What is a Nuclear Verdict?
Nuclear verdicts in transportation are generally considered to be legal judgements or settlements in excess of $10 million. From 2015 to 2019, the average verdict in the National Law Journal’s Top 100 Verdicts more than tripled from $64 million to $214 million.
Nuclear Verdicts Trends Causes and Solutions
Nuclear verdicts are increasing substantially and represent a high degree of risk for transportation and commercial fleets. Plaintiff attorneys are aggressive at sharing strategies for case pursuit, and as a result, a cottage industry around outside funding of litigation against commercial fleets has developed. These verdicts often include disproportionally large non-economic damages awarded. The real hallmark of nuclear verdicts however is juror anger. The focus of plaintiff actions are aimed at not only the accident itself but also at the overall safety commitment of the fleet.
Several causes have contributed to the increase in nuclear verdicts in recent years, but changing societal attitudes toward corporate responsibility stands out as a key factor.
Factors contributing to rise in nuclear verdicts are a more negative view of big companies, more aggressive and organized plaintiff actions, 3rd party funding of plaintiff actions, and more focus on fleet overall safety than specific accident issues.
Nuclear Verdict Insurance Considerations
The insurance industry is no stranger to high-stakes claims. However, over the past several years, there has been a growing trend of high jury awards that surpass what should be a reasonable or rational amount. Because of extremely high awards, the cost of commercial auto insurance and reinsurance has increased dramatically. These jaw dropping verdicts are creating challenges for the insurance industry and commerce alike, making it difficult to underwrite potential legal risks. As a result, we’re seeing increasing premiums which threaten to put commercial auto insurance out of reach for most businesses.
Examples of Nuclear Verdicts
The beginnings of the “nuclear age” of court awards is often associated with an award against McDonald’s for a case involving a person spilling a cup of coffee in their lap at the drive-thru window. In 1994, a jury concluded that McDonald’s handling of its coffee was irresponsible and awarded Liebeck $2.9 million.
Over the last decade or so, the frequency and severity of nuclear verdicts in the trucking industry have steadily increased, including a one billion dollar settlement that involved phone distraction.
- In 2011, a $40 million dollar verdict was awarded to victims of a trucking accident in Georgia, where a semi-truck driver failed to stop, striking a passenger vehicle, killing two people and severely injuring a third.
- In 2012, a $281.6 million dollar verdict was initially handed down (reduced to $105.2 million), in a case where a drive shaft off a commercial truck went through the windshield of a passenger vehicle, killing the driver.
- In 2014, a $90 million dollar verdict was awarded in Texas, where a semi-truck was driving under the speed limit in inclement weather conditions, and a passenger vehicle traveling in the opposite direction lost control and veered into the truck’s path.
- In 2016, a semi-truck driver in Georgia fell asleep at the wheel, crossed over the centerline of a two-lane highway, causing a crash that killed five individuals including two young children, resulting in a $280 million verdict.
- In 2021, a Florida jury awarded a landmark $1 billion dollar verdict in a wrongful death trucking case involving phone distraction. The jury placed blame on two trucking companies, and awarded $100 million to the parents for the decedent’s pain and suffering, and $900 million in punitive damages for negligent hiring and retention of the semi-truck driver.
How Does LifeSaver Mobile Help Prevent Nuclear Verdicts?
LifeSaver Mobile dramatically lessens the opportunity to be involved in a cell phone distraction event. It does this by typically blocking the ability to interact with the phone as measured by phone unlocks. With driver distraction understood to be a major cause of accidents, lessening the probability of a phone distraction related event will ultimately mean less accidents and less opportunity for nuclear judgment exposure.
