- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in South America
- with readers working within the Oil & Gas and Retail & Leisure industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Government, Public Sector and Environment topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
Nuclear verdicts—exceptionally high jury awards, typically exceeding $10 million—are becoming increasingly common across the United States. Historically, increases in jury verdicts have been attributed to economic factors such as wage inflation, rising medical costs and Consumer Price Index growth. Today, behavioral forces like plaintiff's lawyer tactics, shifting jury attitudes and expanding theories of liability are widely recognized as the predominant drivers of escalating awards.
Swiss Re recently quantified these behavioral dynamics in its 2025 Behavioral Social Inflation Study. The survey, conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,150 adults, utilized randomized legal simulations to assess attitudes toward litigation, damages and corporate accountability. The findings reveal several notable trends, including heightened expectations for punitive damages, increased skepticism toward large corporations and a growing willingness among jurors to award higher compensation in cases involving perceived misconduct.
Public perceptions about litigation itself are also changing. Only 56% of respondents now believe there are too many lawsuits in the United States, down significantly from 90% in 2016. Similarly, 76% of respondents believe that awarded damages are too low or about right, suggesting jurors may be predisposed or acclimated to award larger sums.
Large corporations face heightened vulnerability. Nearly 90% of respondents agreed that corporations prioritize profit over safety. Public support for punitive damages remains steady, with 76% of respondents viewing them as the best deterrent against corporate misconduct. Strikingly, 42% of respondents believe that corporations should cover medical expenses even when not directly at fault—an indication that jurors may be inclined to impose liability regardless of causation.
The practice of suggesting specific damages amounts—commonly referred to as anchoring—emerged as a highly effective mechanism for constraining excessively large awards. In identical scenarios, respondents exposed to a $100 million plaintiff demand awarded, on average, $17 million more than those presented with a $5 million plaintiff anchor. Defense counter-anchors proved effective, reducing average awards by 40 to 50%, though they cannot eliminate the risk of nuclear verdicts altogether.
The study confirmed long-standing beliefs that demographic factors significantly influence jury decision-making. Variables such as political affiliation, age and income were shown to correlate with damages assessments. For example, respondents identifying as Democrats awarded damages between 25% and 65% higher than their Republican counterparts. Additionally, more than 80% of participants under the age of 40 indicated that current damages awards are either too low or appropriately calibrated. Lower-income individuals also demonstrated a stronger propensity to favor litigation and higher compensation levels, underscoring the role of socioeconomic and ideological perspectives in shaping jury outcomes.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
