Free checklist

Nuclear verdict risk checklist for bodily injury claims

A nuclear verdict is a jury award of $10 million or more. Juries returned 190 of them against corporate defendants in 2025, 40.7% more than in 2024.1 Check the warning signs present on a bodily injury file to get a risk level and the next steps claims leaders recommend, while there is still time to change the file's trajectory.

  • 16 sourced warning signs
  • Copy the result into your file notes
  • Nothing you enter leaves your browser

Check the warning signs on your file

Tick everything that applies. Heavier signs count more.

Injury and damages
Liability and defendant
Venue and plaintiff
Demands and claims handling
Nuclear verdict risk
0of 36

No warning signs checked yet

Tick the signs present on the file to see its risk level and next steps.

    An educational triage aid, not legal advice. Involve coverage and defense counsel on high-exposure files.

    What is a nuclear verdict?

    A nuclear verdict is a jury award of $10 million or more. Awards above $100 million are called thermonuclear verdicts.13

    190

    nuclear verdicts against corporate defendants in 2025, up 40.7% from 135 in 2024.1

    $25.6B

    total value of 2025's nuclear verdicts, with more than 40 thermonuclear awards.1

    +476%

    growth in the number of nuclear verdicts since 2020.1

    $21M

    median nuclear verdict from 2013 to 2022, the same for auto accident cases.14

    Marathon Strategies' counts cover corporate defendants and reflect the jury's award, not later reductions or reversals.13 In 2024 nuclear verdicts totaled $31.3 billion, so 2025 had more verdicts but a lower total.13, 1

    Why nuclear verdicts keep rising

    Social inflation: legal and societal trends that push claim costs up faster than economic inflation, from jury attitudes to plaintiff tactics and litigation funding.

    • Social inflation. Swiss Re estimates it increased U.S. liability claims by 57% over the past decade, peaking at 7% a year in 2023.8 Triple-I and the Casualty Actuarial Society put the increase in liability losses over the past decade at $231.6 billion to $281.2 billion, from legal system abuse and inflation combined.15
    • Trucking. From 2010 to 2018, verdict awards in trucking cases grew 51.7% a year, against 1.7% inflation.5
    • The reptile theory. A plaintiff strategy, first described in 2009, that shifts jurors from sympathy with the victim to anger at the defendant.8
    • Anchoring. Jurors tend to anchor awards to the numbers they hear, so counsel ask for very large figures early and often.8,16
    • Letters of protection. Treatment paid from any future settlement can put inflated medical bills in front of a jury.4
    • Litigation funding. Third-party funders who finance a lawsuit in exchange for part of the recovery are linked to higher awards and longer cases.17,8

    What claims teams can do early

    Find the few files that matter, investigate them early and fully, and keep the evaluation, reserves and responses current. Most of that work has to happen in the first months.

    1. Respond fast. Keep a response plan and retain counsel quickly to preserve evidence, including canvassing for witnesses and third-party cameras.2
    2. Front-load the investigation. Claims leaders recommend completing most of it within six months and revisiting deadlines every 30 days.6
    3. Triage with data. Fewer than 1% of claims drive the most severe outcomes, so route them into specialized workflows.18
    4. Make realistic early offers. Push likely-liability claims toward early settlement, and avoid lowball offers.2,6
    5. Handle time-limited demands by the book. Notify the insured, confirm receipt, ask for clarification in writing and document everything.9
    6. Prepare for trial early. Present reasonable award values, run mock juries earlier and challenge reptile tactics with motions in limine.8,2

    “If this case resulted in a nuclear verdict tomorrow, what did we miss?”

    “The biggest enemy of recognizing exposure is our own biases.”

    Time-limited demands: three state rules to know

    A time-limited demand is an offer to settle within the policy limits that expires on a set deadline. Missing or mishandling one can open the insurer to liability above the limits.9

    StateRuleWhat it means for the file
    GeorgiaO.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1Pre-suit offers must give at least 30 days to accept and include medical records sufficient to evaluate the claim.19
    FloridaFla. Stat. § 624.155(4)(a)No bad-faith action lies if the insurer tenders the lesser of the limits or the demand within 90 days of notice with sufficient evidence.20
    TexasStowers doctrineThe duty to settle arises when a covered claim's demand is within limits and an ordinarily prudent insurer would accept it.21

    Rules change often. Georgia amended its statute in 2021 and 2024, so confirm the current version with coverage counsel.19

    Judicial Hellholes 2025–2026

    The American Tort Reform Foundation's 2025–2026 list ranks Los Angeles, New York City and South Carolina asbestos litigation as the top three.7

    1. Los Angeles
    2. New York City
    3. South Carolina asbestos litigation
    4. Louisiana coastal litigation
    5. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
    6. St. Louis
    7. Cook, Madison and St. Clair Counties, Illinois
    8. King County and the Washington Supreme Court

    The report is published by a business-backed advocacy group, so use it as one input alongside local counsel's verdict history.

    How the checklist scores a file

    Each sign carries a weight of 1 to 3, for a maximum of 36. The total sets the risk level, and two rules can raise it.

    LevelScoreSuggested handling
    Low1–6Routine handling. Keep monitoring as facts develop.
    Moderate7–13Evaluate early and document the reasoning.
    Elevated14–20Escalate for senior or large-loss review.
    High21–36Treat as a potential large loss now, with counsel involved.
    • A time-limited or policy-limits demand always sets the level to at least Elevated, because the deadline cannot wait.
    • A catastrophic injury together with a plaintiff-friendly venue or a safety violation sets the level to High.

    Updated by the amaise team.

    Frequently asked questions

    What is considered a nuclear verdict?

    A jury award of $10 million or more. Awards above $100 million are called thermonuclear verdicts.13

    How many nuclear verdicts were there in 2025?

    Marathon Strategies counted 190 nuclear verdicts against corporate defendants in 2025, up 40.7% from 2024, worth more than $25.6 billion in total.1

    What causes nuclear verdicts?

    Social inflation: shifting juror attitudes, plaintiff tactics such as the reptile theory and anchoring, letters of protection, litigation funding and more attorney involvement early in claims.8 Case facts matter too, such as catastrophic injuries, safety violations and plaintiff-friendly venues.2, 5

    What is the reptile theory?

    A plaintiff trial strategy, first described in 2009, that frames the defendant's conduct as a danger to the community. It aims to shift jurors from sympathy for the victim to anger at the defendant.8

    What is a time-limited demand?

    An offer to settle a liability claim within the insured's policy limits that must be accepted by a set deadline. If the insurer unreasonably fails to accept, it may be liable for a judgment above the limits.9

    How can insurers reduce nuclear verdict risk?

    Identify high-severity files early, investigate within the first months, keep evaluations and reserves current, respond to time-limited demands carefully, and prepare for trial early with realistic damages.6,18,9

    Find the warning signs before the demand arrives

    amaise reads every page of the medical file and surfaces injuries, surgeries, gaps in treatment and life care drivers early, so high-exposure files get attention while there is still time.

    Book a demo

    Sources

    1. Marathon Strategies, Corporate Verdicts Go Thermonuclear, 2026 Edition (Aug 2026).
    2. DRI, Social inflation (featured article) (Jan 2023).
    3. Travelers, What's driving huge jury awards? (Dec 2023).
    4. Florida House of Representatives, Staff analysis, HB 837 (civil remedies) (May 2023).
    5. American Transportation Research Institute, New research documents the scale of nuclear verdicts in the trucking industry (Jun 2020).
    6. CLM Magazine, Dodging the bomb: nuclear verdicts and claims litigation (Oct 2024).
    7. American Tort Reform Foundation, Judicial Hellholes 2025–2026 executive summary (Dec 2025).
    8. Swiss Re Institute, Social inflation: litigation costs drive claims inflation (sigma 4/2024) (Sep 2024).
    9. Goldberg Segalla, Navigating the time-limited policy limits demand: best practices for insurers and defense counsel (Aug 2025).
    10. Insurance Journal, Commercial auto insurers post 14th consecutive year of underwriting losses (AM Best) (Sep 2025).
    11. Leader's Edge, Deflating social inflation (Oct 2024).
    12. Claims Convos by amaise, EP. 05, Mike LaFond, Pekin Insurance (Jun 2026).
    13. Marathon Strategies, Corporate Verdicts Go Thermonuclear, 2025 Edition (May 2025).
    14. U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, New U.S. Chamber research shows nuclear verdicts continue to increase in size and frequency (Jun 2024).
    15. Triple-I and Casualty Actuarial Society, Legal system abuse, not just economic inflation, drives liability insurance losses by more than $230 billion over past 10 years (Oct 2025).
    16. Applied Cognitive Psychology (Chapman and Bornstein), The more you ask for, the more you get: anchoring in personal injury verdicts (1996).
    17. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Third-party litigation financing: market characteristics, data, and trends (GAO-23-105210) (Dec 2022).
    18. Sedgwick, Inside the verdict: what is driving the rise in nuclear and thermonuclear awards (Aug 2025).
    19. Justia, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1 (offers to settle personal injury claims) (current).
    20. The Florida Senate, Florida Statutes § 624.155 (civil remedy) (2024).
    21. CourtListener, American Physicians Insurance Exchange v. Garcia, 876 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. 1994) (1994).

    These tools provide educational estimates based on published benchmarks and your inputs. They are not legal, actuarial or financial advice. Everything you enter stays in your browser.