One of the hardest parts of trial work has always been predicting what jurors will do once the courtroom door closes. Demographics, voir dire, and jury questionnaires can help— but certainty remains elusive.
What is certain is that juror behavior has changed.
Across the country, the insurance industry and trial lawyers are seeing a sustained rise in so-called “nuclear verdicts,” often defined as awards exceeding $10 million. These outcomes are no longer anomalies. They reflect a broader shift in how jurors view civil verdicts—not merely as compensation, but as a tool for accountability and punishment. This shift is a major driver of “social inflation,” with systemic consequences for insurers, corporations, and litigants alike.
Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady Partner, Chris Floreale, and our noted team of trial attorneys have identified several recurring drivers of larger verdicts.
First, lawyer advertising has normalized extreme numbers. Jurors are constantly exposed to headlines and commercials highlighting massive awards, often without any factual context. Those figures quietly reset expectations.
Second, social media reinforces that distortion. Jurors encounter verdict amounts divorced from facts, causation, or proportionality—and repetition makes them feel routine.
Third, anchoring has become a standard plaintiffs’ tactic. Asking for extraordinary sums in closing arguments establishes a psychological floor, even if jurors ultimately “discount” the request.
Fourth, reptile-style arguments continue to resonate. When cases are framed as public safety failures rather than individual injury claims, damages become punitive by design.
Fifth, jurors are more financially sophisticated than ever. They understand contingency fees, medical billing practices, taxes, and inflation—and often inflate awards to account for those perceived deductions.
Certain individual characteristics also remain predictive.
Jurors experiencing significant personal stress—job loss, divorce, illness, bereavement— are statistically more open to large awards. Those in “helping” professions often decide cases emotionally, while jurors with analytical or financially stable backgrounds tend to be more restrained. Extreme or grievance-driven worldviews, anti-corporate sentiment, and heavy social media consumption all correlate strongly with higher verdicts.
Another emerging issue is what happens after the case is submitted. Hung juries and prolonged deliberations are becoming more common. Political and cultural polarization appear to be impairing consensus-building, with disagreement increasingly treated as moral failure rather than difference of judgment.
The bottom line is this: today’s juries are not simply unpredictable—they are fundamentally different. Trial strategy that ignores the psychological and cultural forces shaping juror decision-making does so at real risk.
The question for trial lawyers is not whether these dynamics exist—but whether our jury selection, case themes, and risk assessments have truly caught up. Let our expert team of trial lawyers at Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady help you with your tough trial cases. Please contact: Chris G. Floreale at CFloreale@gerberciano.com; Dennis J. Brady at Dbrady@gerberciano.com; or Frank J. Ciano at Fciano@gerberciano.com.
