Before the Nuclear Verdict: Rethinking How Liability Claims Are Managed

Across the industry, nuclear verdicts are dominating conversations about social inflation and liability severity, and for good reason: in 2025, U.S. juries returned nearly 200 nuclear verdicts — awards of $10 million or more — against corporate defendants, a 40.7% increase from 2024. Together, those verdicts totaled more than $25.6 billion.

But a nuclear verdict is the end of the story, and focusing too much on that ending can distract us from understanding everything that led up to it. The most important opportunities to influence a verdict’s outcome occur long before the jury is seated.

The way a claim is handled from the beginning — how claimant frustration is addressed, how clearly information is communicated, how much research goes into understanding what really happened — often carries just as much influence over how a case unfolds, if not more, than the underlying injury itself.

Take a real general liability claim involving allegations of a brain injury from a collapsing chair. The plaintiff’s settlement demand was $8 million, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict of $11,000. The outcome was the result of a series of quality, research and timing decisions made throughout the life of the claim.

Organizations that embrace informed, disciplined decision-making are better positioned on two fronts — keeping claims from escalating into litigation and improving their odds of a favorable outcome when they do.

Five Practical Ways to Rewrite the Ending

Here are five steps, based on my personal experience, insurance organizations can take to shape claims outcomes before they reach a jury.

1. Don’t let the demand set the value –– do your research.

A claimant’s demand is often 10 to 20 times higher than what a case should reasonably settle for, making it essential to do your due diligence to determine what a claim is worth. For example, an attorney for a claimant who tore their ACL in a slip-and-fall may come back with a $1 million demand, arguing the injury ended their career as an athlete. But a rigorous analysis of the facts may determine the claim is reasonably worth closer to $10,000.

Without an independent view of the demand, insurance organizations are left negotiating against the claimant’s number. This can result in settling too high out of caution or holding a position they can’t confidently defend if the case goes to trial. When that evaluation is done thoroughly, it allows the adjuster, defense counsel and the carrier to work from the same understanding of where a case should land. With everyone in alignment, claims can move toward resolution faster because there’s no lag between what the adjuster believes and what outside counsel is prepared to argue if the case goes to trial.

2. Identify early signs of escalation and know when speed matters.

Train teams to recognize behavioral indicators that a claim might morph into litigation, such as threats or ongoing communication breakdowns. At the same time, identify the behaviors, patterns, and other factors that lead to faster and lower settlements. Technology can help make these distinctions less of a guessing game. When organizations use it to analyze outcomes across large volumes of claims, they can start to see correlations between how quickly a claim is resolved and what it ultimately costs.

Some claims, like this in construction, naturally require time, while others may benefit from more swift resolution. Trucking claims, for example, can usually be settled on site, before a lawsuit ever materializes. When you can identify which types of claims are likely to be successful with early intervention, you can stop the litigation before it begins.

3. Claims leaders should function as the bridge, not the middleman.

Imagine this common scenario: A third-party administrator receives a demand letter and, only a week before the trial date, approaches the carrier to request a $1 million increase in reserves. The case is heading to court, but the parties are not in agreement on the claim’s valuation, haven’t evaluated their options, and are ill-prepared for trial.

Claims leaders should function as the bridge between every party touching a claim –– from internal stakeholders to defense counsel –– making sure everyone knows the position being taken and why. This requires identifying the severity of a claim as early as possible and holding defense counsel accountable for the work they’re providing on the carrier’s behalf. It’s a two-way relationship: claims leaders guide defense counsel on strategy and direction, while counsel gives them legal expertise. Carriers should be able to trust that this exchange is happening consistently.

In reality, this alignment tends to happen too late. Ideally, as new information emerges, adjusters and defense counsel should continually reassess the claim, align on settlement authority, and make informed decisions that move the process forward.

4. Invest in the talent gap before it costs you.

The talent gap is widening as experienced adjusters retire, taking years of hard-won judgment with them. Newer adjusters are stepping into complex litigated claims without always having had the chance to learn from their seasoned peers. With ongoing labor shortages, many adjusters are juggling hundreds of files at once. On top of it, they were never trained to negotiate the actual loss against an inflated demand. So, when a claimant’s attorney comes in hard on a routine claim, they don’t always feel confident pushing back. The demand starts to feel like the only number on the table, instead of an opening position to push back on –– which is part of the reason nuclear verdicts have risen in recent years.

Closing the talent gap requires real, ongoing investment: routine performance review to identify where an adjuster is struggling, and using that insight to determine what specific training, resources, and mentorship they need.

5. Supercharge adjusters with technology.

Advanced analytics and AI can synthesize large volumes of claim and legal information, identify patterns, surface emerging severity signals, and help adjusters prioritize the files that require the most attention. For example, AI can be used to systematically review every file –– as opposed to only the ones that raise a flag –– enabling adjusters to surface reserving patterns that they wouldn’t be able to spot on their own, like certain law firms that consistently pursue the same types of claims, or jurisdictions that tend to produce larger judgments.

Technology can also strengthen judgment through training: an adjuster can use AI to simulate a demanding settlement negotiation, pressure-test their valuation, and practice responding to counterarguments before entering a real negotiation.

Taking Control of the Narrative

In an environment where nuclear verdicts are on the rise, claims leaders can no longer afford to let the outcome write itself. The most effective claims strategy comes from connecting the people, data, and decisions that shape an outcome –– long before a case is headed to trial. When that alignment is supported by the right technology and leadership oversight, claims teams can move from reactive file management to proactive decision-making.

Farooq is chief claims officer of Venbrook.

Was this article valuable?