The Louisiana 2026 Regular Legislative Session began on March 9, 2026. Several bills aim to curb excessive damage awards in Louisiana tort cases. We discuss four of them below: HB526, SB361, HB118, and HB95.

HB526 and SB361

HB526 and SB361 are identical bills that propose to put an upper limit on what general damages a plaintiff can recover. General damages are “pain and suffering” type damages that are supposed to compensate an injured plaintiff for their non-monetary damages.

Both bills put a default $500,000.00 cap on the total general damages that can be recovered by all plaintiffs in a given tort action. The bills have three exceptions to the default $500,000.00 cap.

The first exception is if a plaintiff suffered a permanent mental injury that “severely impairs” their ability to work or enjoy a reasonable standard of living, then the total amount of general damages that can be recovered by all plaintiffs in a tort action is increased to $1,000,000.00.

The second exception removes all general damage caps if a plaintiff can show they suffered “permanent and severe physical injury” which includes one or more of the following:

1. substantial physical abnormality
2. disfigurement
3. loss of use of a limb
4. substantial impairment to a major body organ or system
5. an injury that renders them permanently incapable of independent self-care or their ability to perform life-sustaining activities

The third exception is if the plaintiff can show by clear and convincing evidence the one who committed the harm did so intentionally or maliciously.

HB118

HB118 also seeks to limit general damage awards and puts a blanket $5,000,000.00 cap on total recoverable general damages by any single plaintiff from any single defendant in a tort suit. While HB118’s cap is considerably larger than HB526 and SB361’s default cap of $500,000.00, HB118 has no exceptions for the parties to fight over.

HB526 and SB361’s exceptions would likely be a source of considerable litigation and require expert medical testimony regarding what constitutes a mental injury that “severely impairs” the plaintiff’s ability to work or what a “permanent and severe physical injury” is. It is not uncommon in a tort suit for a plaintiff and their treating doctor to point to pathology on their MRI as their source of pain when that same pathology is also common in adults without pain.

HB95

Unlike the above bills, HB95 proposes limiting a plaintiff’s past special damages. Special damages are economic damage that can be calculated with some reasonable certainty, like property damage, lost wages, and medical expenses.

HB95 proposes limiting a plaintiff’s recovery for past medical expenses to whatever their health insurance would have paid if the plaintiff had health insurance, but regardless of whether plaintiff used their health insurance. The current law, which went into effect just this year (1/1/26), limits a plaintiff’s past medical expenses to whatever their health insurer actually paid but does not require the plaintiff to use their insurance.

What’s Next

It remains to be seen if any of the above bills will make it out of their respective committees. We will monitor these bills as they make their way through the legislature and keep you updated.