On October 1, 2026, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court issued a ruling preserving a regime that has shaped municipal and school district budgets for years. In Freilich v. SEPTA, the court upheld the Tort Claims Act’s $250,000 damages cap against Commonwealth agencies.
Freilich v. SEPTA: The Case That Tested Pennsylvania’s Tort Liability Limits
Hayley Freilich was struck by a SEPTA bus in downtown Philadelphia, resulting in severe injuries that will require lifelong medical care. The parties stipulated to a jury verdict of $7 million: $500,000 for past economic losses, $500,000 for future economic losses, and $6 million for non-economic damages. But the Tort Claims Act caps her recovery at $250,000. After deducting litigation costs, attorney fees, and insurance company subrogation, Freilich is unlikely to net any recovery.
Freilich challenged the tort limit as unconstitutional, raising raised distinct claims grounded in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Commonwealth’s Supreme Court rejected both arguments.
First, the Right to Jury Trial. Under Article I, Section 6, Freilich argued that the damages cap made her right to a jury trial “practically unavailable” because litigation expenses would consume almost the entirety of her recovery. Freilich relied on Justice Max Baer’s concurring opinion in a 2014 case called Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District, suggesting that catastrophic injury cases might present different circumstances than a facial constitutional challenge.
The court rejected this argument. The Court found that the Constitution protects the process of a jury trial, not the amount of recovery. The majority wrote:
“successful plaintiffs are often limited in their ability to recover the full amount of a jury’s award for many different reasons—a defendant may simply be judgment-proof, for example—but this practical reality has nothing to do with the plaintiff’s right to seek to have the merits of her cause determined by a jury.”
The damages cap doesn’t prevent a jury from hearing the case or issuing a verdict. It only limits what the government must pay. That’s a limitation on remedy, not on process.
Second, the Right to a Remedy. Freilich also invoked Article I, Section 11, which guarantees that “all courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law.” In resolving this argument, the Court turned to the separation of powers doctrine.
The Supreme Court held that it is not the Court’s role to decide whether the legislative cap on the amount recoverable against a government agency is adequate or fair.
Why This Matters to Your Budget
The Supreme Court’s reasoning will make a significant impact for school administrators and municipal officials. Those seeking recovery against government subdivisions exceeding the tort cap would make arguments grounded in equity, but in Freilich those arguments have been put to rest. The policy considerations in this opinion are of particular interest.
The court considered the real-world implications of removing the cap, highlighting arguments from amicus briefs filed by government subdivisions who would be affected by this ruling.
School Districts: One School District warned that even a $2 million verdict represents the average salary of approximately 24 teachers. The district stressed that caps ensure financial viability so education can be delivered.
Transportation Authorities: Various transportation authorities argued that damages caps provide cost certainty. Without them, these entities would face pressure to increase fares, reduce services, and delay projects—or lose the ability to obtain insurance altogether.
Housing Authorities: One Housing Authority emphasized the impact on vulnerable communities. Removing the cap would increase insurance costs—or make insurance unavailable—hampering their ability to combat housing insecurity.
From Counties and Cities: County and municipal governments argued that the cap preserves funds for services and provides the predictability for budgeting and resource allocation.
This ruling means that the tort limits will continue to be in place for the foreseeable future, absent some legislative action. For school and municipal government officials, this means:
Budget Certainty. Government subdivisions can operate with confidence that a single catastrophic verdict won’t force across-the-board cuts to services.
Insurance Predictability. Insurers can continue to price coverage with certainty about maximum exposure, and some government subdivisions can be self-insured.
Bottom Line for Schools
While schools generally have the protection of a $500,000 damage cap for tortius injuries, the cap does not apply to civil rights cases where the damage potential is unlimited. Nevertheless, the cap on damages for vehicular accidents, slip and falls and other ordinary injuries remains an important protection to school finances.
Schools should have legal counsel review offered coverages, especially on Professional Educators Policies, before purchasing policies.
Recently, there have been legislative attempts to raise the cap to as high as $1.5 million. Schools would be well-advised to keep abreast of these efforts and lobby for restraint.
