Beating Them to the Punch

This article was written with the assistance of AI and edited by Angela Sabarese. 

In CLM’s recent webinar, titled, “Making Nuclear Verdicts More Predictable,” legal experts Matthew M. Cianflone, general counsel, Gold Medal Bakery, Inc.; and John Young, partner, O’Hagan Meyer PLLC, delivered a comprehensive presentation on the growing threat of “Nuclear Verdicts”—jury awards exceeding $10 million—and strategies for defense attorneys and insurance professionals to combat them.

The Data

The speakers presented data from a U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform study confirming Nuclear Verdicts are increasing nationwide, with a median of $21 million and mean of $89 million. They identified California, Florida, New York, and Texas as hosting 50% of all Nuclear Verdicts, with personal injury, wrongful death, and product liability cases being particularly vulnerable.

Third-party litigation funding is highlighted as a significant factor driving nuclear verdicts higher. The experts explain how these companies now provide plaintiffs’ attorneys with scripted arguments and trial strategies designed to secure massive awards.

Effective Defense Strategies

The presentation emphasized preemptive planning as the cornerstone of defense strategy. “If you wait [until] trial, it’s probably too late,” Cianflone warns, stressing the importance of building a positive company narrative well before incidents occur. The speakers urge defense attorneys to thoroughly understand their clients’ businesses, operations, safety protocols, and records management systems.

“The best defense to these reptile theories is going to be preparation and having your good story ready to go,” Young explains, referring to plaintiff tactics that frame companies as valuing profits over safety. The speakers recommend proactively identifying strong corporate witnesses, establishing documented safety protocols, and implementing proper employee training programs.

The presentation also addresses spoliation concerns and the catastrophic impact of missing evidence. “You don't want the judge going to the jury and telling them…[they’re] allowed to infer that because [the] defendant failed to preserve evidence…it must have contained harmful evidence,” Cianflone cautions.

“Be proactive rather than reactive,” Young concludes, emphasizing that while preparation requires upfront investment, it pays dividends when catastrophic incidents occur.