August 21, 2025
In the world of liability litigation, the stakes have never been higher. Jury awards are not only increasing in frequency but also in magnitude. So-called “nuclear verdicts” and “thermonuclear verdicts” are becoming more common across the United States. According to Sedgwick’s 2025 Liability Litigation Commentary, nuclear verdicts — defined as jury awards exceeding $10 million — rose by 52 percent in 2024. Even more striking, verdicts over $100 million surged by 81.5 percent in the same period.
The average verdict now exceeds $51 million. These numbers are not just statistical anomalies; they represent a fundamental shift in how juries perceive corporate responsibility, how plaintiffs’ attorneys build their cases and how defense teams must respond.
What is fueling the explosion in verdict size?
Understanding the converging forces driving this trend is essential for any organization managing litigation risk.
1. Anti-corporate sentiment
Public trust in large institutions is eroding, and this sentiment is increasingly reflected in jury behavior. A 2024 Emerson College poll found that 41 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 viewed the actions of a CEO’s alleged killer as “somewhat or completely acceptable.” This is a stark contrast to the 68 percent of the general population who found the actions unacceptable. Younger jurors, who are more likely to be selected for jury duty, are bringing these attitudes into the courtroom.
2. Aggressive attorney marketing
The plaintiffs’ bar has embraced a full-spectrum marketing strategy. Attorneys are no longer limited to billboards and late-night television ads. They now dominate platforms like TikTok, YouTube and Instagram, reaching potential clients within minutes of an incident. Lead generation services offer real-time connections to attorneys, ensuring that claimants are speaking with legal counsel before they even contact an insurer.
3. Joint evaluation bias in multi-defendant cases
In lawsuits involving multiple defendants, jurors often compare defendants to one another rather than evaluating each independently. This cognitive bias, known as joint evaluation bias, can lead to disproportionate fault assignments and inflated awards. If one defendant appears more contrite or proactive than another, the jury may assign greater blame to the less sympathetic party, regardless of actual liability.
4. Legal system abuse
Tactics such as anchoring (suggesting high damage amounts), phantom damages (inflated medical billing) and third-party litigation funding are distorting the litigation process. These practices can manipulate jury perceptions and inflate award amounts far beyond what is reasonable or necessary.
The financial impact
The cost of defending against these verdicts is rising in tandem with the awards themselves. According to the Institute for Legal Reform, the average cost of defending personal injury lawsuits increased by 7.1 percent annually between 2016 and 2022. A Thomson Reuters survey found that defense firm rates rose another 6.5 percent through mid-2024.
This creates a double burden for insurers and businesses. They face higher costs to defend and higher payouts when cases go to trial. The result is a litigation environment that is increasingly unpredictable and financially unsustainable.
How to respond: a strategic playbook
To mitigate the risk of nuclear verdicts, organizations must adopt a more proactive and data-driven approach to litigation management. Here are four key strategies:
- Predictive modeling
Use advanced analytics to identify high-severity claims early. Sedgwick’s modeling shows that less than 1 percent of claims drive the most severe outcomes. These claims should be routed into specialized workflows for early intervention. - Data-driven attorney selection
Choose defense counsel based on performance metrics, not just familiarity. Sedgwick’s Attorney Scorecard, for example, evaluates attorneys on duration, expense and outcomes to ensure the best fit for each case. - Strategic coordination in multi-defendant cases
Align messaging and strategy among co-defendants to avoid jury confusion and bias. Mock trials and jury focus groups can help test themes and identify potential pitfalls. - Invest in jury profiling and trial preparation
Understand the demographics, attitudes and biases of potential jurors. Behavioral insights are more predictive than age or education alone and can inform voir dire and trial strategy.
The verdict is in
Nuclear and thermonuclear verdicts are not going away. But with the right tools, insights and strategies, organizations can reduce their exposure and regain control over litigation outcomes.
Want to explore the full data and learn how to protect your organization from outsized verdicts?
Download the 2025 Liability Litigation Commentary for expert insights, trend analysis and actionable recommendations.
