Curtis Shulman’s Post

The HUB EDGE isn't the newsletter you're used to, and that's a good thing. Read our refreshed take on a monthly newsletter that explores the big issues impacting businesses now, and in the future, starting with our first issue tackling third-party litigation financing. #theHUBEDGE #nuclearverdicts

I would like to bring alot of attention to a recent non-Nuclear Verdict coming out of Philadelphia in recent weeks. I am hopeful the lessons learned from this trial experience in one of the top Judicial Hellholes in the U.S. initiates some momentum towards changing the tide of inflated settlement values and Nuclear Verdicts that seems to occur on an almost daily basis. There is currently only one media outlet (www.law.com) that I have found that has published the story of this case and I think we need to help spread this very favorable news. The plaintiff's lower body was crushed by a double-stacked pallet of weights that fell while he was unloading it from a truck. The injuries were catastrophic and left him permanently impaired. The last demand was $101 million through trial (inclusive of punitive damages). The last offer was $26 million. Excess insurance counsel was dropped in and hired a service to provide a Shadow Jury (a mock trial was unable to be accomplished as the plaintiff's deposition had not been video taped). The Shadow jury's daily feedback however negative throughout the trial, had been proven to be critical to adjusting the delivery of the defense strategy over the three week trial. There were multiple layers of excess or towers of coverage involved and they applied a lot of pressure to Excess defense counsel to settle the case pre-verdict. The plaintiff attorney wouldn't budge. Low and behold and to make a very long and captivating story short, the jury awarded the plaintiff $6.1 million. The very strong message coming from this reknowned defense attorney is don't be afraid to take a stand and try your case if it can't be reasonably settled. The fear of Nuclear Verdicts however real can only be stopped if we don't give in to unreasonable settlement demands. By settling at unreasonable high values, we inadvertently set the bar higher and propagate these settlements and make them more common place. Phila. Jury Hands Up $6.1M Verdict to Crushed Worker Despite Plaintiff's 'Nuclear' Settlement Demand | The Legal Intelligencer (law.com)

A few months ago, I posted a very encouraging article about Governor Kemp's focus on tort reform for 2024. Unfortunately, it is no surprise attempting to reform something that has not been touched since 2005 was never going to be easy. While the reform looks to be a multi-year process, I am optimistic about incremental improvement as it is still a priority in the 2024 legislative session. #gatortreform #realestate #nuclearverdicts #amwins

So much to unpack, but here are two things to keep in mind: 1. This is a tug-of-war! Have you considered the millions—potentially billions—spent by insurance companies and their insureds, notably hospitals, on lobbying? Was this omission intentional? I imagine personal injury attorneys would rather allocate those funds elsewhere. But, failing to do would inevitably leave them at a disadvantage in the ongoing tug-of-war. 2. Let’s not forget about the victims. We read “nuclear veridicts” and think 🤑! But we forget about the victims. Those veridicts are not free money, it’s compensation for life altering accidents. If insurance companies can, they take advantage of this situation and settle for pennies on the dollar. The reason some can’t are PI attorneys who fight alongside these victims for years to get fair compensation. If you speak with an attorney who's handled a "nuclear verdict," ask about the last settlement offer before trial. You'll quickly see how unreasonable they can be compared to the actual hardships faced by the victim. If you need a referral, feel free to DM me—I can connect you with the best in the business. By the way, calling insurance companies “unreasonable” is just me using my professional LinkedIn vocabulary, my true sentiment towards them is much less flattering.

Socially inflated verdicts continue to create challenges for the insurance industry and corporate clients. Read Shareholder Jim Milstone's defense strategy for corporate defendants: "Snap Removal." #inflatedverdict #tortlitigation #federalcourt #kpdlaw #attorneysatlaw

Nuclear verdicts are reshaping the legal landscape. Learn about the devastating financial impacts of these high-cost judgments and their implications for businesses in the insurance industry in Marsh McLennan Agency's blog. #Litigation #ConstructionIndustry  

https://lnkd.in/eDViVn3Z Bravo Aon. It’s actions like this which allow the insurance industry to precipitate change and tackle the #socialinflation and #nuclearverdicts crisis in the US. TPLF is an unseen catalyst of US legal system abuse and anything we can do to help our #healthcare insureds to mitigate its effects should be welcomed.

My dad's best advice to me was "Before you point fingers, first look at the guy in the mirror." So, there is all this talk about the trend of HUGE verdicts. I have a serious question for the plaintiff's bar to assist me in my litigation management/negotiation courses and perhaps the defense bar/industry as well. Specifically, I am interested in cases where the verdict was well above the last offer. In a PROFESSIONAL and WELL TONED manner, can you plaintiff's attorney specifically or generally give thoughts on (1) what % would you have settled for compared to the HUGE verdict (e.g. 50% less); (2) what was % was last offer compared to the verdict; (3) what are the main reasons you plaintiff's attorney believe the defense and insurance dramatically misassessed the case(s)--if at all. Thanks. Self-reflection may help us all! (If you want anonymity--email me at bmtichell@cmlawfirm.com #nuclearverdicts #GTLA

U.S. Supreme Court overturns Chevron – breaking down the court’s decision and what it means. The U.S. Supreme Court's major decision to overturn Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) will significantly impact how courts will address challenges to agency rulemaking. Read this article written by thought leader, Mark Popolizio, J.D, to learn more about this landmark decision: https://vrsk.co/4bufST5 #Chevron #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdate #Insurance #Medicare #Verisk

U.S. Supreme Court overturns Chevron – breaking the court’s decision and what it means. The U.S. Supreme Court's major decision to overturn Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) will significantly impact how courts will address challenges to agency rulemaking. Read this article written by thought leader, Mark Popolizio, J.D, to learn more about this landmark decision: https://ow.ly/gFNQ30sELK0 #Chevron #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdate #Insurance #Medicare #Verisk