The Rise of Nuclear Verdicts for Jones Act Seamen: Transforming Maritime Personal Injury Litigation( continued from page 5)
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.
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
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.
Blank Rome’ s maritime team is able to provide efficient and valuable guidance to stakeholders navigating the evolving exposure of Jones Act personal injury cases. p – 2025 BLANK ROME LLP
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
3. Examples of states with bifurcation requirements include Texas and New Jersey. See e. g., H. B. 19( Tex. 2021)( requiring bifurcated trials in commercial motor vehicle cases so liability and compensatory damages are assessed in a separate phase before any potential jury consideration of evidence supporting exemplary damages); N. J. Rev. Stat. § 2A: 15-5.13( 2024)( mandates that a trial involving punitive damages, if requested by any defendant, must be conducted in a bifurcated trial).
4. States with caps on non-economic damages, including pain and suffering, in general personal injury cases include Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee. Of note, some states like Arizona, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania have constitutional provisions prohibiting damage caps in general tort claims.
MAINBRACE • 6