Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8105 (2026)

Limitation on damages

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Limit established. In any claim or cause of action permitted by this chapter, the award of damages, including costs, against either a governmental entity or its employees, or both, may not exceed $400,000 for any and all claims arising out of a single occurrence.

[PL 1999, c. 460, §1 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 460, §2 (AFF).]

1-A. Limit established for out-of-state transit district or regional transportation corporation.

[PL 2011, c. 520, §2 (NEW); MRSA T. 14 §8105, sub-§1-A (RP).]

2. Costs. Court costs, prejudgment interest and all other costs that a court may assess must be included within the damage limit specified by this section. Accrued post-judgment interest may not be included within the damage limit.

[PL 1995, c. 61, §1 (AMD).]

3. Claims in excess of limit. When a claimant or several claimants believe they may have a claim against the State in excess of the limit established in subsection 1, or for a claim for which the State is immune, they may apply to the Legislature for special authorization to proceed within another specified limit.

[PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]

4. Apportionment of claims. When the amount awarded to or settled for multiple claimants exceeds the limit imposed by this section, any party may apply to the Superior Court for the county in which the governmental entity is located to allocate to each claimant his equitable share of the total, limited as required by this section.

A. Any award by the court in excess of the maximum liability limit specified by subsection 1 shall be automatically abated by operation of this section to the maximum limit of liability. [PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]

[PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]

5. Exclusion from judgment or award. No judgment or award against a governmental entity shall include punitive or exemplary damages.

[PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 2, §§2,5 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 78, §113 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 591, §6 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 68, §5 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 740, §5 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 61, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 460, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 460, §2 (AFF). PL 2011, c. 520, §2 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). · cites it 6× “Tolliver cross-appeals, contending that the court erred in reducing the damage award against MDOT to $400,000, the maximum amount permitted by 14 M.R.S. § 8105. We vacate the judgment.”

Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “1983) ($500,000 per incident); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 8105 (1980) ($300,0000 per incident); Md.”

Michael Fortin v. Jacob Titcomb, 2013 ME 14 (Me. 2013). · cites it 5× “4 [¶6] Fortin contends that the allowable damages are instead determined by the greater amount allowed by 14 M.R.S. § 8105(1) or 14 M.R.S. § 8116. Title 14 M.”

Jorgensen v. Dep't of Transp., 2009 ME 42 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “[¶ 11] In March of 2007, the Jorgen-sens filed a complaint against the Department 1 in the Superior Court, asserting *916 causes of action for negligence and loss of consortium, and stating their intent to obtain legislative special authorization to proceed with damages claims…”

Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82 (Me. 1996). “Because we have held that the court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of McAlevey on Rippett’s claim against him for defamation, the summary judgment entered by the court in favor of McAlevey on Lola Rippett’s claim for punitive damages is error unless some…”

Fortin v. Titcomb, 671 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 8105(1). The § 8105 limit is explicitly superseded in certain instances, however, when a governmental entity procures liability insurance: “If the insurance provides protection in excess of the limit of liability imposed by section 8105, then the…”

McLain v. Milligan, 847 F. Supp. 970 (D. Me. 1994). “14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8105 and 8116. The types of risk covered and the amount of coverage provided by the Town of Rumford's insurance policy will determine whether, and to what extent, punitive damages are available against it in the current action.”

Noel v. Town of Ogunquit, 555 A.2d 1054 (Me. 1989). “14 M.R.S.A. § 8105 (1980 & Supp.1988) provides that damages recoverable against a governmental entity or its employees arising out of a single occurrence shall not exceed $300,000.”

McDermott v. Town of Windham, 204 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Me. 2002). “14 M.R.S.A. § 8105(5). Plaintiff responds to Defendant Town’s claim under the MTCA in a footnote in Plaintiff’s brief, stating: "Defendants argue, and Plaintiff agrees, that the Town of Windham cannot be held liable for punitive damages under Federal [sic] or state theories of…”

Lane v. City of Rockland (D. Me. 2023). “; see also 14 M.R.S. § 8105(5) (“[n]o judgment or award against a governmental entity shall include punitive or exemplary damages”).”

Abbott v. Inhabs. of the Town of Sanford (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “As he should have the opportunity to establish the nature of that alleged property interest, this claim should not be dismissed at this time.”

Morgan v. Kooistra (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “See 14 M.R.S. § 8105(5). statements in the course of his employment with the fire department.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8105(1) — 3 cases

Michael Fortin v. Jacob Titcomb, 2013 ME 14 (Me. 2013). “4 [¶6] Fortin contends that the allowable damages are instead determined by the greater amount allowed by 14 M.R.S. § 8105(1) or 14 M.R.S. § 8116. Title 14 M.”

Fortin v. Titcomb, 671 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2012). “” Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 8105(1). The § 8105 limit is explicitly superseded in certain instances, however, when a governmental entity procures liability insurance: “If the insurance provides protection in excess of the limit of liability imposed by section 8105, then the…”

Jorgensen v. Dep't of Transp., 2009 ME 42 (Me. 2009). “[¶ 11] In March of 2007, the Jorgen-sens filed a complaint against the Department 1 in the Superior Court, asserting *916 causes of action for negligence and loss of consortium, and stating their intent to obtain legislative special authorization to proceed with damages claims…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8105(5) — 5 cases

Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82 (Me. 1996). “Because we have held that the court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of McAlevey on Rippett’s claim against him for defamation, the summary judgment entered by the court in favor of McAlevey on Lola Rippett’s claim for punitive damages is error unless some…”

McDermott v. Town of Windham, 204 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Me. 2002). “14 M.R.S.A. § 8105(5). Plaintiff responds to Defendant Town’s claim under the MTCA in a footnote in Plaintiff’s brief, stating: "Defendants argue, and Plaintiff agrees, that the Town of Windham cannot be held liable for punitive damages under Federal [sic] or state theories of…”

Lane v. City of Rockland (D. Me. 2023). “; see also 14 M.R.S. § 8105(5) (“[n]o judgment or award against a governmental entity shall include punitive or exemplary damages”).”

Abbott v. Inhabs. of the Town of Sanford (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “As he should have the opportunity to establish the nature of that alleged property interest, this claim should not be dismissed at this time.”

Morgan v. Kooistra (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “See 14 M.R.S. § 8105(5). statements in the course of his employment with the fire department.”

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.