After a serious crash, one of the first fears is that some law will limit what you can recover, that a statute somewhere sets a ceiling and everything above it disappears. In New Hampshire, for an ordinary car crash claim, that ceiling doesn't exist. The state puts no dollar cap on economic damages like medical bills, lost income, and future care, and no cap on noneconomic damages like pain, physical limitation, and loss of enjoyment of life. What actually limits most recoveries here has nothing to do with a statutory maximum. It comes down to available insurance and how fault gets divided.
That makes New Hampshire different from a lot of states, and the reason is its own Supreme Court.
New Hampshire tried to cap damages twice, and lost both times
Lawmakers here did pass damage caps. The courts threw them out.
In 1980, the New Hampshire Supreme Court struck down a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical injury cases in Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925 (1980).1 The court held that the cap violated the equal protection guarantee of the state constitution, calling the right to recover for a personal injury an "important substantive right" that the legislature could not burden so unevenly.1
The legislature tried again with a broader cap, this time $875,000 on noneconomic damages across personal injury cases generally (RSA 508:4-d). In Brannigan v. Usitalo, 134 N.H. 50 (1991), the court struck that one down too, on the same equal protection reasoning.2 It said a cap forces the most severely injured people, those whose losses run highest, to shoulder the cost of protecting insurers and the medical industry, and that isn't a fair basis for treating them differently.2
Since Brannigan, no cap on compensatory damages has been in force in New Hampshire. A jury can award whatever the evidence supports.
The one category the state does bar: punitive damages
There is a real limit worth understanding. New Hampshire does not allow punitive damages. RSA 507:16 says it plainly: "No punitive damages shall be awarded in any action, unless otherwise provided by statute."3 No auto negligence statute provides for them, so in a normal crash case you can't add punitive damages as a separate line item, even when the other driver was drunk or driving recklessly.
That ban is narrower than it looks. Under a 1972 decision, Vratsenes v. New Hampshire Auto, Inc., 112 N.H. 71 (1972), a jury can award "enhanced compensatory damages" when the defendant's conduct was wanton, malicious, or oppressive.4 These aren't punitive damages. They compensate for the aggravating circumstances of how the injury happened rather than punish the wrongdoer, so they survive the RSA 507:16 bar.4 For a victim, the practical effect is that egregious conduct can still push a verdict higher, just not through a category labeled punitive.
How fault, not a cap, usually shrinks a recovery
The rule that most often reduces what a crash victim collects is comparative fault. New Hampshire uses a modified comparative negligence system under RSA 507:7-d.5 You can recover as long as your share of the fault "was not greater than the fault of the defendant," and your award is "diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to" you.5
In a two-car crash, that means you are barred entirely once your fault reaches 51 percent. Below that line the math is straightforward. If your damages are $100,000 and the jury finds you 30 percent responsible, you collect $70,000. At 50 percent you still collect half. At 51 percent you collect nothing. This is the closest thing New Hampshire has to a cap, and it is decided case by case, not set by a number in a statute.
Insurance is the real ceiling in most cases
No legal cap does not mean unlimited money. In practice you can usually only collect what insurance covers, and New Hampshire's required minimums are low.
Drivers who carry liability insurance must meet limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury, plus $25,000 for property damage, under RSA 264:20.6 If the at-fault driver carries only the minimum and your injuries run past $25,000, that policy is exhausted fast.
This is why your own coverage matters so much. New Hampshire requires that any liability policy include uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage equal to your own liability limits, under RSA 264:15.7 You can turn it down, but only in writing, and that written rejection applies to everyone on the policy until you revoke it in writing.7 UM/UIM is often what actually pays when the other driver has no insurance or not enough.
Every private passenger auto policy in the state also has to include at least $1,000 per person in medical payments coverage under RSA 264:16, which covers reasonable medical costs incurred within three years of the crash regardless of who was at fault.8 Those medical payment benefits are non-subrogable under RSA 264:17, so your own insurer generally cannot claw them back out of your settlement.9 If your vehicle lost market value even after a solid repair, that is a separate claim; see our page on diminished value in New Hampshire.
The bar or server route, with no dollar limit
If a bar, restaurant, or other licensee served the drunk driver who hit you, New Hampshire's dram shop law can open a second source of recovery. RSA chapter 507-F lets an injured person sue a licensee that negligently served alcohol to a minor or to someone already intoxicated, and it sets a higher reckless-service standard on top of that.10 The chapter spells out who can sue and how, but it does not put a dollar cap on what a licensee can be liable for.10 The punitive damages bar still applies here, so even in a drunk-driving case those are off the table.3
The deadline that works like a hard limit
The one number that will end a claim regardless of how uncapped the damages are is the filing deadline. New Hampshire gives you three years. RSA 508:4, I requires that "all personal actions" be brought within three years of the act or omission, and that same statute covers both bodily injury and vehicle damage claims.11 There is a discovery exception for injuries you could not reasonably have found right away, but you should not count on it.11 Miss the three years and the case is worth nothing, no matter how strong it was.
If you need the official crash report to document your claim, see our guide to New Hampshire crash reports. When you are ready to find out what your specific case is worth, you can connect with a lawyer through our legal directory.
This article is general information, not legal advice.
Sources
-
Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925 (1980), New Hampshire Supreme Court. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/1980/80-017-0.html
-
Brannigan v. Usitalo, 134 N.H. 50, 587 A.2d 1232 (1991), New Hampshire Supreme Court. https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/brannigan-v-usitalo-no-895327339
-
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:16 (punitive damages barred). https://www.gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LII/507/507-16.htm
-
Vratsenes v. New Hampshire Auto, Inc., 112 N.H. 71 (1972), New Hampshire Supreme Court. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/1972/6295-0.html
-
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:7-d (comparative negligence). https://www.gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LII/507/507-7-d.htm
-
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 264:20 (financial responsibility, minimum liability limits). https://www.gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/264/264-20.htm
-
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 264:15 (uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage). https://www.gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/264/264-15.htm
-
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 264:16 (medical payments coverage). https://www.gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/264/264-16.htm
-
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 264:17 (medical payments non-subrogable). https://www.gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/264/264-17.htm
-
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 507-F (alcoholic beverage licensee liability). https://www.gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LII/507-F/507-F-mrg.htm
-
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4, I (statute of limitations for personal actions). https://www.gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm