Why Jury Awards Have Never Been Higher

What does it mean if someone receives a “nuclear verdict” in a personal injury lawsuit?

It might sound amazing—the answer to all your financial woes—but no one wishes to suffer an injury that would be worthy of a large payout. Large jury awards are a growing trend, which is why insurance companies are fighting harder than ever to prevent lawsuits from reaching the courtroom. This also means that being represented by the right lawyer for your case has never mattered more.

What is a nuclear verdict?

In legal lingo, a “nuclear verdict” is a jury award that exceeds $10 million in a civil lawsuit, typically a personal injury or wrongful death case. The insurance industry coined this term to describe an outcome it would deem disproportionate to the actual damages suffered. If an award exceeds $100 million, they might call it a “thermonuclear verdict” to express its sheer size. This category is growing quickly—a fact that alarms the insurance industry.

One research company published a report indicating that in the year 2024, there were 135 lawsuits against corporate defendants that resulted in nuclear verdicts. This was the most in a single year since 2009, and it represented a 52% increase over 2023. The total value of those verdicts was $31.3 billion, which was more than double the prior year.

Nuclear verdict statistics

Nuclear verdicts (more than $10 million)	⬆️ 52% in 2024
Thermonuclear verdicts (more than $100 million)	⬆️ 81.5% from 2023-2024
Median nuclear verdict ➡️ $51 million	⬆️ 143% between 2020-2024
$14.5 billion in nuclear verdict awards in 2023	📈15-year high
⬆️ Average personal injury compensation	⬆️ 250% between 2009-2019
Tort costs ➡️ $529 billion in 2022	2.07% of U.S. GDP

Why are nuclear verdicts becoming more prevalent?

The rise in nuclear verdicts is not random. Researchers, legal analysts, and insurers have identified a convergence of social, legal, and economic factors that are reshaping how juries make decisions and how plaintiffs' attorneys build cases.

1. “Social inflation” and changing attitudes toward corporations

What is “social inflation”?

"Social inflation" describes how changing public attitudes about corporate accountability are influencing jury behavior. 

Americans, particularly younger adults, are becoming increasingly skeptical of large institutions, and that skepticism shows up in the courtroom. A jury today is more inclined to view a large verdict as a statement about corporate responsibility and wrongdoing, and not just about compensating the victim for their losses. 

Eroding public trust in large institutions is increasingly reflected in jury behavior. Younger jurors have markedly different attitudes toward wealth and corporate power, and they bring this to the deliberation room. These cultural shifts are documented and measurable, and they are changing trial outcomes.

2. Sophisticated plaintiff trial tactics

Trial strategy for plaintiffs has become increasingly sophisticated. One technique used by plaintiffs’ attorneys is “anchoring,” which is the practice of suggesting a specific, very large amount of damages to the jury early in the proceedings. Behavioral psychology research shows that an initial figure can disproportionately influence a final decision. In other words, when a plaintiff’s attorney confidently suggests in their opening statement that the injuries are worth $50 million in damages, the jury then becomes psychologically tethered to that “anchor” when they eventually deliberate. 

Another common tactic is “reptile theory.” Yes, you read that correctly. This is a method that frames the defendant’s actions as a threat to the community at large, which triggers the jurors’ instincts for self-preservation. If a juror feels like the defendant’s conduct could be personally threatening to them, they are statistically more likely to vote in favor of a large punitive award.  

Skilled trial lawyers who use these tactics tend to be very effective at reaching high verdict amounts for their clients.

3. Third-party litigation funding

Third-party litigation funding is when outside investors finance a lawsuit in exchange for a share of the award. This provides plaintiffs’ laws firms the resources they need to litigate complex, expensive lawsuits and reach a verdict on a case that would previously be forced to settle early. 

This external capital backing in a high-stakes personal injury claim means a defendant can no longer simply wait out the plaintiff’s financial endurance. Rather, it levels the playing field, which, in many cases, tilts the outcome in favor of the plaintiff.

4. Post-pandemic backlog and changed perspectives

The COVID-19 pandemic caused courthouses in some parts of the country to be closed for nearly two years. This caused a significant litigation backlog. When they reopened, our collective psyche as a society had been reshaped by having experienced loss, isolation, and mortality—and this influenced juries to begin returning larger awards. One attorney commented that people lived through a pandemic in which they watched death on a massive scale, which might have deepened our understanding of the value of life, health, and human suffering. And jurors are only human; no juror can completely extricate their own lived experience from the context of the lawsuit on which they must decide. 

Nuclear verdicts have increased since 2020:

• 309% in quantity
• 273% in overall sum
• 143% in median amount

Some experts attribute this to a post-pandemic era that has fundamentally reset jury expectations.

What types of lawsuits are most likely to result in a nuclear verdict?

The most common types of lawsuits that receive nuclear verdicts are:

• Product liability: 23.3% of all nuclear verdicts
• Auto accident cases: 23.2%
• Medical liability (malpractice): 20.3%

These three categories of lawsuits combined account for about two-thirds of all reported nuclear verdicts nationwide. Geographically, half of all nuclear verdicts occur in just four states: California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Between 2013 and 2022, California, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas accounted for 61% of all such verdicts. However, evidence suggests that the trend is spreading across the country.

What nuclear verdicts mean for your personal injury lawsuit

Insurance companies defend themselves aggressively

An insurer doesn’t want to pay out a nine-figure verdict. But it’s also not simply raising premiums to pay for larger verdicts. Instead, they’re investing in defense litigation. The average cost of defending personal injury lawsuits increased about 7% per year from 2016 to 2022, and defense billing rates were rising at about 6.5% per year through mid-2024. Insurers are deploying more resources, better lawyers, and more sophisticated trial strategies to fight large claims.

As a result, when you file a serious injury claim today, you are increasingly likely to face a well-funded, well-prepared defense team whose primary objective is to minimize what you receive. Going up against that defense without equally skilled representation is a significant disadvantage.

Lowball early settlement offers

Ironically, the threat of nuclear verdicts in favor of injured plaintiffs is prompting insurance companies to work harder to avoid cases going to trial. An insurer knows that if a serious injury lawsuit goes before a sympathetic jury, the outcome is more likely to favor the plaintiff.

As a result, the insurance company is likely to offer an early settlement, which is intentional and designed to happen before the plaintiff becomes aware of the full scope of their injuries, future medical costs, or the true value of their case. 

These early settlement offers are almost always significantly lower than what a well-tried case would produce at verdict. Accepting a quick settlement may feel like relief in the moment, but it can mean forfeiting hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of dollars that a jury would have awarded for your suffering, lost wages, and future care needs.

Fewer than 2% of personal injury lawsuits go to a verdict

Only 1.8% of personal injury cases result in a verdict. The other 98.2% settle voluntarily. That means the threat of trial is a powerful negotiation tactic. The insurance companies know the statistics, but they also know that of the cases that do reach a jury, more than 75% result in outcomes favorable to the defense. You would think they would like those odds, but in the cases when a plaintiff prevails, the award can be tremendous.

So, how might this affect you?

If your personal injury lawyer is prepared and capable of taking a lawsuit to trial, this gives you the negotiation advantage. The insurance company knows whether the “threat” of trial is credible, so if your attorney is known for big wins and higher settlements at trial, it will be more concerned about that possibility and offer you a higher settlement to avoid this outcome.

The future of the nuclear verdict

Nuclear verdicts aren’t a fluke or a temporary trend; they represent a fundamental shift in how American juries understand injury, accountability, and the value of human life. It’s clear that jury awards are larger, more frequent, and growing faster than at any point in recent history.

For seriously injured people, that shift is an opportunity if they have an attorney who can capture it. Insurance companies have already responded to the nuclear verdict era by investing heavily in defense. The question is whether your legal representation matches that investment. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured, do not settle for less than your case is worth. The right legal team will evaluate your case fully, prepare it completely, and fight for every dollar you are owed, whether at the negotiating table or in front of a jury.