No images? Click here Overview of Recent Nuclear and Disproportionate Verdicts in Louisiana and Strategies to Protect and Mitigate Against these VerdictsThe litigation landscape in Louisiana has become plagued by the exponential rise of nuclear verdicts – often described as jury awards that exceed $10 million or awards that are unreasonably high compared to the facts of the case and “shock the conscience”. For the insurance industry, this often means awards in excess of the insured’s available coverage, leaving the insured personally liable for the excess amount. In such a scenario, this excess exposure for the insureds creates tremendous financial implications. According to a 2024 study conducted by Marathon Strategies, Louisiana verdicts in 2023 totaled $436,834,403 ($409,127,013 in state court and $27,707,390 in federal court). Similarly, a 2024 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked Louisiana eighth among state nuclear verdicts based on preliminary 2023 data. Notably, the American Tort Reform Association’s 2024-2025 Judicial Hellhole Report ranked Louisiana tenth on its “Judicial Hellholes” list and cited a study by The Perryman Group that excessive judgments create a $965.22 “tort tax” per Louisiana resident. Nuclear verdicts have wide-reaching impacts beyond just the insured. Plaintiffs have inflated and unreasonable expectations regarding settlements, even for typical injury claims. Insurance companies’ financial resources are constricted, they are forced to raise premiums and undertake new risk management practices, reconsider policy limits and insuring high-risk areas. Insurance adjusters are pressed to reconsider case values and reserves. Defense attorneys face unreasonable demands from plaintiff counsel and are forced to navigate the potential excess exposure their insured client faces. Finally, citizens not directly involved pay the price for increased litigation by struggling to afford insurance for themselves and/or their businesses due to increased rates and the need to carry excess and umbrella insurance. To address this dangerous trend, we examine recent high-value awards throughout Louisiana and contextualize them against the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recent decisions and discuss the state of the law. Additionally, we discuss important defense strategies and their strengths in combatting nuclear awards. To address this challenge from a regulatory and legislative perspective, I am currently working with the Louisiana Insurance Commissioner’s office on a series of tort reform bills. I will testify before legislative committees in support of this potential tort reform legislation.
On February 28, 2025, A jury in East Baton Rouge Parish rendered the largest single-plaintiff award in the history of the state in the amount of $411,687,387.36 to Jose Valdivia after a 20 pound scaffolding bar was dropped on his head by a co-worker. Valdivia suffered injuries to his spinal cord as well as an alleged traumatic brain injury. In addition to arguing the severity of Valdivia’s injuries, Plaintiff’s case at trial was aimed at attacking Brock Services’ alleged failure to report the incident, covering it up, and bragging about having no recordable injuries while the case was in litigation. Moreover, Plaintiff stressed an intentional tort argument and pointed to to the co-worker as being dubbed “crazy Mike” and “walking hazard Mike” The jury deliberated for just over two (2) hours and returned a verdict for Valdivia broken down as follows: o $594,890.36 for past medical expenses (Degan, Blanchard & Nash was retained post judgement by an excess insurer.)
A jury in Orleans Parish awarded $421,488,633 ($506,762,246 total damages less $85,273,613 paid by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana – “Blue Cross”) to St. Charles Surgical Hospital and Center for Restorative Breast Surgery after finding that Blue Cross fraudulently underpaid claims for breast reconstruction procedures that had been authorized from 2015-2023. The jury deliberated for less than 2 hours. Blue Cross argued that because the hospital is not a member of its provider network, it was not obligated to pay and would be appealing.
• $220 Million to Plaintiff for Automobile Accident (September 23, 2024) - Sherri Tramble v. Linetec Service, LLC, et al. (27th JDC Case No. 22-10939) A jury in St. Landry Parish awarded $219,910,110, including $155,500,000 in general damages, in a truck/ambulance collision case for injuries sustained by a 36-year-old paramedic who was unrestrained in the back of the ambulance treating a patient. The ambulance was t-boned by a pick-up truck driven by an employee of LineTec Services. Injuries included: o multiple skull fractures affecting her eye socket, cheek, and nose
A jury in St. Tammany Parish awarded $129,000,000 to a family following the death of a 6-year-old girl (Emma Savoie) who was killed in Our Lady of Lourdes Roman Catholic School’s parking lot while participating in its afterschool “Run Club”. The Run Club followed a dangerous route that lead young children to an afternoon carpool line without adequate adult supervision or crossing guards. At trial, the Plaintiffs focused their arguments not only on the tragic death of Emma Savoie, but that the School had never apologized for what happened. Breakdown of award to the family: o $50,000,000 to the decedent’s 10-year-old brother for mental anguish from viewing the event
• $91.7 Million to 9 Plaintiffs in Paper Mill Explosion (April 24, 2024) - Michael Johnson et al v. Packaging Corporation of America et al. (USDC-M.D.La. Case No. 3:18-cv-00613) A jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana awarded $91,741.369.86 to nine survivors of a 2017 paper mill explosion in DeRidder, LA, as follows: Michael Johnson ($9,266,672.07 total, including $8,000,000 in general damages) o $107,355.58 for past medical expenses Charles Cunningham ($19,911,177.41 total, including $14,000,000 in general damages) o $249,737.76 for past medical expenses Jerry Bailey ($13,749,237.6 total, including $10,000,000 in general damages) o $97,780.20 for past medical expenses Eric Woodard ($10,423,313.54 total, including $9,000,000 in general damages) o $115,255.22 for past medical expenses Michael Darbonne ($9,673,274.98 total, including $8,000,000 in general damages) o $13,274.98 for past medical expenses Michael McCullough ($17,723,216.87 total, including $14,000,000 in general damages) o $236,164.80 for past medical expenses Demon Benjamin ($4,056,499.64 total, including $4,000,000 in general damages) o $56,499.64 for past medical expenses Pamela Green ($6,907,977.75 total, including $6,000,000 in general damages) o $136,158.92 for past medical expenses Christopher Herrington o $30,000 for past medical expenses
• $43 Million to Plaintiff and Family for Automobile Accident (Verdict rendered on 11/06/23 and Judgment Signed 05/23/24) – Zachary Stewart and Caitlin Stewart, Individually and on Behalf of their Minor Children, Aaron Stewart and Liam Stewart Court v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Service Steel Warehouse, L.P. and Burk Banks (18th JDC Case No. 81077) According to the January 2, 2024 issue of The Louisiana Jury Verdict Reporter, a jury in Iberville Parish granted $43,320,229 total to the plaintiff and his family in a truck negligence case. Breakdown of $38,320,229 award to the plaintiff, including $31,000,000 in general damages: o $789,847.81 for past medical expenses Breakdown of $5,000,000 award to the plaintiff’s family: o $4,000,000 for his wife’s consortium damages
• $18.4 Million to Plaintiff for Automobile Accident (January 16, 2025 ) – Robert Marionneaux, III v. Alexander Wilson, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Capital City Press, LLC D/B/A The Advocate, and Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company (18th JDC Case No. 80592) A jury in Iberville Parish awarded $18,422,935.20, including $18,000,000 in general damages, to a law school plaintiff and son of an attorney who was rear-ended by a sportswriter for The Advocate, Wilson Alexander. The plaintiff alleged a low-back disc injury, seven ESI treatments, and recommendations for two lumbar repair surgeries. Breakdown of award to plaintiff: o $82,793.44 for past medical expenses The complexities in the case were that the plaintiff sued Alexander(who had a $50,000 USAA policy); his own UIM carrier, Farm Bureau, which had a $500,000 policy (that was paid) and a $2,000,000 excess; and The Advocate (which had a $16,000,000 policy).
• $6.1 Million to Plaintiff 1 and $5.2 million to Plaintiff 2 for Automobile Accident (December 12, 2024) – Mason Tibbs and Jason Comeaux v. Hudson Insurance Co, et al. (15th JDC Case No. C-20222669) A jury in Lafayette Parish awarded $6,126,284 total to plaintiff Tibbs, who was rear-ended by an employee of Acme Truck Line, Inc., and $5,270,400 total to plaintiff Comeaux, whose vehicle was subsequently struck by Tibbs’ vehicle. Breakdown of $6,126,284 award to Tibbs, including $5,500,000 in general damages: $73,063 for past medical expenses Breakdown of $5,270,400 award to Comeaux, including $4,750,000 in general damages: $214,400 for past medical expenses
• $4.8 Million to Plaintiff and Wife for Automobile Accident (January 17, 2025) – Willie Zepherin, et al. v. Clear Blue Insurance Co, et al. (15th JDC Case No. 2023-2075) o $700,000 for past physical pain and suffering
• $1.9 Million to Plaintiff for Automobile Accident (May 8, 2024) – Tony Boutte v. ACE American Insurance Company, United Rental Company, and Chandwick Savoy (15th JDC Case No. C-20221210) A jury in Lafayette Parish awarded $1,960,308.99, including $825,000 in general damages, in an automobile/forklift accident case involving an employee of United Rentals who failed to yield. The plaintiff alleged neck and back injuries, and there were just recommendations for continued cervical and lumbar injections, as well as for a lumbar fusion surgery. The award breakdown included: o $300,000 for past, present and future physical pain and suffering
• $1.5 Million to Plaintiff for Automobile Accident (October 4, 2024) - Jada Rende v. New York Marine and General Insurance Company, et al. (19th JDC Case No. 712258) A jury in East Baton Rouge Parish awarded $1,512,000, including $850,000 in general damages, for a rear-end collision where the plaintiff treated for chronic back pain. Breakdown of award to the plaintiff:
Similarly, on October 20, 2023, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Henry Pete v. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company, LLC, et al. held that the Orleans Parish jury abused its discretion with regard to the $9,800,000 general damages award for a longshoreman’s mesothelioma from asbestos exposure (consisting of $2,000,000 for past and future physical pain and suffering; $2,300,000 for past and future mental pain and suffering; $3,000,000 for past and future physical disability; and $2,500,000 for past and future loss of enjoyment of life). The Court held that lower courts must consider past general damage awards for similar injuries to determine whether a jury abused its discretion in its damages award. It found “that the record evidence of Mr. Pete's injuries is not so dissimilar to these other cases to warrant an award so greatly exceeding the range of these cases” and reduced the award to $5,000,000 as the highest reasonable general damage award within the jury’s discretion. With past medical expenses of $551,020.70, the final judgment totaled $5,551,020.70.
However, at the December 19, 2024 rehearing (Barber II), the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed its prior reduction – restoring Cushenberry’s $10,750,000 general damage award and amending the wife’s loss of consortium to $1,000,000 and children’s loss of consortium to $500,000 each. Providing a “revised abuse of discretion analysis under Pete,” the Court clarified that:
(i) Determining whether abuse of discretion occurred by examining the particular facts and circumstances of the case under review while including a ‘consideration of prior awards in similar cases,’ and The Court held that the jury did not abuse its discretion in the $10,750,000 general damages award to Cushenberry, who sustained severe injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. The Court further stated that it did not adequately account for the voluminous and unrebutted trial record demonstrating the detrimental effects of the injuries. After a thorough review of the record and prior jury awards, the Court found that the jury’s award does not “shock the conscience” and was not an abuse of discretion. On February 14, 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for rehearing in Barber. Thus, the effect of Barber II is that in evaluating whether a jury abused its discretion, appellate courts are to consider facts specific to each case in conjunction with a review of prior jury awards. Although the Louisiana Supreme Court created a standard for review in Pete for handling nuclear verdicts, the Court drastically changed it in favor of maintaining the verdict in its subsequent handling in Barber. In essence, the Court’s ruling has opened the door for appellate courts to maintain inflated jury verdicts. What is particularly unusual about this case is that after deciding Barber I, the Louisiana Supreme Court on its own invitation instituted the Barker II review.
III. Strategies to Protect and Mitigate Against Nuclear and Disproportionate Verdicts Litigation Defense Strategies
Trial preparation, strategies, and tactics are key in combatting
excessive verdicts. Mock trials, focus groups, and jury consultants are a great way to get into the mind of those who might be sitting on a jury and to refine the defense theory and message of the case before a trial begins. It also allows attorneys to test visual aids and presentations and gather feedback on what is missing or what is desired from a jury. Jury consultants can provide invaluable information into the background of prospective jurors to aid in voir dire. Jury selection is an art, but practical and tested strategies should still be employed. When selecting a jury, lawyers should focus on key issues relevant to the case and use open-ended questions to reveal potential biases. Other Strategies
The “profits over people” concern against corporations can be tempered with better risk management practices. Companies need to be educated on what could be perceived as greed over safety (for example, keeping adverse event reports or unfavorable inspection reports internal). Companies need to understand the importance of proper documentation (for example, dating every document, documenting all incidents, including key personnel on relevant communications, and having a calendaring system to timely track issues of concern). To minimize the perception of corporate mistrust, companies should be advised on the consistent application of document retention and preservation policies (including the production of all corporate documents to their counsel, regardless of whether they are perceived as helpful or damaging). An unfavorable
document that is ignored may be interpreted as a threat to safety and, thus, deserving of economic punishment. In Louisiana, other factors contributing to nuclear or disproportionate verdicts include the volume of plaintiff attorney advertisements encouraging plaintiffs to get what they “deserve” and to make companies “pay” for their wrongdoings. We can combat the high awards in Louisiana by supporting legislation that limits the scope of advertisements for legal services. As mentioned earlier, we are actively working with the Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance to revise and adopt legislation that will directly affect both bad faith on behalf of insurance companies and institute tort reform for more defense-friendly legislation. We must be mindful of the ramifications of the federal indictments in “Operation Sideswipe” (staged truck accident schemes that took place in Louisiana) and redirect public mistrust away from defendants and toward injured plaintiffs who want money. Moreover, the public can be educated about the dangers of large verdicts through blogs or informational seminars sponsored by insurance companies and law firms like ours.
Sidney W. Degan, III Managing Partner DEGAN, BLANCHARD & NASH
|