By Samuel Adam Lopez, USA Herald Legal Analyst
[USA HERALD] – In recent years, the insurance industry has been grappling with a growing concern: the surge in what is now termed “nuclear verdicts.” These verdicts are exceptionally high jury awards that exceed a “reasonable amount” judges would typically award based on precedent.
A nuclear verdict is officially defined as “a court award or settlement exceeding $10 million.” This term reflects the increasingly prevalent challenge for insurance companies, seeing a 27.5% increase in prevalence from 2010 to 2019, according to the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform.
As inflationary practices push consumers to make difficult choices, judges are actively considering nuclear verdicts in cases where insurance companies take advantage of an already choice-stripped consumer base.
The risk of nuclear verdicts is exceptionally high in industries such as commercial auto, product liability, directors/officers, malpractice insurance, and indemnity or professional liability. Interestingly, most (63%) of the nuclear verdicts in the past decade have been reported in just six states: California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.
Samuel Adam Lopez states, “The rise in nuclear verdicts is a clear signal that juries are increasingly willing to use the power of the purse to express societal discontent with corporate behavior, underlining the need for insurers to recalibrate their risk assessments and defense strategies.”
The Reptile Strategy: Fanning the Flames A coordinated effort by plaintiffs’ lawyers, known as the reptile strategy, taps into jurors’ elemental fears to generate anger over corporate safety issues. By appealing to jurors’ emotions, this strategy seeks to paint corporations as prioritizing profits over public safety, often leading to inflated or even nuclear damages as jurors are swayed by emotions rather than legal standards.
The Impact on the Insurance Industry Nuclear verdicts can have a profound impact on insurance companies, extending beyond financial limitations in court. In many cases, the damages awarded can surpass insurance policy limits, necessitating that insured parties cover the remainder out of pocket. This is particularly challenging for small-or medium-sized companies with limited financial resources.
Managing Nuclear Verdicts: Insurance companies can opt for mediation instead of a court settlement, giving room for the insured to present their grievances and identify and mitigate potential risks before the claim. Litigation and witness preparation are key elements for managing these verdicts. The defense counsel must educate key witnesses on defusing loaded questions, especially those that provoke jurors’ and the public’s fears.
In conclusion, to effectively steer clients through the nuclear verdict environment, staying informed from past precedents to recent trends is crucial. It is important for insured individuals and jury professionals to understand the driving forces behind the case and its potential for nuclear verdicts.
Read more about Samuel Adam Lopez and his analysis here and here.
