In a case alleging negligence and violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA), a jury awarded the plaintiff $2.3 million for injuries she suffered as a result of her exposure to lead-based paint. Pursuant to Maryland’s statutory limit on non-economic damages, the court reduced the award to $515,000.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the damages cap only applies to common law tort actions, not actions like this which arise under the CPA.
On 12/17/08, the NAM joined in an amicus brief with seven other organizations, urging the Maryland Court of Appeals (that state’s highest court) to affirm the lower court ruling that the statutory limit on non-economic damages applies to all cases involving personal injury.
On 7/22/09, the court ruled that the state's limit on noneconomic damages applies to personal injury actions brought under the CPA, whether the actions are based on statutory, constitutional or common law violations.
This case is another in a growing trend of cases in which plaintiffs are trying to convert product liability and negligence claims into consumer protection actions, so that they can avoid the higher standards of negligence and product liability law and recover statutory damages and attorneys fees not otherwise available. Courts should be extremely wary of expanding legal theories when plaintiffs confuse the elements of their claims and suggest that traditional legal duties are shifting under the law. Additionally, interpreting the statute so that the cap would only apply to common law torts, but not statutory or constitutional torts, would be contrary to the intent of the General Assembly and Governor, who were concerned about unpredictable awards and rising insurance premiums.