Introduction

The maritime industry, long governed by a unique set of laws and traditions, is facing a new and formidable challenge: the rise of “nuclear verdicts” in personal injury cases, particularly those involving Jones Act seamen. These outsized jury awards, typically defined as verdicts of $10 million or more, are reshaping the landscape of maritime litigation, insurance, and risk management.[1] As the frequency and size of these verdicts increase, shipowners, insurers, and maritime employers are grappling with the implications for business operations, insurability, and the broader rule of law. 

Drivers of Nuclear Verdicts in Jones Act Cases

Nuclear verdicts are not a new concept in American tort law but their proliferation in maritime personal injury cases is a relatively recent trend. The Jones Act grants seamen the right to a jury trial and, in many cases, access to state courts, which have proven more likely than federal courts to produce nuclear verdicts. In the context of the Jones Act, these verdicts pose serious financial consequences for shipowners and their insurers. Insurers must analyze future risk and consider the possibility of a nuclear verdict, and at the same time quote a reasonable premium.

A defining feature of most nuclear verdicts is the predominance of large sums being awarded for noneconomic (and subjective) damages, such as pain and suffering. Plaintiffs’ attorneys use various strategies in an attempt to increase jury verdicts. For example, during opening statements the plaintiffs’ attorney might suggest that a very large award is necessary to make the plaintiff whole. By suggesting a large figure at the outset of the case, psychologically that large number becomes the “anchor” number that is then used to demand an exorbitant sum for noneconomic damages during closing. Another common approach is to associate a monetary figure with a specific time period, such as a per diem or per minute calculation, to make the requested damages feel more tangible. Finally, plaintiffs’ attorneys may employ the “reptile theory,” which frames the case as a broader public safety issue, urging the jury to “send a message” to the industry.[2] These techniques are designed to evoke fear or outrage, which can lead jurors to award damages that far exceed reasonable compensation.

In Jones Act cases, the focus is often on a company’s safety culture, training practices, or prior incidents, and connecting those, or lack thereof, to the specific facts of the injury at hand. 

The consolidation of multiple injured parties’ claims into a single trial is another factor that increases the risk of nuclear verdicts. Juries are significantly more likely to find for the plaintiff and award larger damages in multi-plaintiff trials than in individual cases. In the maritime context, this can occur in mass casualty events or when multiple crew members allege similar injuries from a single incident.

Impact on the Maritime Industry

The unpredictability and magnitude of nuclear verdicts are having a direct impact on the cost and availability of insurance for maritime employers. For smaller operators, a single nuclear verdict can threaten the economic viability of the business, while larger companies must factor these risks into every aspect of their operations.

Nuclear verdicts also can distort settlement negotiations. Claimants, emboldened by recent jury awards, may make ever-higher demands, leading to a spiral of “nuclear settlements.” When parties cannot bridge the gap between reasonable compensation and inflated expectations, cases go to trial, consuming judicial resources and prolonging the resolution of claims.

Equally concerning is the erosion of predictability and fairness in the legal system. When similar injuries result in vastly different awards, it undermines confidence in the consistency and integrity of the judicial process.

Legal and Legislative Responses

Some states have responded to the nuclear verdict trend by enacting laws that require the bifurcation of compensatory and punitive damages, ensuring that evidence supporting punitive awards does not improperly influence liability findings or compensatory awards.[3] Others have imposed caps on pain and suffering or punitive damages, providing a legislative backstop against runaway jury awards.[4]

Venue reform is another available tool, as cases filed in jurisdictions with little connection to the parties or the incident are more likely to result in nuclear verdicts. Strengthening standards for the admissibility of expert evidence can also help ensure that jurors base their decisions on reliable science rather than speculation or emotion.

In the maritime context, the enforceability of arbitration clauses and forum-selection provisions in crew employment contracts is an evolving area of law. While the Federal Arbitration Act exempts seamen’s employment contracts from domestic arbitration, international conventions and recent case law have upheld the enforceability of such clauses in many circumstances, offering a potential avenue for reducing exposure to nuclear verdicts.

Conclusion

The rise of nuclear verdicts in Jones Act seamen cases is reshaping the risk landscape for the maritime industry. Driven by subjective damage assessments, aggressive litigation tactics, and broader societal trends, these outsized awards threaten the insurability and fairness of maritime personal injury litigation. 

While legislative and procedural reforms offer some hope of restoring balance, shipowners, insurers, and maritime employers must remain vigilant, adopting robust risk management strategies and advocating for a legal environment that ensures reasonable, predictable compensation for injured seamen, without jeopardizing the future of the industry.