Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-1.3 (2026)

"Ad damnum" clause prohibited

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§663-1.3 "Ad damnum" clause prohibited. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any action based on tort, including a medical tort as defined in section 671-1, to recover damages for personal injuries or wrongful death, no complaint, counterclaim, cross claim or third party claim nor any amendment to such pleadings shall specify the amount of damages prayed for but shall contain a prayer for general relief, including a statement that the amount of damages is within the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court in which the action is brought.

(b) If the complaint, counterclaim, cross claim or third party claim or any amendment to such pleadings contains a specified amount of damages, the claim, counterclaim, cross claim or third party claim shall be dismissed by the court without prejudice; provided that, upon the filing of a motion to dismiss a complaint on the grounds of specificity of damages, the court shall allow the pleading to be amended in lieu of dismissal at the request of the claimant. [L 1987, c 38, §1; am L 1988, c 83, §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2016–2020 · leading case: Castro v. Melchor, 366 P.3d 1058 (Haw. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Castro v. Melchor, 366 P.3d 1058 (Haw. App. 2016). “, HRS § 663-1.3(a) (1993). In re Genesys Data Techs.”

Gallagher v. Anne Croudace (D. Haw. 2020). “In her Memorandum in Opposition, Best argues Gallagher violated Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-1.3 when he included the specific amount of damages he is seeking in his Fourth Amended Complaint, therefore committing an act that was not proper in the use of the process.”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-1.3(a) — 1 case

Castro v. Melchor, 366 P.3d 1058 (Haw. App. 2016). “, HRS § 663-1.3(a) (1993). In re Genesys Data Techs.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.