Maryland
Maryland Punitive Damages Laws: Actual Malice, Caps and Rules
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited October 19, 2026). · 21 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Maryland allows punitive damages as a common-law remedy, but in a non-intentional tort only when the defendant's conduct "was characterized by evil motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud, i.e., 'actual malice,'" proven by clear and convincing evidence (Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420 (1992)). Maryland has no general cap on punitive damages, and its statutory noneconomic damages cap does not reach them: Courts and Judicial Proceedings (CJP) 11-108(a)(2)(ii) provides that "'Noneconomic damages' does not include punitive damages."
The State's immunity is not waived for punitive damages and a local government may not be liable for them, evidence of a defendant's wealth waits until punitive damages are found supportable, and in a death case they come through the survival action rather than the wrongful death count. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.
Information last verified on 2026-10-18. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Maryland state law on punitive damages in civil cases: the common-law rule in Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia, the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article sections that address punitive damages (including 10-913, 11-108, 5-303 and 5-522), and the other statutes and decisions named below. It does not cover the noneconomic damages cap itself or medical malpractice damages generally (see Maryland medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Maryland wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.
Does Maryland allow punitive damages?
Yes. Punitive damages in Maryland come from the courts; no general statute defines when they are available. The leading case is Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 601 A.2d 633 (1992). Maryland courts and statutes use "punitive damages" and "exemplary damages" for the same remedy.
The statutes that do mention punitive damages are narrower. They exclude punitive damages from the damages caps, control when wealth evidence comes in, bar punitive awards against government defendants, and authorize or limit them for particular claims.
What must be proven
Actual malice. Zenobia overruled the older gross negligence standard and replaced it:
"Therefore, we overrule Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co. and its progeny, including Nast v. Lockett, 312 Md. 343, 539 A.2d 1113 (1988). In a non-intentional tort action, the trier of facts may not award punitive damages unless the plaintiff has established that the defendant's conduct was characterized by evil motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud, i.e., 'actual malice.'"
Gross negligence alone does not meet that test.
Drunk driving. Komornik v. Sparks, 331 Md. 720 (1993), was a motor vehicle negligence action in which the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident; a breath test showed a blood alcohol content of .19, and he was convicted of driving while intoxicated. Applying Zenobia, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that "the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of 'actual malice'" and affirmed. For the underlying claims in a crash case, see Maryland car accident laws.
Product cases. The court adapted the test for products liability: "We believe that in products liability cases the equivalent of the 'evil motive,' 'intent to defraud,' or 'intent to injure,' which generally characterizes 'actual malice,' is actual knowledge of the defect and deliberate disregard of the consequences."
Clear and convincing evidence, in every tort case. Zenobia also set the burden of proof: "We hold that this heightened standard is appropriate in the assessment of punitive damages because of their penal nature and potential for debilitating harm. Consequently, in any tort case a plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence the basis for an award of punitive damages."
Intentional torts too. In Montgomery Ward v. Wilson, 339 Md. 701 (1995), the court said: "With respect to both intentional and non-intentional torts, we have held that an award of punitive damages generally must be based upon actual malice, in the sense of conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud." For fraud, Ellerin v. Fairfax Savings, 337 Md. 216 (1995), held that "'reckless disregard' or 'reckless indifference' concerning the truth of the representation falls short of the mens rea which is required to support an award of punitive damages."
Tort claims only. "Under Maryland law, punitive damages are allowable only in tort actions" (Bowden v. Caldor, Inc., 350 Md. 4 (1998)).
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Maryland?
No general cap, and the noneconomic damages cap is written to exclude punitive damages. CJP 11-108 caps noneconomic damages in personal injury and wrongful death actions (for causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1994, $500,000, increasing by $15,000 on October 1 of each year beginning in 1995), but its definitions provide that "'Noneconomic damages' does not include punitive damages" (11-108(a)(2)(ii)). The neighboring section defining economic damages says the same: "'Economic damages' does not include punitive damages" (CJP 11-109(a)(2)). For how the noneconomic cap works in malpractice cases, see Maryland medical malpractice law.
Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits:
- Employment discrimination. In a civil action for an unlawful employment practice, the court may award punitive damages only if the respondent "is not a governmental unit or political subdivision" and the court finds it acted "with actual malice." The sum of compensatory damages awarded to each complainant and the punitive damages "may not exceed the applicable limitation established under § 20-1009(b)(3)" (State Government 20-1013(e)). Section 20-1009(b)(3) sets that limit by the employer's size: $50,000 for 15 to 100 employees, $100,000 for 101 to 200, $200,000 for 201 to 500, and $300,000 for 501 or more (counting employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year). The court may not inform the jury of the limit (20-1013(f)(2)).
- Misappropriation. "If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a) of this section" (Commercial Law 11-1203(d)).
- Charitable contributions. A person who willfully fails to comply with a requirement of Business Regulation Title 6 as to a charitable contribution made because of a charitable solicitation is liable to the donor for actual damages and "punitive damages that the court allows, not exceeding 3 times the actual damages," plus fees if damages are awarded (Business Regulation 6-509(b)).
- Credit discrimination. A creditor who fails to comply with a requirement of Maryland's credit discrimination subtitle (Commercial Law Title 12, Subtitle 7) is liable to the aggrieved applicant for "punitive damages in an amount not greater than $10,000, as determined by the court," in an individual action; in a class action, "the total recovery in such action shall not exceed the lesser of $100,000 or 1 percent of the net worth of the creditor" (Commercial Law 12-707(b), (c)).
- Developmental disabilities records. A custodian of a record kept by a developmental disabilities licensee who discloses it in violation of Health-General 7-1010 is liable to the individual "for punitive damages in an amount that does not exceed $500 plus reasonable attorney's fees" (Health-General 7-1103(b)).
- Hazardous substance orders (State claims). A responsible person who "fails without sufficient cause to comply with a final order issued under" the controlled hazardous substances subtitle "is subject to punitive damages, not exceeding three times the amount of any costs that are incurred by the State" after the final decision and as a result of the noncompliance (Environment 7-266.1(a)).
- Bad-faith patent assertions. If a target of a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement prevails in an action under that subtitle and is awarded damages, the court also may award "Exemplary damages in an amount not to exceed the greater of: (i) $50,000; or (ii) Three times the total of damages, costs, and fees" (Commercial Law 11-1605(b)(2)).
The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Maryland verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them. Under federal law, punitive damages are generally taxable income, even when they arise from a physical injury (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2)); the personal injury settlement amounts guide covers taxes.
Does Maryland take a share of the award?
No general Maryland statute sends any part of a punitive award to the State or a fund. One statute directs where a particular plaintiff's award goes: "Any compensatory or punitive damages awarded to a prisoner in connection with a civil action shall be paid directly to satisfy any outstanding judgment of restitution or child support order pending against the prisoner" (CJP 5-1006(a)(1)).
A surcharge on punitive judgments, paid into the Blueprint for Maryland's Future Fund, was proposed in 2025 House Bill 1099 and in 2026 Senate Bill 871 and House Bill 906. Those bills would also have allowed punitive damages on clear and convincing proof of gross negligence. None of them became law; their legislative histories end at a first reading and a hearing.
How the amount is decided
Wealth evidence waits. CJP 10-913(a) provides: "In any action for punitive damages for personal injury, evidence of the defendant's financial means is not admissible until there has been a finding of liability and that punitive damages are supportable under the facts." Under 10-913(b), a claim filed with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office under CJP 3-2A-04 counts as an action for this purpose, so the rule also applies to claims filed with that office.
Separate trials are discretionary. In Zenobia, the court declined to require separate trials of compensatory and punitive damages: "We note that a trial court may exercise its discretion and bifurcate these issues, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-503(b)." It added that, as frequently occurs because of 10-913(a), "the trial court will instruct the jury on the compensatory claims and on the defendant's potential liability for punitive damages."
More than one defendant. In Embrey v. Holly, 293 Md. 128, 442 A.2d 966 (1982), a defamation case, the court held "that it is entirely proper to permit a jury to apportion punitive damages among multiple defendants." The opinion records the petitioners' recognition that Maryland "has uniformly applied" the "broad" rule of vicarious liability for punitive damages. Embrey was decided before Zenobia. Three judges dissented from imposing punitive damages on the employer, while stating no disagreement with the apportionment principles.
Punitive damages in Maryland wrongful death cases
Maryland treats the wrongful death action and the survival action differently. The wrongful death statute, CJP 3-904, lists damages "proportioned to the injury resulting from the wrongful death" and does not mention punitive damages.
In Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co., 267 Md. 149 (1972), the defendants pointed to "the denial of exemplary damages in the parallel wrongful death action, Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Kelly, 24 Md. 271 (1866)," claiming that the plaintiff sought indirectly what he conceded he could not obtain directly. The court rejected that argument and held for the survival claim:
"Thus, we hold that a personal representative may recover exemplary damages in those cases where they might have been awarded to the decedent, whose estate he administers, had the former survived."
Zenobia later overruled Smith and its progeny on the conduct standard, and its actual-malice test applies in any non-intentional tort action. The Court of Appeals has since cited Smith's survival holding as "overruled, on other grounds" by Zenobia (Jones v. Flood, 351 Md. 120 (1998)). Beneficiaries and deadlines are on the Maryland wrongful death page.
Government defendants
The State. Under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, the State's immunity "is not waived under § 12-104 of the State Government Article for: (1) Punitive damages," nor for acts of State personnel outside the scope of their public duties or "made with malice or gross negligence" (CJP 5-522(a)). In a contract action under Title 12, Subtitle 2 of the State Government Article, "the State and its officers and units are not liable for punitive damages" (5-522(d)).
Local governments. "A local government may not be liable for punitive damages" (CJP 5-303(c)(1)). The bar runs to the local government itself: a local government may indemnify an employee for "a judgment for punitive damages entered against the employee," but it may not indemnify a law enforcement officer found guilty under Public Safety 3-108 for an act or omission that would be a felony, and it may not enter into an agreement that requires indemnification for an employee's act or omission that may result in liability for punitive damages (5-303(c)(2), (3)).
Counties and municipalities in contract actions. In a contract action described in CJP 5-5A-01(a), "a municipal corporation and its officers and units are not liable for punitive damages" (CJP 5-5A-01(b)), and a county and its officers and units are not liable for punitive damages (5-5A-02(b)).
The park and planning commission. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission "may raise the defense of partial governmental immunity" for any liability exposure "If punitive damages are sought" (CJP 5-512(a)(2)).
Candidate statements on radio and television
When a candidate for public office makes a defamatory statement over a television or radio station about a person other than the candidate's opponent, the station's liability is limited to actual damages, except that under CJP 3-504(b), "Upon proof of actual malice on part of the owner, licensee, or operator of the broadcasting station or network of stations and his agents or employees, punitive damages may be assessed" (3-504(b)). For the underlying claims, see Maryland defamation laws.
Does insurance pay punitive damages in Maryland?
Maryland public policy did not bar coverage in the leading case. In First National Bank of St. Mary's v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 283 Md. 228, 389 A.2d 360 (1978), the court stated:
"We shall here hold that public policy does not protect appellee, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (F & D), from liability under its policy of insurance with appellant, The First National Bank of St. Mary's (the Bank), for that portion of a judgment entered against the Bank which included an assessment of exemplary damages."
The judgment in that case arose from a malicious prosecution claim against the bank. The holding concerns that policy and that judgment.
Maryland punitive damages at a glance
| Question | Maryland rule | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Source of the remedy | Common law; no general statute | Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia (Md. 1992) |
| Conduct standard | Actual malice: evil motive, intent to injure, ill will or fraud, generally required for intentional and non-intentional torts; products: actual knowledge of the defect and deliberate disregard | Zenobia; Montgomery Ward v. Wilson (Md. 1995) |
| Contract claims | Not available; tort actions only | Bowden v. Caldor (Md. 1998) |
| Gross negligence | Not enough on its own | Zenobia (overruling Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe) |
| Burden of proof | Clear and convincing evidence in any tort case | Zenobia |
| Drunk driving | Intoxication did not establish actual malice in Komornik | Komornik v. Sparks (Md. 1993) |
| General cap | None; noneconomic cap excludes punitive damages; some claim-specific limits | CJP 11-108(a)(2)(ii); State Gov't 20-1013(e)(2); Com. Law 11-1203(d), 12-707; Bus. Reg. 6-509(b) |
| State share | No general split-recovery statute; prisoner awards go first to restitution and child support | CJP 5-1006(a)(1) |
| Wealth evidence | Not admissible until liability and supportability findings | CJP 10-913 |
| Separate trial | Discretionary | Md. Rule 2-503(b), per Zenobia |
| Wrongful death | Not in the wrongful death action; available in the survival action where the decedent could have recovered them | Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe (Md. 1972); CJP 3-904 |
| State | Immunity not waived for punitive damages | CJP 5-522(a)(1), (d) |
| Local governments | Not liable for punitive damages | CJP 5-303(c)(1) |
| Employment discrimination | Only against non-governmental respondents, on actual malice; compensatory plus punitive limited to $50,000 to $300,000 by employer size | State Gov't 20-1013(e); 20-1009(b)(3) |
| Insurance | Public policy did not bar coverage of exemplary damages in a malicious prosecution judgment | First National Bank of St. Mary's (Md. 1978) |
Recent changes
Maryland's punitive damages standard has not changed by statute; it rests on Zenobia (1992). In 2025 and 2026, House Bill 1099 (2025), Senate Bill 871 (2026) and House Bill 906 (2026) proposed a gross negligence standard, proved by clear and convincing evidence, and a State Court Administrator surcharge on punitive judgments. Senate Bill 871 listed an effective date of October 1, 2026, but none of the bills passed, so none of those rules is law.
Related pages
- Punitive damages laws by state
- Maryland wrongful death law
- Maryland medical malpractice law
- Maryland defamation laws
- Maryland car accident laws
This article provides general legal information about Maryland punitive damages law as of 2026-10-18. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Maryland.
Last updated: 2026-10-18.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Maryland allow punitive damages?
Yes, as a common-law remedy. Under Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia (1992), punitive damages in a non-intentional tort require proof of actual malice, meaning evil motive, intent to injure, ill will or fraud, and in any tort case the basis for the award must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Montgomery Ward v. Wilson (1995) said actual malice is generally required for intentional torts as well, and Bowden v. Caldor (1998) held that punitive damages are allowable only in tort actions.
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Maryland?
There is no general cap. The noneconomic damages cap in Courts and Judicial Proceedings 11-108 does not apply, because that section says noneconomic damages do not include punitive damages. Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, for example Commercial Law 11-1203(d) (twice any award made under subsection (a) for willful and malicious misappropriation) and State Government 20-1013(e)(2), which caps compensatory plus punitive damages in employment discrimination actions at the 20-1009(b)(3) limit.
Are punitive damages available for gross negligence in Maryland?
Not on gross negligence alone. Zenobia (1992) overruled Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co. and its progeny and held that in a non-intentional tort, punitive damages require evil motive, intent to injure, ill will or fraud. Bills in 2025 and 2026 that would have adopted a gross negligence standard did not become law.
Are punitive damages available against a drunk driver in Maryland?
Intoxication alone did not meet the standard in Komornik v. Sparks (1993). Applying Zenobia, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the evidence against a driver who was intoxicated at the time of the accident was insufficient to support a finding of actual malice.
Are punitive damages available in a Maryland wrongful death case?
Not through the wrongful death action itself: the wrongful death statute (CJP 3-904) does not mention punitive damages, and in Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co. (1972) the defendants relied on the denial of exemplary damages in the wrongful death action in Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Kelly (1866). In Smith, the court held that a personal representative may recover exemplary damages in the survival action where the decedent could have recovered them; Zenobia later overruled Smith on the conduct standard and now supplies the actual-malice test.
Does Maryland take part of a punitive damages award?
No general Maryland statute does. One statute directs that compensatory or punitive damages awarded to a prisoner be paid first toward outstanding restitution judgments or child support orders (Courts and Judicial Proceedings 5-1006). The 2025 and 2026 bills that would have added a surcharge on punitive judgments did not become law.
Are punitive damages available against the State or a local government in Maryland?
Not against the government itself. The State's immunity is not waived for punitive damages under Courts and Judicial Proceedings 5-522(a)(1), and under 5-303(c)(1) a local government may not be liable for punitive damages. Those sections do not bar a punitive judgment against an individual employee: 5-303(c)(2) allows a local government, in limited circumstances, to indemnify an employee for a judgment for punitive damages entered against the employee, and the State personnel immunity in 5-522(b) covers only acts made without malice or gross negligence.
When can a jury hear about a defendant's wealth in a Maryland punitive damages case?
Under Courts and Judicial Proceedings 10-913(a), in an action for punitive damages for personal injury, evidence of the defendant's financial means is not admissible until there has been a finding of liability and that punitive damages are supportable under the facts.
Does insurance cover punitive damages in Maryland?
In First National Bank of St. Mary's v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (1978), the court held that public policy did not protect the insurer from liability under its policy for the exemplary damages portion of a judgment against the insured bank. The case involved a malicious prosecution judgment, and the court did not set rules for every type of policy or wrongdoer.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article
§ 10-913In force
§10–913. (a) In any action for punitive damages for personal injury, evidence of the defendant’s financial means is not admissible until there has been a finding of liability and that punitive damages are supportable under the facts. (b) A claim filed with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office in accordance with § 3-2A-04 of this article shall be considered an action for purposes of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 11-108In forcecited in 6 of our articles
§11–108. (a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. (2) (i) “Noneconomic damages” means: 1. In an action for personal injury, pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium, or other nonpecuniary injury; and 2. In an action for wrongful death, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, care, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, or education, or other noneconomic damages authorized under Title 3, Subtitle 9 of this article. (ii) “Noneconomic damages” does not include punitive damages. (3) “Primary claimant” means a claimant in an action for the death of a person described under § 3-904(d) of this article. (4) “Secondary claimant” means a claimant in an action for the death of a person described under § 3-904(e) of this article. (b) (1) In any action for damages for personal injury in which the cause of action arises on or after July 1, 1986, an award for noneconomic damages may not exceed $350,000.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Erie Insurance Exchange v. Heffernan (Court of Appeals of Maryland 2007, 399 Md. 598)“…a. Maryland’s statutory cap on non-economic damages, Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108, where the insured and the insurer both…”
- Cole v. Sullivan (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1996, 110 Md. App. 79)“…Act, ch. 477, 1994 Md. Laws 2292 (codified as amended at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 11-108 , 11-109 (1995)). 11…”
- Bankert Ex Rel. Bankert v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 1996, 937 F. Supp. 1169)“…and requires the trier of fact to itemize economic damages. Md.Code Ann.Cts. and Jud.Proc. §§ 11-108 and 11-109. Both Ariel and Kimberly Ban…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Maryland Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines & Who Sues, Maryland Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim
§ 5-303In force
§5–303. (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection, the liability of a local government may not exceed $400,000 per an individual claim, and $800,000 per total claims that arise from the same occurrence for damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions, or liability arising under subsection (b) of this section and indemnification under subsection (c) of this section. (2) The limits on liability provided under paragraph (1) of this subsection do not include interest accrued on a judgment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 5-522In force
§5–522. (a) Immunity of the State is not waived under § 12–104 of the State Government Article for: (1) Punitive damages; (2) Interest before judgment; (3) A claim that arises from the combatant activities of the State Militia during a state of emergency; (4) Any tortious act or omission of State personnel that: (i) Is not within the scope of the public duties of the State personnel; or (ii) Is made with malice or gross negligence; (5) A claim by an individual arising from a single incident or occurrence that exceeds the amount specified in § 12–104 of the State Government Article; or (6) A cause of action that law specifically prohibits. (b) State personnel, as defined in § 12-101 of the State Government Article, are immune from suit in courts of the State and from liability in tort for a tortious act or omission that is within the scope of the public duties of the State personnel and is made without malice or gross negligence, and for which the State or its units have waived immunity under Title 12, Subtitle 1 of the State Government Article, even if the damages exceed the limits of that waiver.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 3-904In forcecited in 6 of our articles
§3–904. (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, an action under this subtitle shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and child of the deceased person. (2) A parent may not be a beneficiary in a wrongful death action for the death of a child of the parent if: (i) 1. The parent is convicted under §§ 3–303 through 3–308, § 3–323, § 3–601, or § 3–602 of the Criminal Law Article; or 2. The parent committed an act prohibited under §§ 3–303 through 3–308, § 3–323, § 3–601, or § 3–602 of the Criminal Law Article; (ii) The other parent of the child is the victim of the crime or act described under item (i) of this paragraph; and (iii) The other parent of the child is a child of the parent. (3) (i) An action under this subtitle for the wrongful death of a child caused by the parent of the child allowed under the provisions of § 5–806 of this article may not be for the benefit of that parent of the deceased child. (ii) An action under this subtitle for the wrongful death of a parent caused by a child of the parent allowed under the provisions of § 5–806 of this article may not be for the benefit of that child of the deceased parent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Williams v. Work (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 2010, 192 Md. App. 438)“…injuries they suffered as a result of the decedent’s death. Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 3-904(a), (c), (e). Maryland law thus…”
- Johnson v. Price (District Court, D. Maryland 2001, 191 F. Supp. 2d 626)“…th statute, the core requirements of which are contained in Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.Proc. § 3-904. An examination of the Maryland…”
- Dowling v. A.R.T. Inst. of Wash., Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 2019, 372 F. Supp. 3d 274)“…Md. Code Ann. Est. & Trusts § 7-401(y)(1) (survivorship); Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904 (wrongful death); see also Carter v.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Motorcycle Accident Laws in Maryland (2026): Deadlines & Helmets, Truck Accident Laws in Maryland (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Maryland Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 3-504In force
§3–504. (a) (1) An owner, licensee, or operator of a television or radio station or network of stations and his agents or employees may be liable for a defamatory statement published or uttered over the facilities of the station or network of stations by a candidate for public office as to a person other than his opponent. (2) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the liability is limited to compensation for actual damages sustained. (b) Upon proof of actual malice on part of the owner, licensee, or operator of the broadcasting station or network of stations and his agents or employees, punitive damages may be assessed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 5-5A-01In force
§5–5A–01. (a) Except as otherwise provided by State law, a municipal corporation and its officers and units may not raise the defense of sovereign immunity in a court of the State in a contract action based on a written contract executed on behalf of the municipal corporation or its units by an official or employee acting within the scope of the official’s or employee’s authority. (b) In a contract action described in subsection (a) of this section, a municipal corporation and its officers and units are not liable for punitive damages. (c) A claim is barred unless the claimant files suit within the later of 1 year after: (1) The date on which the claim arose; or (2) The date of completion of the contract that gave rise to the claim. (d) The governing body of a municipal corporation shall make available adequate money to satisfy any final judgment, after any right of appeal is exhausted, against the municipal corporation or its officers or units in a contract action under this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 5-5A-02In force
§5–5A–02. (a) Except as otherwise provided by State law, a county and its officers and units may not raise the defense of sovereign immunity in a court of the State in a contract action based on a written contract executed on behalf of the county or its units by an official or employee acting within the scope of the official’s or employee’s authority. (b) In a contract action described in subsection (a) of this section, a county and its officers and units are not liable for punitive damages. (c) A claim is barred unless the claimant files suit within the later of 1 year after: (1) The date on which the claim arose; or (2) The date of completion of the contract that gave rise to the claim. (d) The governing body of a county shall make available adequate money to satisfy any final judgment, after any right of appeal is exhausted, against the county or its officers or units in a contract action under this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 5-512In force
§5–512. (a) The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission may raise the defense of partial governmental immunity for any liability exposure: (1) In excess of insurance limits; (2) If punitive damages are sought; or (3) For any other liability exposure not covered by insurance. (b) Nothing in this section may be construed to be a waiver of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission’s total governmental immunity. (c) This section is intended to include all claims pending on June 1, 1978, provided that an insurance policy to cover such liability was in effect at the time the claim accrued.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 5-1006In force
§5–1006. (a) (1) Any compensatory or punitive damages awarded to a prisoner in connection with a civil action shall be paid directly to satisfy any outstanding judgment of restitution or child support order pending against the prisoner. (2) If there are multiple judgments of restitution or child support orders pending against the prisoner, any compensatory damages shall be distributed against those judgments or orders on a pro rata basis. (3) (i) The State, the Department, and the Division of Correction may not be liable for any failure to credit an award as provided in this section. (ii) The State, the Department, the Division of Correction, and any county or municipality, through any authorized employee or official, may reclaim any money erroneously credited to a prisoner without judicial action in order to comply with this section. (b) If a prisoner is awarded compensatory or punitive damages for a civil action, the prisoner’s custodian shall notify, in writing, the victim or victims of the crime for which the prisoner is incarcerated and the recipient or recipients of any child support obligation for which the prisoner is responsible.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 11-109In force
§11–109. (a) (1) In this section, “economic damages” means loss of earnings and medical expenses. (2) “Economic damages” does not include punitive damages. (b) As part of the verdict in any action for damages for personal injury in which the cause of action arises on or after July 1, 1986 or for wrongful death in which the cause of action arises on or after October 1, 1994, the trier of fact shall itemize the award to reflect the monetary amount intended for: (1) Past medical expenses; (2) Future medical expenses; (3) Past loss of earnings; (4) Future loss of earnings; (5) Noneconomic damages; and (6) Other damages. (c) (1) The court or the health claims arbitration panel may order that all or part of the future economic damages portion of the award be paid in the form of annuities or other appropriate financial instruments, or that it be paid in periodic or other payments consistent with the needs of the plaintiff, funded in full by the defendant or the defendant’s insurer and equal when paid to the amount of the future economic damages award.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Maryland Code, State Government Article
§ 20-1013In forcecited in 3 of our articles
§20–1013. (a) (1) In addition to the right to make an election under § 20–1007 of this subtitle, a complainant may bring a civil action against the respondent alleging an unlawful employment practice, if: (i) the complainant initially filed a timely administrative charge or a complaint under federal, State, or local law alleging an unlawful employment practice by the respondent; (ii) at least 180 days have elapsed since the filing of the administrative charge or complaint; and (iii) 1. subject to item 2 of this item, the civil action is filed within 2 years after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred; or 2. if the complaint is alleging harassment, the civil action is filed within 3 years after the alleged harassment occurred. (2) The time limitations under paragraph (1)(iii) of this subsection shall be tolled while an administrative charge or complaint filed by the complainant under paragraph (1)(ii) is pending. (b) A civil action under this section shall be filed in the circuit court for the county where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Also relied on in: Maryland Workplace Harassment Laws: 2-Year Complaint Deadline (2026), Wrongful Termination in Maryland (2026): Laws, Deadlines, How to File
Maryland Code, Commercial Law Article
§ 11-1203In forcecited in 2 of our articles
§11–1203. (a) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. (b) Damages under this subtitle may include: (1) The actual loss caused by misappropriation; and (2) The unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. (c) In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret. (d) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Also relied on in: Maryland Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 12-707In force
§12–707. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 12–703 of this subtitle, any creditor who violates any provisions of this subtitle is liable to the applicant in an amount equal to the sum of any actual damages sustained by the applicant acting either in an individual capacity or as a representative of a class. (b) Any creditor who fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subtitle shall be liable to the aggrieved applicant for punitive damages in an amount not greater than $10,000, as determined by the court, in addition to any actual damages provided in subsection (a) of this section. In pursuing the recovery allowed under this subsection, the applicant may proceed only in an individual capacity and not as a representative of a class.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 11-1605In force
§11–1605. (a) In addition to any action by the Division or Attorney General authorized by Title 13 of this article, a target may bring an action in an appropriate court to recover for injury or loss sustained as a result of a violation of this subtitle. (b) If a target prevails in an action brought under this subtitle and is awarded damages, the court also may award: (1) Court costs and fees, including reasonable attorney’s fees; (2) Exemplary damages in an amount not to exceed the greater of: (i) $50,000; or (ii) Three times the total of damages, costs, and fees; and (3) Any equitable relief that the court considers appropriate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Maryland Code, Business Regulation Article
§ 6-509In force
§6–509. (a) The only persons liable under this section are: (1) charitable organizations; (2) charitable representatives; and (3) officers, directors, partners, or trustees of charitable organizations or charitable representatives. (b) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, a person who willfully fails to comply with a requirement of this title as to a charitable contribution made because of a charitable solicitation is liable to the donor of the charitable contribution for: (1) actual damages that the donor sustains because of the failure; (2) punitive damages that the court allows, not exceeding 3 times the actual damages; and (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action, if damages are awarded. (c) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, a person who is grossly negligent in failing to comply with a requirement of this title as to a charitable contribution made because of a charitable solicitation is liable to the donor of the charitable contribution for: (1) actual damages that the donor sustains because of the failure; and (2) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action, if damages are awarded.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Maryland Code, Health - General Article
§ 7-1103In force
§7–1103. (a) In this section, “custodian” means: (1) Executive officer or administrative head of a licensee, as defined in § 7-1001 of this title; (2) An individual who is responsible for the area where records on individuals who are served by a licensee, as defined in § 7-1001 of this title, are kept; or (3) Any individual who has or controls the record. (b) In addition to any damages recoverable in a court of general jurisdiction, a custodian of a record who discloses the record in violation of § 7-1010 of this title is liable to the individual whose records are disclosed unlawfully for punitive damages in an amount that does not exceed $500 plus reasonable attorney’s fees.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Maryland Code, Environment Article
§ 7-266.1In force
§7–266.1. (a) In addition to being subject to penalties under §§ 7-266 and 7-267 of this subtitle and cost recovery under § 7-221 of this subtitle, a responsible person who fails without sufficient cause to comply with a final order issued under this subtitle is subject to punitive damages, not exceeding three times the amount of any costs that are incurred by the State: (1) After the date of the final decision as provided in subsection (b) of this section; and (2) As a result of the responsible person’s failure to comply with the final order. (b) (1) Before seeking the punitive damages authorized by subsection (a) of this section, the Department shall issue to the responsible person a determination that the responsible person failed without sufficient cause to comply with a final order issued under this subtitle. (2) A responsible person subject to a determination issued by the Department under paragraph (1) of this subsection is entitled to a contested case hearing to determine whether the responsible person had sufficient cause for the failure to comply with the final order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 601 A.2d 633 (1992)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 11-108: Limitation on noneconomic damages(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 11-109: Economic damages(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, State Government 20-1013: Civil actions for unlawful employment practices(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Commercial Law 11-1203: Damages for misappropriation(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Business Regulation 6-509: Liability to donors(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Commercial Law 12-707: Creditor liability (credit discrimination)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Health-General 7-1103: Unlawful disclosure of records(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Environment 7-266.1: Punitive damages for noncompliance with controlled hazardous substance orders(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Commercial Law 11-1605: Remedies for targets of bad-faith patent infringement assertions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- 26 U.S.C. 104: Compensation for injuries or sickness(www.govinfo.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 5-1006: Damages awarded to prisoners(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Maryland General Assembly, 2026 Senate Bill 871: Civil Actions, Punitive Damage Awards, Surcharge(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 10-913: Evidence of financial means(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Embrey v. Holly, 293 Md. 128, 442 A.2d 966 (1982)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 3-904: Wrongful death action(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co., 267 Md. 149 (1972)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 5-522: Maryland Tort Claims Act exclusions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 5-303: Local government liability(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 5-5A-01: Municipal contract actions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 5-5A-02: County contract actions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 5-512: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 3-504: Broadcaster liability for candidates' defamatory statements(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- First National Bank of St. Mary's v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 283 Md. 228, 389 A.2d 360 (1978)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Montgomery Ward v. Wilson, 339 Md. 701 (1995)(static.case.law)
- Ellerin v. Fairfax Savings, F.S.B., 337 Md. 216 (1995)(static.case.law)
- Bowden v. Caldor, Inc., 350 Md. 4 (1998)(static.case.law)
- Komornik v. Sparks, 331 Md. 720 (1993)(static.case.law)
- Jones v. Flood, 351 Md. 120 (1998)(static.case.law)
- Md. Code, State Government 20-1009: Remedies and damages limits(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.