The second week of May 2026 produced one of the larger doctrinal shifts in no-fault practice in years, alongside the predictable rolling adjustments to state damage caps and a Supreme Court argument that could redraw the map for broker liability in trucking. Here is what mattered for personal-injury practitioners this week.
New Jersey Supreme Court closes the door on PIP-collectible future medicals
On May 6, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lakita D. Murray v. Christopher B. Punina (A-51-24), holding that future medical expenses falling within a plaintiff's $250,000 PIP coverage are "collectible" under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and therefore inadmissible at trial. Justice Fasciale, writing for the court, framed the ruling as a defense of the no-fault bargain. If plaintiffs could sit on surgery until after verdict and then bill the tortfeasor, the policy logic that propped up PIP in the first place would dissolve.
For plaintiff firms working New Jersey verbal-threshold cases, the practical effect is twofold. First, future-care experts now need to draft life-care plans with PIP exhaustion as a threshold question, not a footnote. Second, demand packages that previously aggregated future medicals into a single round number will need to separate PIP-collectible from PIP-exhausted spend, item by item. The decision involved a passenger seeking PIP through the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, but the analytical holding reaches every PIP-eligible plaintiff who has yet to incur projected future treatment.
The defense bar is reading the opinion as confirmation of Haines-line collateral-source theory. The plaintiff bar's read is narrower. Murray does not touch boardable-bill cases in jurisdictions that have not adopted PIP, and the opinion carves out treatment that has already exceeded the policy cap by the time of trial.
California MICRA non-economic cap steps up to $470,000
The annual escalator on California's MICRA cap took effect January 1, and the practical impact is now showing up in mid-2026 demand letters. Non-fatal medical malpractice cases carry a $470,000 non-economic ceiling this year, with $40,000 step-ups scheduled annually until 2033 ($750,000 final). Wrongful-death MICRA matters cap at $650,000 in 2026, escalating to $1,000,000 by 2033.
For firms that delayed filings into 2025 to capture last year's lower cap on the defense side, the math has now flipped. Cases with strong liability and a non-economic-driven valuation are filing fast. Discovery sequencing has shifted accordingly, with several large Los Angeles plaintiff shops moving deposition windows earlier in the case life to lock in expert opinions before next January's step-up changes the negotiation posture again.
Colorado, Nevada, and Michigan: caps continue to climb
Colorado's HB24-1472 took effect for civil actions filed on or after January 1, 2025, raising the noneconomic damages cap from $250,000 to $1.5 million, with biennial inflation adjustments beginning January 1, 2028. Nevada's medical-malpractice cap sits at $590,000 for 2026 under Assembly Bill 404, climbing $80,000 a year until it hits $750,000 in 2028. Michigan's tier-one cap for injuries between July 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026 is $2.70 million, with $50,000 annual increments through 2031.
The aggregate story for the year so far is one of soft retrenchment of older reform-era ceilings. None of these adjustments rolls back the underlying cap framework, but the compounding effect is meaningful. A Colorado case that would have valued at the old $250,000 ceiling now has six times that room above pain-and-suffering, which is forcing reinsurers to reprice tail liability on policies written before the change. Reserve memoranda issued by several large carriers in March and April hint at uneven repricing depending on book mix.
Missouri tightens expert witness rules under § 538.225
Missouri's revised expert qualification standard, in force since January 1, 2026, requires that the affidavit-of-merit expert be "either actively practicing or within five years of retirement from actively practicing substantially the same specialty as the defendant," with active clinical experience within one year of the alleged negligence. The Baker Sterchi defense bar has already telegraphed motion practice on the active-practice prong in early filings.
For plaintiff firms sourcing experts in Missouri, the practical change is in the expert intake interview. Retired-academic experts who would have qualified a year ago are now disqualified unless they can document continued clinical hours. Several Missouri plaintiff shops have moved to a two-track sourcing model: one expert for the affidavit and standard-of-care testimony, and a second expert with stronger academic credentials reserved for causation and damages.
U.S. Supreme Court hears Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II
In March, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, on whether state-law negligent-selection claims against freight brokers survive preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, or whether they fall within the statute's safety exception. The question matters well beyond trucking. A ruling for preemption would close off a class of theories that plaintiff firms have used to reach into broker balance sheets when the carrier's $750,000 minimum policy is plainly insufficient for catastrophic injuries.
The argument transcript reads as a closely divided court. Several justices pressed petitioners on the breadth of the safety exception, with skepticism that Congress meant to leave broker conduct entirely untouched by state tort law. Practitioners building broker-negligence theories should keep the case in their alert queue and structure pleadings now in a way that survives either outcome.
South Carolina Court of Appeals: three rulings worth flagging
South Carolina's intermediate appellate bench cleared three personal-injury opinions in February that have continued to ripple through state-court practice. The court held that paying a judgment does not waive the right to appeal, so long as restitution is possible and no settlement agreement has been executed. It also confirmed that lay eyewitness testimony can carry a conscious pain-and-suffering claim to the jury without medical expert testimony, provided the surrounding facts support an inference of awareness. And in a Tort Claims Act ruling that has generated the most chatter, the court held that settling with a government employee in their individual capacity does not automatically bar a later claim against the governmental entity, absent settlement language tied specifically to the Act.
Notable settlements
Brach Eichler announced a $10.5 million settlement against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, arising out of a windshield-debris incident on the upper level of the George Washington Bridge. The case is being read as a useful comparable for premises-and-roadway claims against public authorities, where sovereign-immunity carve-outs and notice-of-claim deadlines often suppress settlement valuation.
Smaller plaintiff resolutions from rear-end and group-injury cases continue to settle in the high-five and low-six figure range across the Mid-Atlantic and West Coast, which tracks with the average payout patterns most carriers are still treating as anchor points for early demands. Several Florida shops also reported a noticeable uptick in inquiry volume following recent state-court rulings on insurer bad-faith claims.
What to watch next week
The PIP ruling will draw the most immediate attorney attention, but the Supreme Court's broker decision in Montgomery is the larger long-tail issue for catastrophic-injury practice. Practitioners with active trucking matters in case-law and settlements tracking should refresh their preemption-defense outlines before the Court rules. Auto-coverage specialists should keep an eye on the California rideshare rollout under SB 371, which has already started generating coverage disputes in the auto-accidents queue. And firms running tighter staffing under the new cap regimes can find this week's intake benchmarks in our practice-operations coverage.
One trend worth flagging for next week's wrap: at least four states have appellate vehicles teed up on the interaction between collateral-source rules and statutory medical benefits, and the post-Murray citation pattern will be visible in defense briefing within the next 30 days.