Pennsylvania Punitive Damages Laws: Cap, Proof and Rules (2026)

Pennsylvania allows punitive damages as a common-law remedy: the Pennsylvania Supreme Court applies the rule that they "may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others" (Hutchison v. Luddy, 582 Pa. 114 (2005)). Pennsylvania has no general punitive damages statute and no general cap; the main statutory cap, in section 505 of the MCARE Act (40 P.S. 1303.505), limits punitive damages against an individual physician to 200% of compensatory damages, except in cases alleging intentional misconduct, and section 505(e) sends 25% of the punitive portion of a health care verdict to the MCARE Fund.

Punitive damages are not available in a Wrongful Death Act claim itself, are not assessed against a Commonwealth agency such as SEPTA, and are authorized by statute for insurer bad faith and several other specific claims. 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 Pennsylvania state law on punitive damages in civil cases: the common-law rule as stated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, section 505 of the MCARE Act (40 P.S. 1303.505), and the other statutes, court rules and decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases generally (see Pennsylvania medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Pennsylvania wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.

Does Pennsylvania allow punitive damages?

Yes. Punitive damages in Pennsylvania come from the courts rather than from a general statute. In Hutchison v. Luddy, 582 Pa. 114, 870 A.2d 766 (2005), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court restated the rule it had applied in Feld v. Merriam (1984), which quoted section 908(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts:

"Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others."

The statutes that do mention punitive damages are claim-specific. They govern medical malpractice (MCARE section 505), insurer bad faith, arbitration, wiretapping, wrongful use of civil proceedings, follow-on actions under the 2024 protected public expression law, trade secrets, firearm safekeeping under a protection from abuse order, and the condominium, cooperative and planned community subparts of Title 68. None of them sets a general standard, burden, cap or state share for other cases.

What must be proven

Evil motive or reckless indifference. The conduct must be outrageous and must come from an evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others. Hutchison explained what reckless indifference requires:

"Thus, in Pennsylvania, a punitive damages claim must be supported by evidence sufficient to establish that (1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed and that (2) he acted, or failed to act, as the case may be, in conscious disregard of that risk."

Both parts are needed: the defendant's own appreciation of the risk, and conscious disregard of it.

Negligence-based claims are not categorically excluded. In the same case, the court rejected the lower court's view that punitive damages are never available for negligent supervision: "we reject the Superior Court's conclusion that punitive damages are unavailable, as a matter of law, in an action for negligent supervision." What matters is whether the evidence meets the subjective-appreciation and conscious-disregard test, not the label on the claim.

Burden of proof. No Pennsylvania statute requires clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages generally. In Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp., 508 Pa. 154 (1985), the opinion announcing the judgment (a plurality opinion, not a majority) described the trial judge's first step as deciding "whether the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to support a punitive damages claim, i.e., facts from which the jury might reasonably conclude that the preponderance of the evidence establishes outrageous conduct by the defendant."

Drunk driving. In Focht v. Rabada, 217 Pa. Super. 35, 268 A.2d 157 (1970), the Superior Court concluded that "under the appropriate circumstances, evidence of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors may constitute a sufficient ground for allowing punitive damages." The Hutchison standard still governs whether the evidence in a given case is enough. For the rest of a crash claim, see Pennsylvania car accident law.

Medical malpractice: the MCARE Act rules

Section 505 of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act 13 of 2002 (40 P.S. 1303.505), sets five rules for punitive damages against health care providers.

Standard. "Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is the result of the health care provider's willful or wanton conduct or reckless indifference to the rights of others. In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can properly consider the character of the health care provider's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the patient that the health care provider caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the health care provider" (505(a)).

Gross negligence is not enough. "A showing of gross negligence is insufficient to support an award of punitive damages" (505(b)).

Vicarious liability. "Punitive damages shall not be awarded against a health care provider who is only vicariously liable for the actions of its agent that caused the injury unless it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the party knew of and allowed the conduct by its agent that resulted in the award of punitive damages" (505(c)).

The cap, and a floor. Section 505(d) provides:

"Except in cases alleging intentional misconduct, punitive damages against an individual physician shall not exceed 200% of the compensatory damages awarded. Punitive damages, when awarded, shall not be less than $100,000 unless a lower verdict amount is returned by the trier of fact."

The 200% limit is written for an individual physician. The text does not extend it to other health care providers, and it does not apply in cases alleging intentional misconduct.

The state's share. Under section 505(e), "the punitive damages portion of the award shall be allocated as follows: (1) 75% shall be paid to the prevailing party; and (2) 25% shall be paid to the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund."

For compensatory damages, deadlines and other malpractice rules, see Pennsylvania medical malpractice law.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Pennsylvania?

No Pennsylvania statute sets a general cap on punitive damages. The MCARE limit in 505(d) is the main statutory cap, and it reaches only individual physicians in cases not alleging intentional misconduct. A few claim-specific statutes set their own limits: in a trade secrets case, exemplary damages for willful and malicious misappropriation may not exceed "twice any award made under subsection (a)" of that section (12 Pa.C.S. 5304(b)), and a third party who intentionally or knowingly violates the firearm-safekeeping statute is liable for punitive damages "in an amount not to exceed $5,000" (23 Pa.C.S. 6108.3(e)).

No required ratio at common law. In Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 521 Pa. 97, 555 A.2d 800 (1989), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated:

"Noticeably missing from Section 908(2) is any requirement that an award of punitive damages be proportional to compensatory damages. ... We are, however, cognizant that at some point the amount of punitive damages may be so disproportionate when compared to the character of the act, the nature and extent of the harm and the wealth of the defendant, that it will shock the court's sense of justice. In those rare instances, the court is given discretion to remit the damages to a more reasonable amount."

The defendant's wealth is part of that comparison, and a court may reduce an award that shocks its sense of justice. The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania take a share of the award?

No general statute does; in medical malpractice, MCARE section 505(e) sends 25% of the punitive portion of a verdict to the MCARE Fund and 75% to the prevailing party. No general Pennsylvania statute diverts any part of a punitive award in other kinds of cases to the state or a fund.

Punitive damages in Pennsylvania wrongful death cases

Pennsylvania splits a death case into two claims, and punitive damages follow only one of them. The Wrongful Death Act allows an action "to recover damages for the death of an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect or unlawful violence or negligence of another" (42 Pa.C.S. 8301(a)). The survival statute provides that "all causes of action or proceedings, real or personal, shall survive the death of the plaintiff or of the defendant" (8302).

In Harvey v. Hassinger, 315 Pa. Super. 97, 461 A.2d 814 (1983), the Superior Court drew the line:

"With respect to the wrongful death action it is clear that punitive damages are not allowed. ... In survival actions, however, being causes which the decedent could have asserted on his own behalf but for his death for injuries and loss inflicted upon him, we hold, as did Hennigan, that there appears to be no basis in precedent or in logic to exclude the punitive damages which the decedent could have sought had he not died."

So a punitive damages claim in a death case rides on the survival action, which asserts the claims the decedent could have brought. Who brings each claim, and the deadlines, are on the Pennsylvania wrongful death page.

Government defendants and public employees

Commonwealth agencies. In Feingold v. SEPTA, 512 Pa. 567, 517 A.2d 1270 (1986), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded "that it would be inappropriate to assess punitive damages against SEPTA given its status as a Commonwealth agency."

Commonwealth parties under sovereign immunity. Where immunity is waived, 42 Pa.C.S. 8528(b) limits damages to "$250,000 in favor of any plaintiff or $1,000,000 in the aggregate," and section 8528(c) provides that "damages shall be recoverable only for" past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity, pain and suffering, medical and dental expenses, loss of consortium, and property losses. Punitive damages are not among the listed categories.

Local agencies. Section 8553 limits damages against a local agency to "$500,000 in the aggregate" (8553(b)) and likewise limits recovery to listed categories, beginning with loss of earnings and earning capacity and pain and suffering in listed instances (8553(c)).

Local agency employees who commit willful misconduct. The rule is different for an individual employee. Under section 8550, where an employee's act "constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct," the provisions of sections 8545 (official liability generally), 8546 (defense of official immunity), 8548 (indemnity) and 8549 (limitation on damages) "shall not apply."

Insurer bad faith and other statutes that authorize punitive damages

Insurance bad faith. 42 Pa.C.S. 8371 provides: "In an action arising under an insurance policy, if the court finds that the insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured, the court may take all of the following actions: (1) Award interest on the amount of the claim from the date the claim was made by the insured in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus 3%. (2) Award punitive damages against the insurer. (3) Assess court costs and attorney fees against the insurer." The statute gives these powers to the court. The statute is limited to insurance policies and insurers: in Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. v. International Fidelity Insurance Co. (Pa. Feb. 18, 2026), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that section 8371 "applies only to 'insurance policies' and actions of an 'insurer.' It does not apply to surety bonds or actions of a surety."

Arbitration. An arbitrator "may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim" (42 Pa.C.S. 7321.22(a)). The award must state its factual and legal basis and "state separately the amount of the punitive damages or other exemplary relief" (7321.22(e)).

Wiretapping. A person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of Pennsylvania's wiretap chapter may recover actual damages "but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher," plus "punitive damages" and a reasonable attorney's fee (18 Pa.C.S. 5725(a)). Good faith reliance on a court order or the chapter is a defense (5725(c)).

Wrongful use of civil proceedings. A successful plaintiff may recover "punitive damages according to law in appropriate cases" (42 Pa.C.S. 8353(6)).

Protected public expression (2024). Act 72 of 2024 added a follow-on action in 42 Pa.C.S. 8320.1, which allows "punitive damages upon proof that the underlying action was commenced or continued for the sole purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing or maliciously inhibiting protected public expression" (8320.1(b)(2)). For the underlying claims, see Pennsylvania defamation laws.

Condominiums, cooperatives and planned communities. Under the condominium subpart of Title 68, "consequential, special or punitive damages may not be awarded except as specifically provided in this subpart or by other rule of law" (68 Pa.C.S. 3113(a)), and "punitive damages may be awarded in the case of a willful violation of the subpart" (3412). The cooperative and planned community subparts have parallel rules (68 Pa.C.S. 4113 and 4415, 5114 and 5412); the cooperative version allows punitive damages "for a willful failure to comply with this subpart" (4415).

Employment discrimination. In Hoy v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134, 720 A.2d 745 (1998), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held "that punitive damages are not available under" the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

How the claim is pleaded and tried

No dollar figure in the complaint. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1021(b), "any pleading demanding relief for unliquidated damages shall not claim any specific sum."

Separate trials are discretionary. No statute requires a separate punitive damages phase. Rule 213(b) lets the court, "in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice," order "a separate trial of ... any separate issue," on its own motion or on motion of any party.

Reviewing the amount. Under Kirkbride, a court compares the award to the character of the act, the nature and extent of the harm and the wealth of the defendant when deciding whether it shocks the court's sense of justice and should be remitted. In medical malpractice, MCARE section 505(a) lets the trier of fact consider the same three things.

Does insurance pay punitive damages in Pennsylvania?

Not for the insured's own outrageous conduct. In Butterfield v. Giuntoli, 448 Pa. Super. 1, 670 A.2d 646 (1995), the Superior Court stated that it "has held that a claim for punitive damages against a tortfeasor who is personally guilty of outrageous and wanton misconduct is excluded from coverage as a matter of law." It then held "that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude recovery of punitive damages where the insured is only vicariously liable for the damages," so the insurer in that case "had a duty to indemnify its insured, the Trustees, for punitive damages awarded on the basis of vicarious liability."

Pennsylvania punitive damages at a glance

Recent changes

Pennsylvania's punitive damages rules come mostly from older case law and the 2002 MCARE Act; section 505 carries no amendment note since its enactment by Act 13 of March 20, 2002. The most recent statutory change is Act 72 of 2024 (July 17, 2024), which added the punitive damages remedy in 42 Pa.C.S. 8320.1 for actions brought to harass or inhibit protected public expression.

Related pages

• Punitive damages laws by state
• Pennsylvania wrongful death law
• Pennsylvania medical malpractice law
• Pennsylvania defamation laws

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

Last updated: 2026-10-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Pennsylvania allow punitive damages?

Yes. Pennsylvania courts award punitive damages at common law for outrageous conduct arising from the defendant's evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others (Hutchison v. Luddy, 2005), and several statutes, including the MCARE Act for medical malpractice and 42 Pa.C.S. 8371 for insurer bad faith, address them for particular claims.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Pennsylvania?

No general cap. The main statutory cap is in medical malpractice: under 40 P.S. 1303.505(d), punitive damages against an individual physician may not exceed 200% of compensatory damages, except in cases alleging intentional misconduct. A few claim-specific statutes, such as the trade secrets act (12 Pa.C.S. 5304(b)), set their own limits. Separate overall damages limits apply to claims against Commonwealth parties and local agencies (42 Pa.C.S. 8528, 8553).

What do you have to prove to get punitive damages in Pennsylvania?

Under Hutchison v. Luddy (2005), the evidence must show that the defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to the plaintiff and acted, or failed to act, in conscious disregard of that risk. In medical malpractice, 40 P.S. 1303.505 requires willful or wanton conduct or reckless indifference and provides that gross negligence is insufficient.

Are punitive damages available in a Pennsylvania wrongful death case?

Not in the Wrongful Death Act claim itself. The Superior Court held in Harvey v. Hassinger (1983) that punitive damages are not allowed in the wrongful death action but may be recovered in the survival action, which asserts the claims the decedent could have brought.

Does Pennsylvania take part of a punitive damages award?

No general statute does. In medical malpractice cases, MCARE section 505(e) pays 75% of the punitive portion of a verdict to the prevailing party and 25% to the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund. No general Pennsylvania statute sends a share of other punitive awards to the state.

Does insurance cover punitive damages in Pennsylvania?

Generally not for the insured's own conduct. The Superior Court in Butterfield v. Giuntoli (1995) described punitive damages against a tortfeasor personally guilty of outrageous and wanton misconduct as excluded from coverage as a matter of law, and held that public policy does not preclude coverage where the insured is only vicariously liable.

Are punitive damages available for insurance bad faith in Pennsylvania?

Yes. Under 42 Pa.C.S. 8371, in an action arising under an insurance policy, if the court finds the insurer acted in bad faith toward the insured, the court may award punitive damages, interest at the prime rate plus 3%, and court costs and attorney fees.

Are punitive damages available against a government agency in Pennsylvania?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Feingold v. SEPTA (1986) that it would be inappropriate to assess punitive damages against SEPTA given its status as a Commonwealth agency. The sovereign immunity damages statute, 42 Pa.C.S. 8528(c), lists the recoverable categories of damages, and punitive damages are not among them; the local agency statute, 8553(c), also limits recovery to listed categories.

Is there a required ratio between punitive and compensatory damages in Pennsylvania?

Not at common law. In Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors (1989), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that Restatement section 908(2) contains no proportionality requirement, while recognizing that a court may remit an award so disproportionate that it shocks the court's sense of justice. The MCARE Act sets a 200% limit for individual physicians, except in cases alleging intentional misconduct.