Ohio Punitive Damages Laws: Cap, Proof and Exceptions (2026)

Ohio allows punitive damages, which its statutes also call exemplary damages, in tort actions only when a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice or aggravated or egregious fraud (Ohio Revised Code 2315.21(C), (D)(4)). Section 2315.21(D)(2) generally caps the award at two times the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff from that defendant, with a lower limit for small employers and individuals. The felony-conviction exception in 2315.21(D)(6) lifts the cap, and some statutes for particular claims set their own rules and limits.

R.C. 2315.21 sends no part of the award to the state. Punitive damages are not available in the wrongful-death claim itself or against political subdivisions, and covered liability insurance policies may not pay them. 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 Ohio state law on punitive damages in civil cases: R.C. 2315.21, the product liability rule in R.C. 2307.80, and the other statutes and Ohio Supreme Court decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages limits (for medical claims, see Ohio medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Ohio wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.

Does Ohio allow punitive damages?

Yes, in tort actions, under the conditions R.C. 2315.21 sets. Ohio's statutes use "punitive or exemplary damages" as one phrase, so the two terms mean the same thing. The Ohio Supreme Court's working standard comes from Preston v. Murty, 32 Ohio St.3d 334 (1987), which defined the actual malice "necessary for an award of punitive damages."

R.C. 2315.21(A)(1) defines the actions it covers broadly:

"'Tort action' means a civil action for damages for injury or loss to person or property."

That definition expressly includes a product liability claim, an employment discrimination action brought under R.C. 4112.052, and an action brought under R.C. 4112.14. It "does not include a civil action for damages for a breach of contract or another agreement between persons."

Under R.C. 2315.21(E), the section does not apply to tort actions against the state in the Court of Claims (including actions against state universities and colleges subject to R.C. 3345.40), to tort actions against political subdivisions under Chapter 2744, or to the extent another section of the Revised Code expressly provides a different basis for punitive damages, a different burden of proof, or that punitive damages are not recoverable.

What must be proven

The conduct. R.C. 2315.21(C) provides:

"(C) Subject to division (E) of this section, punitive or exemplary damages are not recoverable from a defendant in question in a tort action unless both of the following apply: (1) The actions or omissions of that defendant demonstrate malice or aggravated or egregious fraud, or that defendant as principal or master knowingly authorized, participated in, or ratified actions or omissions of an agent or servant that so demonstrate. (2) The trier of fact has returned a verdict or has made a determination pursuant to division (B)(2) or (3) of this section of the total compensatory damages recoverable by the plaintiff from that defendant."

Both conditions must be met, so a plaintiff who recovers no compensatory damages from a defendant cannot recover punitive damages from that defendant.

What malice means. The statute does not define malice. In Preston v. Murty, the Ohio Supreme Court held:

"We therefore hold that actual malice, necessary for an award of punitive damages, is (1) that state of mind under which a person's conduct is characterized by hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge, or (2) a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons that has a great probability of causing substantial harm."

The court added: "A second principle inherent in the award of punitive damages is that something more than mere negligence is always required."

Burden of proof. Under R.C. 2315.21(D)(4), "the burden of proof shall be upon a plaintiff in question, by clear and convincing evidence, to establish that the plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages."

Employers and principals. Under 2315.21(C)(1), an employer or other principal can owe punitive damages for an agent's or servant's conduct when it "as principal or master knowingly authorized, participated in, or ratified" acts or omissions that demonstrate malice or aggravated or egregious fraud.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Ohio?

Yes. R.C. 2315.21(D)(2) sets a general cap that applies "except as provided in division (D)(6)":

"(a) The court shall not enter judgment for punitive or exemplary damages in excess of two times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff from that defendant, as determined pursuant to division (B)(2) or (3) of this section. (b) If the defendant is a small employer or individual, the court shall not enter judgment for punitive or exemplary damages in excess of the lesser of two times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff from the defendant or ten per cent of the employer's or individual's net worth when the tort was committed up to a maximum of three hundred fifty thousand dollars, as determined pursuant to division (B)(2) or (3) of this section. (c) Any attorney's fees awarded as a result of a claim for punitive or exemplary damages shall not be considered for purposes of determining the cap on punitive damages."

Three points follow from the text. The multiple is measured against the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff from that particular defendant. The small-employer and individual limit uses net worth when the tort was committed. And attorney's fees awarded because of the punitive claim do not count toward the cap.

Who is a small employer. R.C. 2315.21(A)(5) defines a small employer as "an employer who employs not more than one hundred persons on a full-time permanent basis," or, for an employer classified in the manufacturing sector by the North American industrial classification system, "not more than five hundred persons on a full-time permanent basis." Under 2315.21(A)(4), "employer" includes a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, division, or department of the employer, and an individual counts as an employer only if the suit relates to the individual's capacity as an employer.

The felony exception. Under R.C. 2315.21(D)(6), the cap in (D)(2) "does not apply to a tort action where the alleged injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the defendant acting with one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in section 2901.22 of the Revised Code and when the defendant has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a criminal offense that is a felony, that had as an element of the offense one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in that section, and that is the basis of the tort action." Each part is required: the culpable mental state behind the injury, a felony conviction or guilty plea with that mental state as an element, and that offense being the basis of the civil suit.

Prior awards for the same conduct. Under R.C. 2315.21(D)(5)(a), "except as provided in division (D)(5)(b) or (6) of this section, punitive or exemplary damages shall not be awarded against a defendant if that defendant files with the court a certified judgment, judgment entries, or other evidence showing that punitive or exemplary damages have already been awarded and have been collected, in any state or federal court, against that defendant based on the same act or course of conduct" and the earlier awards together exceed the maximum the defendant could owe under (D)(2) in the current case. Under (D)(5)(b), a later award is still possible if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff will offer new and substantial evidence of previously undiscovered additional misconduct, or that the earlier awards were "totally insufficient" to punish and deter. The court then reduces the new award by the sum of the earlier awards, and the jury is not told.

No prejudgment interest on punitive damages. "No award of prejudgment interest under division (C)(1) of section 1343.03 of the Revised Code shall include any prejudgment interest on punitive or exemplary damages found by the trier of fact" (2315.21(D)(3)).

The trial court's jurisdiction stops at the cap. R.C. 2305.01 provides that the court of common pleas "shall not have jurisdiction, in any tort action to which the amounts apply, to award punitive or exemplary damages that exceed the amounts set forth in section 2315.21 of the Revised Code." A small claims division has no jurisdiction over actions for the recovery of punitive or exemplary damages (R.C. 1925.02(A)(2)(a)(iii)).

No punishing through compensatory damages. When a court reviews a noneconomic damages award, one question under R.C. 2315.19(A)(1)(c) is whether the evidence "resulted in the improper consideration of the misconduct of the defendant so as to punish the defendant improperly or in circumvention of the limitation on punitive or exemplary damages as provided in section 2315.21 of the Revised Code."

The cap was upheld. In Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "R.C. 2315.21 does not violate the right to a trial by jury, the right to a remedy, the right to an open court, the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection of the laws, or the separation of powers, and is therefore constitutional on its face." The challenge in Arbino was a facial one.

Claim-specific limits. Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits. Under R.C. 1333.63(B), if willful and malicious misappropriation of a trade secret exists, the court may award punitive or exemplary damages "in an amount not exceeding three times any award made under division (A)." Under R.C. 1335.11(D), a principal that fails to pay a sales representative's commissions on time after termination is liable for exemplary damages "in an amount not to exceed three times the amount of the commissions owed" if the representative proves willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct or bad faith. Under R.C. 4981.033(C), the liability for damages for harm, "including any punitive damages," of a railroad company or other entity over whose tracks another operates passenger rail service may not exceed the limits of the liability coverage maintained by the passenger rail operator. Under 4981.033(D), the passenger operator's duty in division (A) to indemnify the host railroad does not apply if the host railroad or other entity "committed an act or omission with reckless, wanton, willful, or gross negligence and the act or omission proximately caused the harm in question."

The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Ohio verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them.

Does Ohio take a share of the award?

No general statute does. R.C. 2315.21 contains no provision directing any part of a punitive award to the state or a fund; its rules on the amount are the cap, the prior-award offset in (D)(5) and the bar on prejudgment interest in (D)(3). The product liability section, R.C. 2307.80, and the nursing home residents' statute, R.C. 3721.17, contain no such allocation either.

How the amount is decided at trial

Bifurcation on request. Under R.C. 2315.21(B)(1), in a jury trial of a tort action with claims for both compensatory and punitive damages, "upon the motion of any party, the trial of the tort action shall be bifurcated." The first stage relates "only to the presentation of evidence, and a determination by the jury, with respect to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages," and during it no party may present "evidence that relates solely to the issue of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages."

Who decides. "In a tort action, the trier of fact shall determine the liability of any defendant for punitive or exemplary damages and the amount of those damages" (2315.21(D)(1)). The cap in (D)(2) is written as a limit on the judgment the court enters.

The jury is not told about the cap. Under R.C. 2315.21(F), "the court shall not instruct the jury with respect to the limits on punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to division (D) of this section, and neither counsel for any party or a witness shall inform the jury or potential jurors of those limits."

Tax instruction. R.C. 2315.01(B) provides that "in all tort actions, the court shall instruct the jury regarding the extent to which an award of compensatory damages or punitive or exemplary damages is or is not subject to taxation under federal or state income tax laws." Under federal law, the income exclusion for damages received on account of personal physical injuries covers "the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages)" (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2)); the personal injury settlement amounts guide covers taxes.

Nursing homes and residential facilities. When the defendant is a home or a residential facility licensed under R.C. 5123.19, R.C. 2315.21(G) requires the trier of fact to consider the ability of the home or facility to pay "based on the home's or residential facility's assets, income, and net worth," whether the amount "is sufficient to deter future tortious conduct," and its financial ability, both currently and in the future, to provide accommodations, personal care services and skilled nursing care. Separately, R.C. 3721.17(G)(2)(b) provides that "if compensatory damages are awarded for a violation of the resident's rights, section 2315.21 of the Revised Code shall apply to an award of punitive or exemplary damages for the violation."

Product liability claims

Punitive damages in a product case run through a separate section. R.C. 2307.72(B) provides that "any recovery of punitive or exemplary damages in connection with a product liability claim is subject to sections 2307.71 to 2307.80 of the Revised Code."

Standard. Under R.C. 2307.80(A), punitive damages "shall not be awarded against a manufacturer or supplier in question in connection with a product liability claim unless the claimant establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that harm ... was the result of misconduct of the manufacturer or supplier in question that manifested a flagrant disregard of the safety of persons who might be harmed by the product in question." The statute adds: "The fact by itself that a product is defective does not establish a flagrant disregard of the safety of persons who might be harmed by that product."

The court sets the amount. In a product liability claim, "the amount of those damages shall be determined by the court" (2307.80(B)). The court must consider factors including the likelihood of serious harm, the defendant's awareness of it, the profitability and duration of the misconduct and any concealment, the defendant's conduct after discovery, its financial condition, and other punishment imposed or likely, including punitive awards to similarly situated claimants and criminal penalties (2307.80(B)(1)-(7)).

FDA-approved drugs and devices. Under 2307.80(C)(1), when a claimant alleges that a drug or device caused harm, the manufacturer "shall not be liable for punitive or exemplary damages" if, among other listed grounds, the drug or device "was manufactured and labeled in relevant and material respects in accordance with the terms of an approval or license issued by the federal food and drug administration." That protection does not apply if the claimant establishes, "by a preponderance of the evidence, that the manufacturer fraudulently and in violation of applicable regulations of the food and drug administration withheld from the food and drug administration information known to be material and relevant to the harm" (2307.80(C)(2)).

Other products meeting government standards. For a product other than a drug or device, R.C. 2307.80(D)(1) bars punitive damages if the manufacturer or supplier "fully complied with all applicable government safety and performance standards" when the product left its control and the injury results from an alleged defect for which there is an applicable government safety or performance standard. The bar does not apply if the claimant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the manufacturer or supplier fraudulently withheld material information from, or misrepresented it to, the agency (2307.80(D)(2)).

The general rules still apply. R.C. 2307.80(E) applies the bifurcated trial provisions of 2315.21(B), the 2315.21 ceiling on recoverable punitive damages, and the prejudgment-interest rule of 2315.21(D)(3) to product liability awards.

Punitive damages in Ohio wrongful death cases

Not in the wrongful-death claim itself. Ohio's wrongful-death statute provides that "compensatory damages may be awarded in a civil action for wrongful death," and lists loss of support, loss of services, loss of society, loss of prospective inheritance and the mental anguish of the surviving spouse, dependent children, parents or next of kin (R.C. 2125.02(D)). It contains no provision for punitive damages.

In Rubeck v. Huffman, 54 Ohio St.2d 20 (1978), the Ohio Supreme Court explained:

"Since punitive damages are 'assessed over and above that amount adequate to compensate an injured party' (Ranells v. Cleveland [1975], 41 Ohio St. 2d 1, 7), they are, by definition, not available in a wrongful-death action. ... if Paul Rubeck alleged and proved that the deceased suffered personal injury or property loss as a result of the collision and before he died, the trial court's award of punitive damages should be upheld."

Finding no such proof in the record, the court reversed the award.

The route is the survival claim. Under R.C. 2305.21, in addition to the causes of action that survive at common law, causes of action "for mesne profits, or injuries to the person or property, or for deceit or fraud, also shall survive." Rubeck ties punitive damages on that claim to proof that the decedent suffered injury or loss before death. The court decided Rubeck under an earlier version of R.C. 2125.02; the current version, effective April 4, 2023, still speaks only of compensatory damages. Who brings the claims, and the deadlines, are on the Ohio wrongful death page.

Drunk driving and crimes

R.C. 2315.21 contains no exception for intoxicated drivers, so a drunk-driving case is subject to the same malice standard, clear and convincing burden and cap as any other tort action. The cap is lifted only if the (D)(6) conditions are met: injury resulting from the defendant acting purposely or knowingly, and a felony conviction or guilty plea, with that mental state as an element, that is the basis of the tort action.

For harm caused by a crime generally, R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) provides that "anyone injured in person or property by a criminal act" may recover full damages in a civil action and "may recover punitive or exemplary damages if authorized by section 2315.21 or another section of the Revised Code." For the rest of a crash claim, see Ohio car accident law.

Medical malpractice claims

Ohio's medical claim damages statute, R.C. 2323.43, contains no punitive damages provision, and R.C. 2315.21's definition of tort action excludes only contract claims. A punitive claim in a medical case is therefore subject to the general standard, burden and cap in 2315.21. For the noneconomic damages limits and other malpractice rules, see Ohio medical malpractice law.

Government defendants and public employees

Political subdivisions. R.C. 2744.05 provides: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Revised Code or rules of a court to the contrary, in an action against a political subdivision to recover damages for injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by an act or omission in connection with a governmental or proprietary function: (A) Punitive or exemplary damages shall not be awarded."

State universities and colleges. In claims against a state university or college covered by R.C. 3345.40, "punitive or exemplary damages shall not be awarded."

The Court of Claims. R.C. 2315.21 itself does not apply to tort actions against the state in the Court of Claims (2315.21(E)).

Employees sued personally. A political subdivision must indemnify an employee for "any judgment, other than a judgment for punitive or exemplary damages," obtained against the employee for injury, death or loss caused by an act or omission in connection with a governmental or proprietary function (R.C. 2744.07(B)(1)). For state officers and employees, R.C. 9.87(B)(3) bars indemnification "for any portion of a judgment that represents punitive or exemplary damages, except that this prohibition does not apply if the employer of the officer or employee and the attorney general determine that the acts or omissions of the officer or employee were not within the terms of division (B)(2) of this section," and under 9.87(F)(2) the officer or employee may not sue the employer over a refusal to indemnify punitive damages.

Peace officers performing chemical-test duties. Under R.C. 4506.17, except for civil actions arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle and actions in which the state is a plaintiff, no peace officer "is liable in punitive or exemplary damages" for injury, death or loss caused in performing official duties under that section, "unless the officer's actions were manifestly outside the scope of the officer's employment or official responsibilities, or unless the officer acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner."

Other Ohio statutes that authorize punitive damages

Wiretapping and electronic surveillance. In a civil action under R.C. 2933.65(A), a person whose communications were intercepted in violation of Ohio law may recover the greater of liquidated damages ("two hundred dollars per day for each day of violation or liquidated damages of ten thousand dollars, whichever is greater") or actual damages plus the violator's profits, and "punitive damages, if appropriate."

Housing discrimination. In a civil action under R.C. 4112.055, the court "may grant other relief that it considers appropriate, including a permanent or temporary injunction, a temporary restraining order, or other order and punitive damages" (4112.055(D)).

Unlawful liquor sales. Under R.C. 4399.02, a building owner or lessee who knows intoxicating liquors are to be sold on the premises in violation of law is liable with the seller "for all damages sustained, as well as exemplary damages."

Employment discrimination. Employment discrimination actions under R.C. 4112.052 and actions under R.C. 4112.14 are tort actions under 2315.21(A)(1), so the 2315.21 standard and cap apply to punitive claims in them.

Does insurance pay punitive damages in Ohio?

Generally not. R.C. 3937.182(B) provides that no policy of automobile or motor vehicle insurance covered by R.C. 3937.01 to 3937.17 (including uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage) and issued by a licensed insurer, "and no other policy of casualty or liability insurance that is covered by sections 3937.01 to 3937.17 of the Revised Code and that is so issued, shall provide coverage for judgments or claims against an insured for punitive or exemplary damages." Under 3937.182(C), the rule "applies only to policies ... that are issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this section," which was October 31, 2001.

In Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, 125 Ohio St.3d 327, 2010-Ohio-1829, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that "public policy prevents insurance contracts from insuring against claims for punitive damages based upon an insured's malicious conduct," and held that "public policy does not prevent an insurance company from covering attorney fees on behalf of an insured when they are awarded solely as a result of an award for punitive damages."

Ohio punitive damages at a glance

Recent changes and pending bills

The current version of R.C. 2315.21 took effect on April 15, 2021, through House Bill 352 of the 133rd General Assembly; the prior version took effect on April 7, 2005, through Senate Bill 80. R.C. 2307.80 has been in its current form since April 7, 2005. R.C. 2125.02 was most recently amended effective April 4, 2023, and still provides only for compensatory damages.

Two bills in the 136th General Assembly, House Bill 447 and Senate Bill 292, would amend R.C. 2305.01, 2307.80, 2315.18, 2315.21, 2323.43, 2744.05 and 3345.40 "to increase the dollar caps on noneconomic damages and punitive or exemplary damages." On October 18, 2026, House Bill 447 had not moved past House committee and Senate Bill 292 had not moved past Senate committee. Neither is law, and the caps described on this page remain in effect.

Related pages

• Punitive damages laws by state
• Ohio wrongful death law
• Ohio medical malpractice law
• Ohio car accident law

This article provides general legal information about Ohio punitive damages law as of 2026-10-18. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Ohio.

Last updated: 2026-10-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Ohio allow punitive damages?

Yes, in tort actions. Under R.C. 2315.21(C), punitive or exemplary damages are recoverable only if the defendant's conduct shows malice or aggravated or egregious fraud (or the defendant knowingly authorized, participated in, or ratified an agent's conduct that does) and the plaintiff has been awarded compensatory damages against that defendant. The section's definition of tort action excludes breach-of-contract claims.

What is the cap on punitive damages in Ohio?

Generally two times the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff from that defendant. For a small employer or an individual, the limit is the lesser of that amount or 10% of net worth when the tort was committed, up to a maximum of $350,000 (R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)). The cap does not apply when the injury resulted from the defendant acting purposely or knowingly and the defendant was convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, a felony with that mental state as an element that is the basis of the suit (2315.21(D)(6)). Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, such as punitive or exemplary damages of not more than three times any award made under R.C. 1333.63(A) for willful and malicious trade-secret misappropriation (1333.63(B)).

What counts as a small employer under the Ohio punitive damages cap?

Under R.C. 2315.21(A)(5), an employer with not more than 100 full-time permanent employees, or not more than 500 if the employer is classified in the manufacturing sector by the North American industrial classification system. An employer includes a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, division, or department of the employer (2315.21(A)(4)).

What must be proven to get punitive damages in Ohio?

Malice or aggravated or egregious fraud, proven by clear and convincing evidence (R.C. 2315.21(C), (D)(4)). The Ohio Supreme Court defined actual malice in Preston v. Murty (1987) as hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge, or a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others that has a great probability of causing substantial harm, and said something more than mere negligence is always required.

Are punitive damages available in an Ohio wrongful death case?

Not in the wrongful-death claim itself. The Ohio Supreme Court said in Rubeck v. Huffman (1978) that punitive damages are by definition not available in a wrongful-death action, but that a punitive award could be upheld on the survival claim if the decedent suffered personal injury or property loss before death. R.C. 2125.02(D) provides for compensatory damages in wrongful-death actions.

Does a drunk driving case lift the Ohio punitive damages cap?

R.C. 2315.21 has no exception for intoxicated drivers. The cap is lifted only under 2315.21(D)(6), which requires that the injury resulted from the defendant acting purposely or knowingly and a felony conviction or guilty plea, with that mental state as an element, that is the basis of the suit.

Does Ohio take a share of punitive damages awards?

No general statute does. R.C. 2315.21 contains no provision sending any part of a punitive award to the state or a fund, and the product liability section (R.C. 2307.80) has none either.

Does insurance cover punitive damages in Ohio?

Generally not. R.C. 3937.182 bars covered auto and other casualty or liability policies issued or renewed on or after October 31, 2001 from covering punitive damages, and the Ohio Supreme Court said in Neal-Pettit v. Lahman (2010) that public policy prevents insuring punitive damages based on malicious conduct. The same case held that attorney fees awarded solely because of a punitive award may be insured.

Are punitive damages available against an Ohio city or county?

No. R.C. 2744.05(A) provides that punitive or exemplary damages shall not be awarded in an action against a political subdivision for injury, death or loss caused by an act or omission in connection with a governmental or proprietary function. R.C. 3345.40 has a similar rule for claims against state universities and colleges.

Who decides the amount of punitive damages in Ohio?

In most tort actions the trier of fact decides liability and the amount (R.C. 2315.21(D)(1)), and the court applies the cap at judgment; a jury is not told about the cap (2315.21(F)). In product liability claims the court determines the amount, considering factors that include the defendant's financial condition and other punishment imposed (R.C. 2307.80(B)).