not counsel’s conclusion such as a specific dollar amount may possibly limit the use of anchoring tactics, that decision would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances and the individual trial judge.

South Carolina has adopted statutes that cap certain types of non-economic damages, but the state has not enacted laws specifically limiting or prohibiting anchoring tactics. Anchoring tactics are generally governed by evidentiary rules and judicial discretion rather than explicit statutory provisions.

Regarding caps on non-economic damages, The South Carolina Noneconomic Damages Awards Act places limits on non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions.x This Act caps non-economic damages against a single defendant at $350,000 per claimant in medical malpractice cases, regardless of the number of separate causes of action on which the claim is based.xi In cases involving multiple defendants, the total cap is $1.05 million, but no single defendant can be liable for more than $350,000.xii However, the Act includes a provision for annual inflation adjustments by the South Carolina Board of Economic Advisors.xiii Such adjustments are calculated using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and published each year.xiv The current cap level, as of 2025, has risen from $350,000 to approximately $580,461 per defendant, or a $1,741,383 total in cases involving multiple defendants.xv

South Dakota does not have any damages caps on economic or non-economic damages in personal injury cases. They do have a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases of $500,000 under South Dakota Codified Laws Section 21-3-11. There are no restrictions or limitations on anchoring tactics. Ultimately the trial judge has the power to oversee the courtroom and ensure a fair process and objections can be made for the trial judge to consider on irrelevant anchors or improper arguments not based on evidence.

In Tennessee there is a statutory cap on noneconomic damages under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-102 which limits the amount of noneconomic damages in a majority of cases to seven hundred fifty thousand (750,000) dollars. In cases involving catastrophic injury – defined as (1) or more of the following:(1) Spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia or quadriplegia; (2) Amputation of two (2) hands, two (2) feet or one (1) of each; (3) Third degree burns over forty percent (40%) or more of the body as a whole or third degree burns up to forty percent (40%) percent or more of the face; or (4) Wrongful death of a parent leaving a surviving minor child or children for whom the deceased parent had lawful rights of custody or visitation – the damage cap is extended not to exceed one million (1,000,000) dollars.

The current state of Tennessee’s punitive damage cap found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104 is unclear. While the Tennessee Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of the statute – which currently caps punitive damages to an amount equal to the greater of: (A) Two (2) times the total amount of compensatory damages awarded; or (B) Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) – the 6th Circuit held the statute to be unconstitutional in Lindenberg v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2018). In Lindenberg the majority held that the cap violates the right to a jury trial found in the Tennessee Constitution. The Court states, “upon our assessment of Tennessee law, we find that the punitive damages bar set forth Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104 violates the individual right to a trial by jury set forth in the Tennessee Constitution. The Declaration of Rights in the Tennessee Constitution provides that ‘the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate ….’ Tenn. Const. art. I, § 6.” Lindenberg at 364.

Because there are no cases directly addressing the situation the Court turned to a historical view of interpretation of the Tennessee and North Carolina Constitutions because of the states’ shared history. The Court states, “our review of historical evidence from Tennessee and North Carolina demonstrates that punitive damages awards were part of the right to trial by jury at the time the Tennessee Constitution was adopted.” Id.

Texas does not cap non-economic damages for ordinary negligence, personal injury, or wrongful death claims, including motor vehicle accidents and other tort claims. (The only type cases Texas has a statutory limitations on non-economic damages are in healthcare liability, certified nonprofit hospitals, and government entities matters.) (Texas law does cap exemplary/punitive damages, but that is separate from non-economic damage.)
However, Texas law and the Texas Supreme Court do have limits on “anchoring” tactics for non-economic damages.

• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 269(e) requires counsel to “confine the argument strictly to the evidence and to the arguments of opposing counsel,” effectively barring unsubstantiated anchoring that is not rationally connected to case evidence.
• The Texas Supreme Court, in the leading case Gregory v. Chohan, addressed improper anchoring and held that damages must have a rational connection to the injury supported by the evidence. Gregory v. Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2023). In Gregory, the Court reversed a large jury verdict where plaintiffs’ counsel used used analogies to the cost of fighter jets, paintings, and speculative calculations (like “two cents per mile”) that were entirely unrelated to the actual evidence of injury or damages in the case to anchor the award for non-economic damages. The Court made it clear that using numbers or objects with no rational connection to the case is improper and may be grounds for reversal. The court detailed that:
  • Damage awards must be “based on evidence and reason, to the extent possible.”
  • There must be a “rational connection, grounded in the evidence, between the injuries suffered and the dollar amount awarded.”
  • Unsubstantiated anchors—references to values or objects with no connection to the case—“cannot rationally connect the extent of the injuries to the amount awarded” and are not permissible.
  • The Court has an obligation to prevent these “improper considerations” and review awards for evidentiary support.

Accordingly, in Texas, anchoring tactics that lack direct ties to case facts will likely be met with objections, and judges may offer jury instructions to disregard such analogies.

Utah has adopted statutes limiting non-economic damages depending on the nature of the case. The statutory caps inherently limit the potential for excessive awards, which may indirectly restrict the effectiveness of anchoring tactics.

No cap on noneconomic damages may apply to wrongful death claims in Utah, regardless of whether one would otherwise apply, as this would violate the guarantee of Utah Const. Art. XVI, § 5.

No. However, it should be noted that most venues in Vermont would be considered moderate/conservative on a national scale as regards awarding damages to plaintiffs, with large punitive awards and “runaway juries” being rare in Vermont.

Virginia does not have a cap for non-economic damages in personal injury cases except in medical malpractice actions. Va. Code § 8.01-581.15.Virginia’s cap on the recovery of punitive damages is $350,000. Va. Code § 8.01-38.1. The ad damnum requested by the Plaintiff is a cap on their recovery.

Virginia has not adopted any statutes which limit anchoring tactics.

For more information, please contact:

ALFA International Headquarters
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1180
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 642-2532

For more information, please contact:

ALFA International Headquarters
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1180
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 642-2532

• There are no caps to non-economic damages in transportation claimsii
• Plaintiff attorneys are not limited to making suggestions or arguing nominal amounts for fair compensation for non-economic damages.
• Parties’ attorneys are permitted to propose dollar amounts so long as the amount is supported by the evidence. 1-2 Wisconsin Personal Injury § 2.01 (2025)

• Wyoming has no caps on non-economic damages.
• Wyoming has no rules or specific case law limiting anchoring tactics.