In the case Freilich v. SEPTA, No. 10 EAP 2024 (Pa. Oct. 1, 2026) (Op. by Todd, C.J.) (dissenting Op. by Donohue, J. and McCaffery, J.) (concurring Ops. by Dougherty, J. and Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, rejected arguments that the $250,000.00 cap on awards for tort claims against the state were unconstitutional.
More specifically, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the argument that the state’s Sovereign Immunity Act enforcing the cap violated the constitutional right to a trial by a jury.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was injured when a SEPTA bus ran over her foot as she was walking in a crosswalk in downtown Philadelphia.
This case arose out of a personal injury litigation in which a stipulated jury verdict totaling $7million dollars had been entered. The Plaintiff also sought an additional $892,979.00 in delay damages against the Defendants. The trial court later granted a $250,000.00 settlement with SEPTA, consistent with the statutory cap. The Plaintiff’s retained their right to challenge the validity of the cap up the appellate ladder.
In coming to its decision, the Court reasoned that the statutory cap did not limit the availability or parameters of a trial by jury. Rather, the cap limited an injury party’s ultimate recovery.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court otherwise rejected arguments from the Plaintiff that the cap violated the state’s remedies clause under its constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the statute legislature’s power to determine how lawsuits can be brought against the state and, therefore, control the limits of liability damages.
As noted, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the statutory cap as being a valid part of Pennsylvania personal injury law relative to governmental agency defendants.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion for this decision may click this LINK.
Source: Article – “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds $250K Cap On Tort Claims Against State” By Cameryn Oakes of The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert (Oct. 1, 2026).
In coming to its decision, the Court reasoned that the statutory cap did not limit the availability or parameters of a trial by jury. Rather, the cap limited an injury party’s ultimate recovery.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court otherwise rejected arguments from the Plaintiff that the cap violated the state’s remedies clause under its constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the statute legislature’s power to determine how lawsuits can be brought against the state and, therefore, control the limits of liability damages.
As noted, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the statutory cap as being a valid part of Pennsylvania personal injury law relative to governmental agency defendants.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion for this decision may click this LINK.
The Concurring Opinion by Chief Justice Todd can be viewed HERE.
The Concurring Opinion by Justice Dougherty can be viewed HERE.
The Concurring Opinin by Justice Wecht can be viewed HERE.
The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Donohue can be viewed HERE.
Source: Article – “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds $250K Cap On Tort Claims Against State” By Cameryn Oakes of The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert (Oct. 1, 2026).
