A Jury Trial Right Without a Meaningful Opportunity?
In a long-awaited decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the Commonwealth’s $250,000 damages cap against a constitutional challenge. The ruling in Freilich v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 10 EAP 2024 (Pa. Oct. 1, 2026) addresses an issue that has frustrated plaintiffs’ attorneys for decades. Furthermore, the case highlights a massive gap between the severe harm a government agency can cause and the limited compensation an injured person can collect.
Hayley Freilich suffered a partial foot amputation after a SEPTA bus struck her in a crosswalk. SEPTA admitted liability, and the parties agreed to a $7 million stipulated verdict. Afterward, SEPTA moved to mold that verdict to the statutory cap of $250,000. The courts granted the reduction, strictly limiting her financial recovery.
This damages ceiling governs ordinary negligence claims against PennDOT, SEPTA, and other Commonwealth agencies. Enacted in 1978, the statutory cap under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8528(b) limits recovery to $250,000 per plaintiff, with a $1 million aggregate limit per incident. Over nearly five decades, steady inflation and rising medical costs have severely eroded the protection that amount provides.
Consequently, a catastrophic collision caused by a negligently designed roadway or transit vehicle can result in severe injuries, tragic deaths, and extensive property damage. In fact, medical expenses and funeral costs frequently surpass $250,000 long before accounting for lost earnings, disfigurement, or non-economic pain and suffering.
A Deprivation in Practice?
Freilich argued that the cap violated Pennsylvania’s constitutional guarantees regarding jury trials and access to a remedy. However, the Court rejected those arguments as applied to her specific circumstances. In doing so, the Justices drew a strict distinction between the trial process and the final monetary recovery. Specifically, the cap does not prevent a plaintiff from presenting evidence or obtaining a jury verdict; instead, it merely limits what the plaintiff can enforce and collect post-verdict.
Nevertheless, that legal distinction leaves a major practical problem for injured victims. Retaining expert witnesses, gathering medical evidence, and preparing for trial require substantial financial resources. As a result, litigation costs and attorney fees can make a catastrophic injury case economically unfeasible when measured against the $250,000 limit. If a lawyer cannot afford to undertake the trial, the legal right to a jury trial offers little practical benefit.
Chief Justice Todd acknowledged these economic hurdles in a separate opinion. She pointed out that modern litigation expenses can consume nearly all of an already inadequate recovery. In addition, she criticized the legislature’s prolonged failure to increase the cap and called for an updated limit that allows reasonable compensation.
In the end, the majority opinion upheld the statutory cap for negligence claims against the Commonwealth.
Two Areas Where No Cap Exists
1. Civil Rights Claims
Federal civil-rights claims require a completely different legal framework. Pennsylvania’s state-law damages cap cannot limit recovery on a valid claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Supremacy Clause, state immunity statutes cannot defeat a federal remedy. See Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 138–39 (1988). For example, an excessive-force claim involving a state police officer is not subject to this state statutory cap.
However, establishing the proper defendant and a specific constitutional violation remains critical. Such civil rights actions ordinarily proceed against individual officers rather than state agencies directly, leaving claims subject to federal defenses like qualified immunity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25–31 (1991); Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
2. Contract Claims Against the Commonwealth Are Different
The $250,000 cap upheld in Freilich does not apply to genuine breach-of-contract claims properly brought against a Commonweath agency like PennDOT or other state entity, such as a state university. Thus, a contractor with a provable $2 million breach-of-contract claim against PennDOT — for failing to pay for guardrail construction — is not restricted to $250,000 (or any amount) simply because the defendant is a Commonwealth agency.
These go before Pennsylvania’s Board of Claims (“Board”). Such claims proceed under a separate waiver of sovereign immunity in the Commonwealth Procurement Code, rather than the negligence provisions at issue in Freilich. See 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 1702(b), 1712.1, 1724.
In practice, the Board is often friendly toward the governmental defendant. In fact, the Board is hand-picked by PA’s governor, making the Board aware of the Commonwealth’s interests and budget when contemplating a significant award against the Commonwealth.
But at least there’s no cap on damages.
As such, this framework does not impose the $250,000-per-plaintiff or $1 million aggregate tort caps. Otherwise, the Commonwealth may struggle to find a contractor willing to perform significant services — such as constructing a new university building for $5,000,000 — for fear of a capped recovery against the state.
Before the Board of Claims, recovery depends on the contract’s terms, the damages recoverable under contract law, and compliance with the applicable claim procedures. The claim must actually arise from a qualifying contract; relabeling a negligence claim as “breach of contract” does not establish Board of Claims jurisdiction. For more, click here.
Conclusions
For ordinary state-law negligence claims, Freilich leaves the core problem intact. A jury can recognize devastating harm in a multimillion-dollar verdict, yet the enforceable recovery remains capped at a fraction of that award. Ultimately, achieving meaningful reform now rests entirely with the General Assembly.
Let’s Get Started!
Contact a lawyer at the Elliott Law Group, PC for a consultation about any claim for damages or breach of contract in PA!
412.342.0992
