Heating Up: The Implications of Social Inflation on Nuclear Jury Verdicts

Author: Lilyan Hendricks, Associate Editor

Introduction

In 2024, the aggregate sum of nuclear verdicts—those exceeding $10 million—reached an astonishing total of $31.3 billion.[i] These verdicts are continuing to rise not just in number, but in size and scope.[ii] The same year recorded a record-high forty-nine thermonuclear verdicts—those exceeding $100 million—nearly double the twenty-three recorded the year before.[iii] Nuclear verdicts are increasing in prevalence across the country, leading to defense attorneys scrambling for solutions to stem the bleeding. On the flip side, plaintiff attorneys have increased both their advertisement presence[iv] and demand for jury trials, as social inflation continues to reward lengthy litigation.[v]‍ ‍

Social Inflation as A Driving Factor for Nuclear Verdicts‍ ‍

Social inflation refers to the increased liability risks and spiraling costs of claims due to varied and random societal attitudes towards corporations and the legal system, resulting in jurors prioritizing personal beliefs over strict adherence to the law.[vi] Social inflation acts as a key contributor to nuclear verdicts in the United States due to many factors, such as punitive damage award proliferation, class action and multidistrict litigation, ranging disparity of venue-related risk factors, contingency fees driving higher settlements, and circumstances that allow for verdicts and fee-shifting statutes.[vii] Most recently, social movements,[viii] corporate distrust,[ix] and social pessimism have emerged as the primary factors driving this phenomenon.[x]‍ ‍

One example of this phenomenon is the #MeToo movement of 2017.[xi] This movement sparked a dramatic increase in sexual abuse claims, resulting in reviver statutes, which reopened statutes of limitations to allow sexual abuse victims to bring claims against their abusers and their employers.[xii] This increase in sexual abuse claims implicated the various types of insurance held by those companies and created a public movement to stand with the individual and against big corporations.[xiii]

Corporate distrust is reflected in the social media response to Luigi Mangione, who is accused of the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.[xiv] The public support of Mangione’s act elicited a multitude of articles concerned with America’s moral compass.[xv] It is not just big corporations under scrutiny; social pessimism has broadened to institutions as a whole.[xvi] There is widespread distrust in all branches of government, most notably reflected in the record-low confidence in the judiciary—just 35%.[xvii] The combination of social movements, corporate distrust, and social pessimism has led jurors “to act more on those beliefs by delivering their own sense of justice.”[xviii]‍ ‍

Defense’s Detriment and Plaintiff’s Paradise

It is no secret that plaintiff’s attorneys are chomping at the bit to increase the damages awarded for their clients, firms, and themselves. At the same time, there is a clear flaw in the operation of our judicial system when the jurors, who are instructed to apply the law, instead rely on their own emotions and passions.[xix] Because of this, defense firms advocate for tort reform,[xx] but is that truly the solution? Is a cap on monetary damages appropriate? How do we allow preconceived statutes to determine what makes a person whole?            

There is no clear answer to any of these questions. However, defense firms could shift their focus away from advocating for tort reform—which decreases rights to compensation, lessens corporate accountability, and limits jurors’ rights[xxi]—to assisting their clients in implementing, maintaining, and enforcing policies that mitigate damages from the start. While this is not possible in all circumstances, it provides a preventative measure to help avoid injury and loss in the first place. Perhaps more realistically, defense counsels should counter anchor by offering numerical amounts against what the plaintiff demands at trial.[xxii] Defense counsels are skeptical of giving the jury a number out of fear that it signals liability, but doing so can actually lead to smaller verdicts while preserving fairness for both parties.[xxiii]‍ ‍

Conclusion

Social inflation will continue to impact verdict size for the foreseeable future, so legal professionals must adapt and advise accordingly to ensure that the needs of their clients are met. The integrity of our legal system depends on jurors who will accurately apply the law to the facts at issue. Tort reform measures that cap monetary damages may help curb rising verdict sizes, but they can also produce equally unfair outcomes.[xxiv] Moving forward, the deeper roots of social inflation must be addressed to restore trust in America’s corporations, government, and the legal system as a whole.

[i]Corporate Verdicts Go Thermonuclear, 2, Marathon Strategies (2025), https://marathonstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Nuclear-Verdicts-Report-2025.pdf.

[ii]Id. ‍ ‍

[iii]Id. ‍ ‍

[iv]Id.at 3.

[v] Atasia Richardson, Social Inflation’s Influence on Bodily Injury Claims: A Shift from the Rational to Emotional Juror, 7, For the Defense (May 2025), https://digitaleditions.walsworth.com/publication/?i=847119&p=8&view=issueViewer.

[vi]Id. at 6.

[vii] Christopher Carrol, Joshua Wirtshafter & Rachel Kim, The Defense Bar Must Push Back On Social Inflation, L. 360 Expert Analysis (Aug. 12, 2022), https://www.law360.com/healthcare-authority/articles/1511413.

[viii]Id. ‍ ‍

[ix]Corporate Verdicts Go Thermonuclear, supra note i, at 3.

[x]Id. ‍ ‍

[xi] Carrol, Wirtshafter & Kim, supra note vii.

[xii]Id.

[xiii]Id. ‍ ‍

[xiv] Richardson, supra note v, at 6.  

[xv]Id. ‍ ‍

[xvi]Id.‍ ‍

[xvii] Benedict Vigers & Lydia Saad, Americans Pass Judgment on Their Courts, Gallup (Dec. 16, 2024), https://news.gallup.com/poll/653897/americans-pass-judgment-courts.aspx.

[xviii]Corporate Verdicts Go Thermonuclear, supra note i, at 9.

[xix] Richardson, supra note v, at 6.

[xx] Chad Marzen & Cassandra Cole, Nuclear Verdicts, Tort Liability, and Legislative Responses, 42 J. Ins. Reg. 1, 15 (2023).

[xxi]See Rachel Bragg, Tort Reform’s Tilt-A-Whirl: The Tumultuous Past, Present, and Future of Noneconomic Damage Caps, 55 Cumb. L. Rev. 119, 126 (2025).

[xxii] Christina Marinakis, How to Counter Jury Reliance on Plaintiff’s Damages Ask, L. 360 Expert Analysis (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.law360.com/articles/1187323/how-to-counter-jury-reliance-on-plaintiff-s-damages-ask.

[xxiii]Id.‍ ‍

[xxiv] Bragg, supra note xxi.