Texas Punitive (Exemplary) Damages: Cap, Proof and Rules (2026)

Texas allows exemplary damages, its statutory name for punitive damages, only when a claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm resulted from fraud, malice or gross negligence, and only if the jury is unanimous on both liability and amount (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 41.003). Section 41.008 generally caps the award against each defendant at the greater of $200,000 or two times economic damages plus noneconomic damages found by the jury up to $750,000, but the cap does not apply to certain felonies committed knowingly or intentionally, to intoxication assault and intoxication manslaughter, for which the knowing-or-intentional requirement does not apply, or to methamphetamine-manufacture claims.

Health care death and survival claims, defamation cases, suits against government, employment discrimination claims and several insurance settings run on their own rules, covered below. 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 Texas state law on exemplary (punitive) damages in civil cases: Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 41, Texas Constitution article XVI, section 26, and the other Texas statutes and Texas Supreme Court decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages limits in health care cases generally (see Texas medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Texas wrongful death law), federal claims, Deceptive Trade Practices Act multiplied damages, or the many other statutes that authorize additional damages for particular claims beyond those named here.

Does Texas allow punitive damages?

Yes, under the name exemplary damages. Civil Practice and Remedies Code 41.001(5) defines exemplary damages as "any damages awarded as a penalty or by way of punishment but not for compensatory purposes" and adds that "'Exemplary damages' includes punitive damages." A Texas court, statute or jury charge that says exemplary damages means the same remedy other states call punitive damages.

Chapter 41 is the controlling statute. Section 41.002(c) provides that "in an action to which this chapter applies, the provisions of this chapter prevail over all other law to the extent of any conflict," except as provided in subsections (b) and (d). Section 41.002(b) adds that chapter 41 "establishes the maximum damages that may be awarded in an action subject to this chapter, including an action for which damages are awarded under another law of this state," and does not apply "to the extent another law establishes a lower maximum amount of damages for a particular claim." Under section 41.002(d), the chapter does not apply to the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act (Business and Commerce Code 15.21), to actions under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act "except as specifically provided in Section 17.50 of that Act," to actions under Human Resources Code chapter 36, or to actions under Insurance Code chapter 21.

Two threshold rules in section 41.004 limit the remedy further:

• "Except as provided by Subsection (b), exemplary damages may be awarded only if damages other than nominal damages are awarded" (41.004(a)).
• "Exemplary damages may not be awarded to a claimant who elects to have his recovery multiplied under another statute" (41.004(b)).

What must be proven: fraud, malice or gross negligence

Section 41.003(a) sets the standard:

"(a) Except as provided by Subsection (c), exemplary damages may be awarded only if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm with respect to which the claimant seeks recovery of exemplary damages results from: (1) fraud; (2) malice; or (3) gross negligence."

Section 41.003(b) adds that this burden of proof "may not be shifted to the defendant or satisfied by evidence of ordinary negligence, bad faith, or a deceptive trade practice." Ordinary negligence alone does not meet the standard.

Chapter 41 defines the two terms that do most of the work:

Malice "means a specific intent by the defendant to cause substantial injury or harm to the claimant" (41.001(7)).

Gross negligence "means an act or omission: (A) which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor at the time of its occurrence involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (B) of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others" (41.001(11)).

The gross negligence test has two parts joined by "and": an objective extreme degree of risk, and the defendant's actual, subjective awareness of that risk followed by conscious indifference.

Unanimous jury. Section 41.003(d) provides: "Exemplary damages may be awarded only if the jury was unanimous in regard to finding liability for and the amount of exemplary damages."

The Texas exemplary damages cap

Section 41.008(b) is the general cap:

"(b) Exemplary damages awarded against a defendant may not exceed an amount equal to the greater of: (1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus (B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or (2) $200,000."

The formula works per defendant ("awarded against a defendant"). In K&K Inez Properties, LLC v. Kolle, No. 24-0045 (Tex. May 22, 2026), the Texas Supreme Court held that when the jury apportions responsibility among defendants, the cap compares the exemplary award to "the amount of economic damages attributable to that defendant, based on the defendant's percentage of responsibility," not the total awarded against all defendants. It also held that where co-plaintiffs are awarded economic damages jointly as a single amount, the cap applies to each defendant based on that single amount.

Only the noneconomic component is limited to $750,000; the economic component is doubled without a ceiling, and the $200,000 figure is a floor for the cap, not a ceiling on the award.

The felony exception. Section 41.008(c) removes the cap for certain criminal conduct:

"(c) This section does not apply to a cause of action against a defendant from whom a plaintiff seeks recovery of exemplary damages based on conduct described as a felony in the following sections of the Penal Code if, except for Sections 49.07 and 49.08, the conduct was committed knowingly or intentionally"

The listed Penal Code provisions are:

• Section 19.02 (murder) and section 19.03 (capital murder)
• Section 20.04 (aggravated kidnapping)
• Section 22.02 (aggravated assault)
• Section 22.011 (sexual assault) and section 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault)
• Section 22.04 (injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual, "but not if the conduct occurred while providing health care as defined by Section 74.001")
• Section 32.21 (forgery), section 32.43 (commercial bribery) and section 32.45 (misapplication of fiduciary property or property of financial institution)
• Section 32.46 (fraudulent securing of document execution) and section 32.47 (fraudulent destruction, removal, or concealment of writing)
• Chapter 31 (theft) "the punishment level for which is a felony of the third degree or higher"
• Section 49.07 (intoxication assault) and section 49.08 (intoxication manslaughter)
• Section 21.02 (continuous sexual abuse of young child or disabled individual)
• Chapter 20A (trafficking of persons)

The exception is narrower than "no cap for crimes." The conduct must be described as a felony in one of those provisions, and for every item except intoxication assault and intoxication manslaughter it must have been committed knowingly or intentionally.

Methamphetamine claims. Under section 41.008(f), the cap "does not apply to a cause of action for damages arising from the manufacture of methamphetamine as described by Chapter 99."

The jury is not told. "The provisions of this section may not be made known to a jury by any means, including voir dire, introduction into evidence, argument, or instruction" (41.008(e)).

Other per-award rules. When there are two or more defendants, "an award of exemplary damages must be specific as to a defendant, and each defendant is liable only for the amount of the award made against that defendant" (41.006). "Prejudgment interest may not be assessed or recovered on an award of exemplary damages" (41.007). Chapter 33's proportionate responsibility rules do not apply to "a claim for exemplary damages included in an action to which this chapter otherwise applies" (33.002(c)(2)).

Drunk driving and commercial truck crashes

Intoxication assault (Penal Code 49.07) and intoxication manslaughter (Penal Code 49.08) are the two listed felonies that section 41.008(c) exempts from its knowing-or-intentional requirement. Where exemplary damages are sought based on conduct described as a felony in either section, the cap in section 41.008 does not apply. The section 41.003 requirements of clear and convincing proof of fraud, malice or gross negligence, and a unanimous jury, are not part of that exception.

Crashes involving commercial motor vehicles have their own trial structure. Chapter 72, subchapter B, applies to an action in which "a claimant seeks recovery of damages for bodily injury or death caused in a collision" and a defendant operated, or "owned, leased, or otherwise held or exercised legal control over," a commercial motor vehicle or its operator involved in the collision (72.051(2)). In those cases, "on motion by a defendant, the court shall provide for a bifurcated trial," and "the trier of fact shall determine liability for and the amount of exemplary damages in the second phase" (72.052(a), (d)). Section 72.053(c) preserves the claimant's right to pursue exemplary damages under chapter 41 "relating to the defendant's failure to comply with other applicable regulations or standards," and to present evidence on that claim in the second phase. For the compensatory side of these cases, see Texas truck accident law.

How the amount is decided

Bifurcated trial on request. "On motion by a defendant, the court shall provide for a bifurcated trial" (41.009(a)). In the first phase, the trier of fact determines "liability for compensatory and exemplary damages" and "the amount of compensatory damages" (41.009(c)). If exemplary liability is established, the trier of fact determines "in the second phase of the trial ... the amount of exemplary damages to be awarded, if any" (41.009(d)).

What the jury weighs. Under section 41.011(a), in determining the amount the trier of fact "shall consider evidence, if any, relating to" the nature of the wrong, the character of the conduct involved, the degree of culpability of the wrongdoer, the situation and sensibilities of the parties, the extent to which the conduct offends a public sense of justice and propriety, and the net worth of the defendant. Evidence relevant only to the amount is not admissible in the first phase of a bifurcated trial (41.011(b)). Subject to the cap, whether to award exemplary damages and how much is "within the discretion of the trier of fact" (41.010(b)).

Net worth discovery needs a court order. Under section 41.0115(a), "on the motion of a party and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant's net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages." The legislature added that gate in 2015.

Written appellate reasons. An appellate court that reviews the evidence on exemplary liability or on the amount awarded "shall state, in a written opinion, the court's reasons for upholding or disturbing the finding or award" (41.013(a)). In K&K Inez Properties v. Kolle (Tex. 2026), the Texas Supreme Court said a court of appeals that reduced the actual damages "should have reevaluated the exemplary damages or directed the trial court to do so on remand."

The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Texas 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.

Employer and corporate liability

Crimes committed by others. Section 41.005(a) provides that "in an action arising from harm resulting from an assault, theft, or other criminal act, a court may not award exemplary damages against a defendant because of the criminal act of another." Under section 41.005(b), that protection does not apply if, among other listed situations, the criminal act was committed by the defendant's employee or the defendant is criminally responsible as a party under Penal Code chapter 7.

When the criminal act was committed by an employee, section 41.005(c) allows punitive damages against the employer "but only if":

1. "the principal authorized the doing and the manner of the act";
2. "the agent was unfit and the principal acted with malice in employing or retaining him";
3. "the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment"; or
4. "the employer or a manager of the employer ratified or approved the act."

Corporate gross negligence. In Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1998), the Texas Supreme Court stated that "a corporation may be liable in punitive damages for gross negligence only if the corporation itself commits gross negligence," and that "a corporation is also liable if it commits gross negligence through the actions or inactions of a vice principal."

Exemplary damages in Texas wrongful death cases

Texas protects exemplary damages for homicide in its constitution. Article XVI, section 26 provides:

"Every person, corporation, or company, that may commit a homicide, through wilful act, or omission, or gross neglect, shall be responsible, in exemplary damages, to the surviving husband, widow, heirs of his or her body, or such of them as there may be, without regard to any criminal proceeding that may or may not be had in relation to the homicide."

The Wrongful Death Act repeats the remedy: "When the death is caused by the wilful act or omission or gross negligence of the defendant, exemplary as well as actual damages may be recovered" (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 71.009). The constitutional clause names the surviving spouse and the heirs of the decedent's body; who may bring the statutory action, and when, is covered on the Texas wrongful death page.

When the wrongdoer has died. Under section 71.021(b), a personal injury action "survives against the liable person and the person's legal representatives." In Hofer v. Lavender, 679 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1984), decided under the survival statute then in force, the Texas Supreme Court concluded "that under the Texas Survival Statute there exists a right to collect exemplary damages from the estate of a deceased tortfeasor."

Workplace deaths. Labor Code 408.001, the workers' compensation exclusive-remedy section, provides in subsection (b) that the section "does not prohibit the recovery of exemplary damages by the surviving spouse or heirs of the body of a deceased employee whose death was caused by an intentional act or omission of the employer or by the employer's gross negligence." Gross negligence there has the chapter 41 meaning (408.001(c)), and chapter 33's proportionate responsibility rules do not apply to "actions against an employer for exemplary damages arising out of the death of an employee" (33.002(c)(1)).

Medical malpractice: the health care death and survival cap

Section 74.303(a) sets a single limit that includes exemplary damages:

"(a) In a wrongful death or survival action on a health care liability claim where final judgment is rendered against a physician or health care provider, the limit of civil liability for all damages, including exemplary damages, shall be limited to an amount not to exceed $500,000 for each claimant, regardless of the number of defendant physicians or health care providers against whom the claim is asserted or the number of separate causes of action on which the claim is based."

Under section 74.303(c), that limit "does not apply to the amount of damages awarded on a health care liability claim for the expenses of necessary medical, hospital, and custodial care received before judgment or required in the future for treatment of the injury." Section 74.303(b) adjusts the $500,000 limit for inflation: it rises or falls with the federal CPI-W consumer price index measured from August 29, 1977, to the time damages are awarded by final judgment or settlement, so the limit applied in a given case is the indexed amount, not the $500,000 base. Noneconomic limits in health care injury cases are outside this page; see Texas medical malpractice law.

Insurance rules for health care providers are covered below.

Government defendants

Tort claims. The Texas Tort Claims Act, Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 101, waives immunity for some claims against governmental units, but section 101.024 provides: "This chapter does not authorize exemplary damages."

Contract and other claims. Several statutes exclude exemplary damages in other suits against government:

• Damages in an adjudication against a local governmental entity arising under a contract subject to the contract-claims subchapter of Local Government Code chapter 271 "may not include ... exemplary damages" (Local Gov't Code 271.153(b)).
• An award of damages in a contract claim against the state under Government Code chapter 2260 "may not include ... exemplary damages" (Gov't Code 2260.003(c)).
• When the legislature grants permission to sue the state by resolution, "the state does not grant permission to recover exemplary or punitive damages" (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 107.002(a)(10)).
• Damages in an adjudication against a state agency on a contract subject to Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 114 "may not include ... exemplary damages" (114.004(b)).
• Under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, "a claimant is not entitled to recover exemplary damages under this chapter" (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 110.005(b)).
• Punitive damages under the state employment discrimination statute are available against a respondent "other than a respondent that is a governmental entity" (Labor Code 21.2585(b)).

Defamation: the retraction request rule

Texas's Defamation Mitigation Act ties exemplary damages to the correction process:

• "If not later than the 90th day after receiving knowledge of the publication, the person does not request a correction, clarification, or retraction, the person may not recover exemplary damages" (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 73.055(c)).
• "If a correction, clarification, or retraction is made in accordance with this subchapter, regardless of whether the person claiming harm made a request, a person may not recover exemplary damages unless the publication was made with actual malice" (73.059).
• If no correction is made, a person who, without good cause, fails to disclose information the defendant requests under section 73.056(a) "may not recover exemplary damages, unless the publication was made with actual malice" (73.056(b)).

In a libel action, the defendant may also give evidence of "any public apology, correction, or retraction" and of "the intention with which the libelous publication was made," if specially pleaded, to mitigate exemplary damages (73.003). For the rest of the claim, see Texas defamation laws.

Other claim-specific limits

Several Texas statutes outside chapter 41 set their own exemplary damages rules for particular claims. When a statute authorizes exemplary damages in specified circumstances or on a specified mental state, the claimant must prove those by clear and convincing evidence (41.003(c)).

Employment discrimination. Under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, punitive damages require proof that the respondent "engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or with reckless indifference to the state-protected rights of an aggrieved individual" (Labor Code 21.2585(b)). Section 21.2585(d) caps the sum of compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses and nonpecuniary losses plus punitive damages, for each complainant:

Trade secrets. If willful and malicious misappropriation is proven by clear and convincing evidence, exemplary damages may not exceed twice any damages awarded under section 134A.004(a), which may include actual loss, unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 134A.004(b)).

Other statutes with a set measure. These statutes fix a ceiling or an exact amount for punitive or exemplary damages on their own claims:

• Credit discrimination prohibited by Finance Code 341.401: "punitive damages not to exceed $10,000 in an action brought by the aggrieved individual" (Fin. Code 341.402(a)(2)).
• A perpetual care cemetery that buries a person convicted of causing the death of someone interred there (or identified as causing it by the medical examiner or law enforcement and who died before conviction), after the written objection the statute allows (Health and Safety Code 712.009(b)): "punitive damages not to exceed $10,000" (712.009(c)(2)).
• Employment actions under Government Code 437.204 (reemployment of members of the state military forces): compensatory damages for future pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses plus punitive damages may not exceed, for each complainant, $50,000 to $300,000 by employer size, in the same four tiers as the table above (Gov't Code 437.416(d)).
• A third-party food delivery service that violates Business and Commerce Code chapter 118 knowingly or in bad faith: "exemplary damages in an amount that is not more than three times the sum of" the restaurant's actual damages and the service's profits from the violation (118.0005(b)(1)).
• The civil action under the partial-birth abortion subchapter: "exemplary damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion" (Health and Safety Code 171.104(a)(2)), a fixed amount rather than a ceiling.
• Wrongful removal under Property Code chapter 24B (removal of unauthorized occupants, added effective September 1, 2025): "exemplary damages equal to three times the fair market rent of the dwelling" (Prop. Code 24B.005(a)(2)(B)), also a fixed amount.

Workers' compensation carrier bad faith. "In an action against an insurance carrier for a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, recovery of exemplary damages is limited to the greater of: (1) four times the amount of actual damages; or (2) $250,000" (Labor Code 416.002(a)). In an action chapter 41 covers, its maximum still applies unless another law sets a lower one (41.002(b)). Such actions against a governmental entity or unit, or its employee, are governed by Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapters 101 and 104 (416.002(b)).

Data breaches at small businesses (2025). Business and Commerce Code chapter 542, added by S.B. 2610 effective September 1, 2025, applies to a business entity in Texas that "has fewer than 250 employees" and "owns or licenses computerized data that includes sensitive personal information" (542.002). Under section 542.003, a person harmed by a breach of system security "may not recover exemplary damages" from such an entity "if the entity demonstrates that at the time of the breach the entity implemented and maintained a cybersecurity program in compliance with Section 542.004."

Oil and gas waste. A claimant awarded damages for exposure to fluid oil and gas waste "for a tort premised solely on the person's negligence and regulatory nonconformity under Subsection (b)(2) may not be awarded exemplary damages" (Natural Resources Code 122.003(c)). Claims based on gross negligence or an intentional, wrongful act or omission fall under subsection (b)(1), which that bar does not name.

Windstorm insurance. The Texas Windstorm Insurance Association and its agents or representatives "may not be held liable for damages under Chapter 17, Business & Commerce Code, or, except as otherwise specifically provided by this chapter, under any provision of any law providing for additional damages, punitive damages, or a penalty" (Insurance Code 2210.572(c)).

Nursing homes and similar institutions. If exemplary damages are awarded under chapter 41 against an institution or its officer, employee or agent, "the court shall notify the department," which keeps the information in its records on the institution's history (Health and Safety Code 242.051). The section does not change the cap or the standard.

Wiretapping. The civil remedy for unlawful interception of communications allows "punitive damages in an amount determined by the court or jury," alongside statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 123.004). Code of Criminal Procedure article 18A.502 also allows punitive damages in its civil action.

Does insurance pay exemplary damages in Texas?

In Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 246 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008), answering a certified question, the Texas Supreme Court held "that the public policy of Texas does not prohibit insurance coverage of exemplary damages for gross negligence in the workers' compensation context." The court added that "without clear legislative intent to generally prohibit or allow the insurance of exemplary damages arising from gross negligence, we decline to make a broad proclamation of public policy here." The court thus found no clear legislative intent, as of 2008, to generally prohibit or allow insurance of exemplary damages arising from gross negligence.

The legislature has barred coverage in specific settings:

• A medical professional liability policy "issued to or renewed for a physician or health care provider in this state may not include coverage for exemplary damages," except that the commissioner may approve an endorsement providing that coverage for a hospital or a for-profit or not-for-profit nursing home or assisted living facility (Insurance Code 1901.252).
• The medical liability association under Insurance Code chapter 2203 may not issue or renew a policy for a physician or health care provider "that includes coverage for punitive damages" (2203.154).
• Coverage from the public entity excess pool (2208.303) and the nonprofit organizations liability pool (2209.303) "may not include coverage for punitive damages."
• Money in the funds of the child-care facility liability pool (2205.253(b)) and the county and educational entity excess liability pools (2207.353(c)) "may not be used to pay ... punitive damages."

Does Texas take a share of the award?

Chapter 41, sections 41.001 through 41.014, contains no provision sending any part of an exemplary award to the state or to a fund. The award is paid to the claimant, and each defendant is liable only for the amount awarded against it (41.006). The nursing home notice rule in Health and Safety Code 242.051 requires a report to the department named in chapter 242 (defined in 242.002 as the Department of Aging and Disability Services); it does not divert any money.

Texas exemplary damages at a glance

Recent changes

Recent changes affecting Texas exemplary damages:

• 2026: In K&K Inez Properties v. Kolle (May 22, 2026), the Texas Supreme Court held that the 41.008(b) cap is computed from the economic damages attributable to each defendant by its percentage of responsibility.
• 2025: S.B. 1333 added Property Code chapter 24B, effective September 1, 2025, which sets exemplary damages equal to three times the fair market rent for a wrongful removal (24B.005).
• 2025: S.B. 2610 added Business and Commerce Code chapter 542, effective September 1, 2025, barring exemplary damages against qualifying small businesses that maintained a compliant cybersecurity program at the time of a data breach.
• 2023: H.B. 2190 amended the commercial motor vehicle subchapter of chapter 72, effective September 1, 2023.
• 2021: H.B. 375 and S.B. 109 amended section 41.008, effective September 1, 2021, and H.B. 19 added the commercial motor vehicle bifurcation rules in chapter 72, effective September 1, 2021.
• 2015: S.B. 735 added section 41.0115, the court-order requirement for net worth discovery, effective September 1, 2015.

Related pages

• Punitive damages laws by state
• Texas wrongful death law
• Texas medical malpractice law
• Texas truck accident law
• Texas defamation laws

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

Last updated: 2026-10-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Texas allow punitive damages?

Yes. Texas calls them exemplary damages, and Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code chapter 41 allows them only when the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm resulted from fraud, malice or gross negligence, with a unanimous jury on liability and amount (41.003).

What is the cap on punitive damages in Texas?

Section 41.008(b) generally caps exemplary damages against a defendant at the greater of $200,000 or two times the economic damages attributable to that defendant plus noneconomic damages found by the jury up to $750,000. The cap does not apply to the felonies listed in 41.008(c) committed knowingly or intentionally, to intoxication assault or intoxication manslaughter, or to methamphetamine-manufacture claims, and health care death and survival claims fall under the separate all-damages limit in 74.303. Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, for example twice the award for trade secret misappropriation (134A.004(b)) and $10,000 for credit discrimination (Fin. Code 341.402).

Is there a cap on punitive damages for drunk driving in Texas?

The 41.008 cap does not apply when exemplary damages are based on conduct described as a felony in Penal Code 49.07 (intoxication assault) or 49.08 (intoxication manslaughter), and for those two sections the statute does not require that the conduct was committed knowingly or intentionally. The standard of proof in 41.003 still applies.

What is gross negligence in Texas?

Under Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 41.001(11), it is an act or omission that, viewed objectively from the actor's standpoint at the time, involves an extreme degree of risk, and of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

Are exemplary damages available in a Texas wrongful death case?

Article XVI, section 26 of the Texas Constitution and Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 71.009 allow exemplary damages when a death is caused by a wilful act or omission or gross negligence. In a health care liability death or survival action, 74.303 limits all damages, including exemplary damages, per claimant.

Does the state of Texas take part of a punitive damages award?

Chapter 41 contains no provision sending any part of an exemplary award to the state or a fund. When exemplary damages are awarded against a nursing home or similar institution, Health and Safety Code 242.051 requires the court to notify the department named in chapter 242 (defined in 242.002 as the Department of Aging and Disability Services), which keeps the information in the institution's records.

Are punitive damages available against the government in Texas?

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.024 provides that the Tort Claims Act does not authorize exemplary damages, and statutes covering contract claims against local governments and the state, suits the state permits by resolution, and Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims exclude them too.

Does insurance cover punitive damages in Texas?

The Texas Supreme Court found no clear legislative intent either way in 2008. In Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving (Tex. 2008) the Texas Supreme Court held that public policy does not prohibit coverage of exemplary damages for gross negligence in the workers' compensation context and declined to make a broad rule; Ins. Code 1901.252 bars that coverage in medical professional liability policies for physicians and health care providers, except approved endorsements for hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

Can a Texas employer be liable for punitive damages for an employee's crime?

Under Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 41.005(c), only if the employer authorized the act and its manner, acted with malice in employing or retaining an unfit agent, employed the agent in a managerial capacity acting in the scope of employment, or the employer or a manager ratified or approved the act.

Can a defamation plaintiff in Texas get exemplary damages?

Not if the person fails to request a correction, clarification, or retraction within 90 days after learning of the publication (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 73.055(c)). If a correction, clarification, or retraction is made under the statute, exemplary damages require proof that the publication was made with actual malice (73.059).