Product 1
< Back to 2024-2025 Executive Summary

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Lawsuit abuse in the City of Brotherly Love has reached a fever pitch with nuclear verdicts becoming the norm and novel theories of liability flourishing. Eye-popping nine-figure damage awards were issued without hardly a thought and medical liability lawsuits continue to flood the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas due to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate an important requirement for entry.

The situation is not expected to improve as a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision allows for duplicative damages in certain types of cases and the court is now considering a case that will impact the availability of arbitration in the Keystone State.

There is a glimmer of hope for potential improvement in 2025. In October, Representative Torren Ecker held a press conference addressing the “urgent need for tort reform in Pennsylvania.” He and other lawmakers recognize the financial toll and burden lawsuit abuse on Pennsylvania residents. He laid out a legislative package, that if enacted, would be a crucial step toward restoring balance to Pennsylvania’s broken civil justice system and protecting citizens and small business from the economic fallout of excessive litigation.

Campaign Contributions

Plaintiffs’ lawyers spend millions of dollars to ensure that Pennsylvania remains a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction. Since 2017, overall contributions to LawPAC, the state trial bar’s PAC, and the Committee for a Better Tomorrow, the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers’ Association’s PAC, exceed $15.3 million. The Top 4 plaintiffs’ firm donors to these PACs are: Kline & Specter; Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, PC; Ross Feller Casey; and Feldman Shepherd. All four gave more than $1 million since 2017.

The Top 2 recipients of trial bar campaign contributions, Justice Daniel McCaffery of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Judge Maria McLaughlin of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, received $1.8 million and $1.1 million respectively since 2017. Pennsylvanians for Judicial Fairness, a group funded by “traditional Democratic allies in organized labor and the Philadelphia trial bar,” also received more than $1 million in donations from the trial bar.

Nuclear Verdicts®

According to a recent report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, from 2013 to 2022, Pennsylvania ranked #7 for top states by cumulative nuclear verdicts® ($10 million or more) in personal injury and wrongful death cases.

In 2023, Philadelphia courts hosted the highest number of nuclear verdicts in the last seven years and Philadelphia juries were twice as likely to award a verdict of $1 million or more than in the years pre-pandemic. Of 2023 civil jury verdicts in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, 11.5% were for $1 million or more and 3.2% were $10 million or higher. This is compared to the 2017-2019 average of only 4.9% of verdicts being $1 million or higher.

Plaintiffs also are winning more than 50% of their cases since the pandemic, rising well above the approximately 40% success rate between 2017 and 2019.

Update on Record Breaking $1 Billion Verdict

A nearly $1 billion verdict in a product liability case in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in October 2023 helped propel the jurisdiction to the top of 2023/2024 Judicial Hellholes list. In April 2024, Judge Sierra Thomas Street tacked on an additional $33.4 million in delay damages (a form of interest on the judgment) increasing the total verdict to $1.009 billion.

The extraordinary verdict stemmed from a car accident in which the plaintiff, a Bucks County resident, when attempting to pass a vehicle, drove off the side of the road to avoid oncoming traffic, colliding into trees. He would later allege that the seatbelt of his 1992 Mitsubishi 3000 GT failed to adequately restrain him and contributed to his injuries. The jury awarded the plaintiff and his family $180 million in compensatory damages (including $160 million in noneconomic damages) after prevailing on the design defect claim. In the second phase of the trial on punitive damages, the jury awarded an additional $800 million dollars after less than 30 minutes of deliberation. It is the largest crashworthiness verdict ever awarded in the state.

The astronomical result becomes less surprising considering what evidence the court kept from the jury and the court’s instructions. The court did not allow the automaker to tell the jury that the seatbelt design met motor vehicle safety standards, even as the plaintiffs’ lawyers asserted that the manufacturer had not tested the vehicle. In fact, the court instructed the jury that it should not consider compliance with safety standards when determining liability. The court also neglected to tell the jury that, in a case involving the crashworthiness of a vehicle, a manufacturer is liable only for injuries beyond those that would have otherwise occurred in the accident. Nor did the court tell the jury that a plaintiff, when claiming a product is defective, must show there was a feasible alternative, safer design that would have avoided the injury. Instead, the court framed the need to show an alternative as optional. Mitsubishi has appealed the verdict.

Other Nuclear Verdicts® in 2024

In May, Exxon was hit with a $725 million verdict in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in a claim filed by a New York auto service station mechanic alleging that exposure to benzene caused his development of leukemia. In September, the presiding judge added $90 million in delay damages, bringing the total to over $800 million.

In this case, the plaintiff handled gasoline and cleaning solvent products with bare hands between 1975 and 1980, and claimed he was exposed to benzene. About 40 years later, in 2019, he was diagnosed with Leukemia and then claimed Exxon hid information about benzene that may have led him to be less careful when handling these products.

Judge Carmella Jacquinto presided over the week-long trial. According to Exxon’s post-trial brief, Judge Jacquinto inflamed the jury by discussing climate change and fossil fuels in the jury instructions, which had nothing to do with the dispute at hand. Ultimately, Exxon was found entirely at fault despite there being 14 co-defendants. The court ordered the company to pay $435 million for past, present and future pain and suffering, $18 million for “embarrassment and humiliation,” $253 million for “loss of enjoyment of life,” and an additional $18 million for disfigurement.

Following the trial, information regarding one of the jurors came to light. In August, Exxon claimed it found evidence that one of the jurors was biased, pointing to statements on the juror’s social media accounts stating that Exxon is responsible for climate change, Exxon is “objectively a villain,” and that the juror wanted to “stick it to the man” by awarding the verdict. Despite these concerning developments, Exxon’s motion for a new trial was denied. There is fear that should this decision stand, it will lead plaintiffs’ lawyers to flood Philadelphia with benzene lawsuits.

Prior to the Exxon decision, Judge Jacquinto oversaw another trial that resulted in yet another nuclear verdict involving an accident between a utility truck and a pedestrian. The plaintiff’s lawyer framed the case as “your classic big company” that “just turned their back on an innocent pedestrian.” The jury’s April 2024 verdict found the company that employed the driver liable for $12 million, over 90% of which was for pain and suffering and other forms of noneconomic damages.

Penske asked Judge Jacquinto to remit the excessive $10 million pain and suffering award to a more appropriate amount, a request she denied in May, just 3 days after the request, despite previously stating that the company’s settlement offer of $2.3 million prior to trial was “a very reasonable offer.”

Examples of additional 2024 nuclear verdicts® in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas include a $68.5 million verdict in a construction accident case (Judge Angelo Foglietta) in June and a $45 million verdict in a medical liability case (Judge Glynnis Hill) in August.

Glyphosate Litigation

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is now home to the largest single-plaintiff Roundup verdict in the nation after a jury awarded an astounding $2.25 billion in damages in January 2024. The award included $225 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages. The massive verdict was based on junk science that other courts had excluded, including in Philadelphia (to be discussed later in this section) with a jury that reached its extraordinary verdict after only one hour of deliberation. In June, Judge Susan Schulman reduced the multi-billion award to $404 million, a decision the plaintiff plans to appeal.

In February, Judge James Crumlish of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas rejected a challenge by Monsanto to a $175 million Roundup verdict that was levied against it in October 2023. The plaintiff, who used Roundup in his garden for years, alleged that exposure to glyphosate in the weedkiller caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Judge Crumlish issued an emotionally charged opinion, characterizing the defendant’s challenge to the verdict as “indignant” and “self-promotional” as well as “denigrating” of the condition of the plaintiff. He also insulted the tactics of the defense at every turn, using visceral language such as “oblivious” and “remorseless” as descriptors. In the same decision, Judge Crumlish added $2.3 million in delay damages against Monsanto, bringing the total verdict to over $177 million.

Thomas Kline, the plaintiff’s lawyer in the case, teased that the Roundup® program was “going to be the marquee program [in the Philly Complex Litigation Center] for the foreseeable future” and he is doing his part to make sure that happens. Never mind that science isn’t on his side.

In October, another jury handed up a verdict — $3 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages — in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Craig Levin’s courtroom after nearly a month of trial and two and a half hours of deliberation. During closing arguments prior to the verdict, the plaintiff’s attorneys urged the jury to hold the “multibillion-dollar mega corporation” Monsanto accountable not just for causing their client’s cancer, but also poisoning “the birds, the butterflies and the environment” in the 50 years that Roundup has been on the market. Monsanto has asked Judge Levin to throw out the “grossly excessive” verdict, stating that the jury’s view of the company was tainted because of the lawyers’ claims of poisoning the environment.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court helped pave the way for these lawsuits by adopting a lesser standard for admission of expert evidence, which allows junk science to permeate state courthouses. In its 2020 decision in Walsh v. BASF, the Court declined to recognize the role of a trial court judge as a gatekeeper over the reliability of expert testimony. Pennsylvania is one of the last remaining states to use the weaker Frye standard when evaluating expert evidence.

Despite the imbalanced litigation environment, defendants are still sometimes able to prevail in these cases in Philadelphia. For example, in March 2024, Monsanto scored its first defense verdict in a Roundup trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas after a string of astounding losses. This important win came after Judge Joshua Roberts, the judge overseeing mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, diligently examined the plaintiffs’ proposed expert testimony and prevented lawyers from introducing junk science.

Judge Roberts excluded the infamous IARC study that is the foundation for the Roundup litigation. This 2015 report — in stark contrast to more than 800 scientific studies as well as analyses by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada — concluded that glyphosate is “prob- ably carcinogenic.” ATRF has written extensively about the problems surrounding the report, including the fact that an “invited specialist,” Christopher Portier, who had no prior experience working with glyphosate, advised the study while being paid by an anti-pesticide group and law firms suing over glyphosate.

Following Portier’s arrival at IARC, the final glyphosate study was altered in at least 10 ways to either remove or reverse conclusions finding no evidence of carcinogenicity.

Judge Roberts also excluded dubious expert evidence discussing purported flaws in the EPA’s analysis.

The impact of Judge Robert’s decision to exclude junk science shows the importance of judges acting as gatekeepers. The IARC report and other baseless science had been admitted in other trials in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that resulted in massive plaintiffs’ verdicts. Unfortunately, not all Philadelphia judges embrace their gatekeeping role and the difference in litigation results are staggering.

“Philadelphia is like a slot machine. It’s a slot machine that everybody wants to play.”
- A regional healthcare provider

Medical Liability

Medical Liability Explodes in Philadelphia Thanks to State High Court Decision

Pennsylvania had the 4th highest amount of payouts per capita in medical malpractice cases of all states, according to a 2022 analysis, totaling $252 million in 2021.

In August 2022, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unilaterally eliminated constraints that prevented lawyers from picking the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction for filing medical liability actions. At issue was a 2002 court rule that required plaintiffs’ lawyers to file medical liability lawsuits in the county where treatment occurred, not where a jury is expected to view the claim most favorably or return the largest award. The purpose of this rule was to reduce forum shopping and create a more fair and balanced playing field. Excessive medical liability drives up doctors’ insurance expenses, increases costs for patients, and reduces the public’s access to healthcare.

Due to the Supreme Court’s rule change, attorneys can sue for medical malpractice not only where medical treatment took place, but also any additional location where the healthcare provider operates an office, any additional hospital locations in which the physician provides care, or where a physician lives. Of course, the state’s personal injury bar, through the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, supported the change.

Plaintiffs now flock to areas like Philadelphia, where juries are more willing to award higher verdicts in favor of plaintiffs. Immediately following the rule change, Philadelphia experienced a surge in malpractice suits the same month, when its court saw triple the number of cases normally filed. According to recent data, 43% of all medical malpractice complaints filed in Philadelphia (657 complaints) between January 1, 2023 and April 2024, arose from care provided outside the city. As one regional professional put it, “Philadelphia is like a slot machine. It’s a slot machine that everybody wants to play.”

Additionally, in 2024, the Rothman Orthopedic Institute ended its partnership with the Philadelphia Eagles and its doctors no longer serve as official team physicians. In ending this relationship, the Institute cited the risk of liability after the Institute and Dr. James Bradley were ordered to pay $43.5 million in a medical malpractice suit to former Eagles team captain after a treatment for a ‘career ending knee injury’. The Rothman Orthopedic Institute was responsible for $14.3 million of the award, which recently increased to $15.8 million after delay damages. The Institute also cited the general increase in medical liability awards and a surge of medical malpractice cases filed in Philadelphia.

Other specialty healthcare providers are concerned about an access to care crisis similar to what occurred in the early 2000’s before the enactment of the medical liability venue rule. OB-GYNs are particularly worried about the impact venue shopping and nuclear verdicts® will have on their practices and insurance premiums.

“What I can tell you is that when OB- GYNs leave the state of Pennsylvania because of fear of malpractice, it means there are fewer clinical resources for mothers to access.”
- Joanne Craig, co-chair of the Pennsylvania Maternal Mortality Review Committee

Asbestos Lawsuits

Philadelphia is a jurisdiction of choice for plaintiffs’ lawyers to file asbestos lawsuits. Philadelphia hosts the fourth most asbestos lawsuits in the nation. According to KCIC’s 2024 midyear report, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed 115 asbestos claims in Philadelphia in the one-year period ending July 31, 2024 compared to 101 during that period in 2023, a 14% increase. This marks the fifth consecutive year the city has ranked in the top four.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Duplicative Damages Now Available in Consumer Protection Cases

In 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision that will exacerbate a trend of expanding liability exposure under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and lead to extortionate settlement demands. In Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial Inc., the Court held that a trial court must award treble (triple) damages in cases brought under the UTPCPL when a jury awards punitive damages on a similar tort claim. This decision eliminates the ability of trial court judges to utilize discretion when issuing damage awards. Here, the trial court properly found that trebling damages on top of an award that already included punitive damages, in addition to substantial compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees, was not necessary or appropriate. The Supreme Court’s decision effectively allows for duplicative damages for the same conduct, as pointed out by a coalition of civil justice and business groups in its amicus brief.

Expansion of Product Liability Law

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania expanded liability for product manufacturers in December 2023 with its decision in Sullivan v. Werner. The Court held that evidence of a product’s compliance with industry and government standards is inadmissible in product liability cases. While it would seem that this information would be an important factor to consider when determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous, the Court reasoned that such evidence may “distract” a jury and that “the proper focus of a design defect case is on the characteristics of the product and not the conduct of the manufacturer.” For that reason, the Court ruled that the plaintiff could prevent the manufacturer of a scaffold from educating the jury about government regulations and industry standards for scaffold design, which the product met.

As an amicus brief recognized, however, industry and government standards “promote uniformity in product design, reduce costs associated with development and testing, and ensure the product is safely designed and manufactured.” Businesses rely on such standards to manufacture safe products. The standards are “widely recognized by the majority of courts as relevant to a design-defect claim.” It is also fair to permit defendants to offer such evidence, particularly when plaintiffs routinely introduce evidence of a product’s noncompliance with standards to bolster their product liability claims.

Cases to Watch

Forum non Conveniens

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will decide the applicable standards for granting a forum non conveniens motion. Tranter v. Z&D Tour stems from a group of consolidated lawsuits over a fatal bus crash that were filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, despite the accident occurring in Westmoreland County, on the other side of the state, near Pittsburgh. The defendants argued that Philadelphia was an “oppressive” venue because more than 60 potential witnesses would have to travel over 240 miles to testify at trial. The trial court agreed and transferred the case to Westmoreland County; however, the intermediate appellate court reversed the decision, allowing the case to proceed in plaintiff-friendly Philadelphia finding that the travel burden was not sufficient enough to warrant transfer. This is one of several instances in which the Pennsylvania appellate court has reversed trial courts that have agreed to transfer cases that plaintiffs’ lawyers clearly filed in Philadelphia because they viewed the city as more favorable than the area in which the claim arose.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to transfer a case to a more appropriate county when a plaintiff’s lawyer has chosen to file it in a county with little or no connection to the allegations, making it difficult for a party to present witnesses and evidence. This most often occurs when plaintiffs’ lawyers file lawsuits in Philadelphia but their clients live, and the accidents or injuries occurred, elsewhere. The doctrine is an important check on blatant forum shopping by plaintiffs’ attorneys, who prefer to litigate their cases in courts known for finding liability and returning big awards. It also protects the public’s interest in deciding local cases locally, and prevents burdening local jurors and courts with cases lacking a tie to their community. It is the only recourse avail- able for defendants to get cases out of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Limits on Damages in Cases against State Agencies

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will decide the future of the state’s statutory limit on damages in cases involving state agencies. Freilich v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority involves a passenger injured in an accident on a public transit bus. The Transportation Authority admitted negligence and agreed to a $7 million stipulated verdict. The trial court then decreased the award to $250,000 in compliance with the statutory limit, which permits limited recovery against the state as it is otherwise entitled to sovereign immunity. While applying the law, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge James Crumlish did not hide his feelings about the cap in his opinion, calling it “profoundly unfair if not unconscionable.” The plaintiff has challenged the constitutionality of the cap, arguing that the limit, which the legislature has not increased in many years, is unfair. Such a ruling would take a policy decision that protects taxpayers out of the hands of the legislature, which can choose to adjust the statutory limit, and expose government agencies to unpredictable and potentially limitless liability.

Arbitration in the Crosshairs

In a case that has been well-chronicled in the Judicial Hellholes® report, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will determine whether “digital arbitration agreements can be enforced under the same rules applicable to other contracts.”

In this case, a passenger sued Uber in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas after she was injured on a ride, despite having agreed to Uber’s terms and conditions requiring arbitration of claims. In July 2023, the full Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision to invalidate Uber’s arbitration provision in its agreement. The Superior Court disregarded the Federal Arbitration Act, which prohibits states from disfavoring arbitration agreements, and held that a stricter burden of proof is necessary to ensure users understand they are waiving their right to a jury trial. This happened even after the Superior Court concluded that the plaintiff would have been bound by the other contractual provisions under the regular application of contract law.

This decision calls into question the validity of countless arbitration agreements found in consumer contracts. Uber, like many companies, has included provisions like these in its terms and services under the expectation that the Federal Arbitration Act prohibits their disparate treatment. Further, the use of arbitration to settle consumer disputes is a benefit to businesses and consumers alike, providing a quicker and cheaper resolution process.

Latest News

View all News