The American Tort Reform Foundation (ATR) has published its 2023-2024 Judicial Hellholes Executive Summary. This annual report highlights prominent jurisdictions across the United States known for enabling iniquitous lawsuits, welcoming litigation tourism, and expanding civil liability for defendants across the country.

The 2023-2024 Judicial Hellholes

While the ATR Judicial Hellholes Executive Summary includes numerous (and familiar) jurisdictions, a few particularly notable judicial hellholes include:

1. Cook County, Illinois. Cook County, IL climbed the ladder to the No. 2 spot (a marked increase from 2022-2023’s No. 5 ranking) as a frequent domain for plaintiff-friendly asbestos litigation and an increased prevalence of no-injury lawsuits. Illinois courts are notable for the sheer prevalence of nuclear verdicts and home to a plaintiff-friendly state legislature.
2. California. The “Golden State” claimed the No. 3 spot due to the plaintiffs’ bar’s efforts to find innovative new ways to expand liability through the courts and the legislature, ranging from abusive Proposition 65 and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) litigation to serial plaintiffs filing hundreds of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuits.
3. Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania joined Georgia in a tie for the nation’s No. 1 spot. After the elimination of the state’s venue rule for medical liability litigation by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 2022, the flood gates have opened for medical liability claims filed in favorable venues. The Philadelphia court continues to issue nuclear verdicts, including a nearly $1 billion award in a 2023 product liability case (discussed in greater detail below).
4. St. Louis, Missouri. Sneaking in at the No. 8 spot, St. Louis courts have embraced a reputation for skirting state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent and have created a home for junk science. St. Louis has become a regular host for nuclear verdicts, as demonstrated through the rush of out-of-state and international plaintiffs heading for the courtrooms. Among the factors contributing to these massive verdicts is the allowance of “anchoring.” Missouri law, along with that of other states, permits plaintiffs’ lawyers to urge juries to return a specific amount to compensate a person for his or her pain and suffering and other subjective noneconomic damages.

2023-2024 Nuclear Verdicts

A commonly used term in the ATR Judicial Hellholes Report, a “nuclear verdict” is a jury award in a civil case that is significantly higher than what is considered reasonable or expected (often in excess of $10 million). Nuclear verdicts are frequently seen in personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits. Several noteworthy nuclear verdicts to come out of the above jurisdictions recently include:

1. C.E.G. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. Unknown (Cook County, IL). In 2023, 7-Eleven reached a $91 million settlement with a Cook County, IL plaintiff who sued the company after a motorist accidentally drove a vehicle into the storefront, pinned the plaintiff, and ultimately resulted in a double lower extremity amputation. Despite 7-Eleven complying with all local building codes and ordinances, the company chose to settle the lawsuit for a stunning $91 million rather than risk trial in Cook County. Notably, the 7-Eleven location lacked bollards surrounding the storefront, which plaintiff’s counsel argued would have easily prevented the incident at minimal cost to 7-Eleven.
2. Amagasu et al. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America et al., Case No. 181102406 (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas). In October of 2023, Mitsubishi was hit with the largest crashworthiness verdict ever awarded in Pennsylvania – $180 million in compensatory damages and $800 million in punitive damages. The verdict stemmed from a car accident where the seatbelt of plaintiff’s 1992 Mitsubishi 3000 GT failed to adequately restrain him and purportedly contributed to his injuries. The verdict is less surprising given that the automaker was not permitted to inform the jury that the seatbelt design met motor vehicle safety standards; the court deliberately instructed the jury that it should not consider compliance with safety standards when determining liability. Instead of instructing the jury that a plaintiff who claims the product is defective must show a feasible alternative, safer design that would have avoided the injury, the Court improperly framed the need to show an alternative as “optional.”
3. Karen Chaplin and Jason Politte as Administrators of the Estate of Melissa Politte v. United Brands Products Design Development and Marketing, Inc. d/b/a United Brands Corporation, et al, Case No. 20SL-CC06071 (City of St. Louis, Missouri). In September of 2023, parents were awarded $745 million after their 25-year-old daughter was struck and killed on the sidewalk by a driver who had passed out after consuming nitrous oxide. The parents filed a lawsuit against the Coughing Cardinal (where the motorist purchased nitrous oxide) and United Brands (who manufactured, distributed, and sold the nitrous oxide under the name “Whip-It!” as a food propellant). United Brands and Coughing Cardinal faced negligence, strict liability, and conspiracy claims. Despite United Brand’s argument that it should be no more liable than a beer manufacturer would be for a drunk driver causing a wrongful death, the St. Louis jury handed down 10% liability to the driver, 20% to Coughing Cardinal, and 70% to United Brands. United Brand was ultimately liable for $20 million in compensatory damages and $700 million for aggravating circumstances, while the Coughing Cardinal’s aggravating circumstances damages were $25 million. Notably, Missouri does not have a cap on wrongful death damages.

Best Practices for Litigating in Jurisdictions Home to Nuclear Verdicts

While we recognize that judicial hellholes exist and understand the desire to avoid nuclear verdicts whenever possible, there are several best practices and proactive steps you can take to be as prepared as possible in the event of litigation in these jurisdictions. A key part of this preparation involves working closely with outside counsel to develop a comprehensive strategy (including early case assessment, diligent jury research, proactive venue selection, and effective use of expert witnesses) and aiming to minimize exposure while ensuring your defense is as robust as possible. Other recommendations for litigating in these notorious regions include:

Recommendation No. 1 – Early and thorough assessment of merit. As with any impending or filed litigation, it is imperative to conduct an internal investigation into the claims asserted to determine any preliminary exposure points. When facing elevated exposure in a plaintiff friendly venue, early investigation and expert involvement could help facilitate early settlement negotiations or serve as the basis to immediately file a dispositive motion.

Recommendation No. 2 – Prompt removal evaluation. Venues that favor plaintiff friendly evidentiary rules have become hotspots for forum shopping and, as a result, necessitate early analysis of all named and interested parties to determine potential fraudulent joinder. In this same vein, partnering with outside counsel to closely monitor the national docket may allow for timely snap removal. Even if a venue challenge is denied by the trial court, it is important to preserve the issue for appeal.

Recommendation No. 3 – Proactive appellate plan development. If early settlement or removal are not viable and trial appears imminent, simultaneous consideration of appellate strategy may prove useful for post-verdict recourse. Appellate considerations begin the moment a complaint is filed; it is imperative for defendants to be particularly vigilant in guarding the appellate record early on, ensuring relevant arguments and defenses are not waived.

While not an exhaustive curation of considerations that may be top of mind when defending litigation in a judicial hellhole, these best practices may help best position a defendant for early resolution or post-judgment recourse.