Product 1
< Back to 2025-2026 Executive Summary

#5 Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

The City of Brotherly Love’s reputation as a Judicial Hellhole® has spread far and wide, drawing plaintiffs’ lawyers from across the country eager to file cases there, while prompting defendants to settle at almost any cost to avoid the massive nuclear verdicts® for which the court has become notorious. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas was home to two of the Top 10 largest corporate verdicts in 2024, including the third-largest product liability verdict — a $2.2 billion award in a case involving Roundup.

2025 did not bring the same level of activity, but this decline is not the result of positive reforms or improved legal activity, but rather a reduction of trials. Critics attribute the slowdown to corporate defendants choosing to settle cases rather than run the risk of being the next poster child for abusive litigation in the state. Whether this lower level of activity will continue remains to be seen, as plaintiffs’ lawyers look to take advantage of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas’ Complex Litigation Center with the creation of several new mass torts. Expansive medical liability also continues to plague the court, and novel theories of liability are being pursued in areas such as climate change and ultra-processed foods.

Fraud Alleged in the Courts

In September 2025, Uber filed a lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against a Philadelphia plaintiffs’ firm, accusing it of conspiring with local healthcare professionals to fabricate and exaggerate plaintiffs’ injuries in personal injury cases. In its RICO complaint, Uber outlines extensive alleged abuses by Simon & Simon, including the firm’s frequent use of one physician who has performed more than 1,200 exams and received $1.5 million in compensation.

According to the complaint, the firm primarily handles “low-value or meritless” cases arising from minor car accidents but inflates them into multi-million-dollar suits by manufacturing or exaggerating medical claims.

Uber alleges the firm directed doctors to create falsified treatment records and diagnoses to bolster settlement demands, often without the plaintiffs’ knowledge, thereby increasing payouts from which the lawyers take a percentage.

The complaint cites emails from Simon & Simon to a pain and rehabilitation center that included lists of plaintiffs scheduled for treatment and pre-determined procedures — before any examinations took place. The resulting medical records for plaintiffs allegedly contained identical, boilerplate language crafted to support future litigation.

Nuclear Verdicts

As noted above, 2025 did not see the outrageous verdicts that were so prevalent in previous years, but the civil justice system still is experiencing shockwaves from the earlier verdicts.

Updates on Previous Record-Breaking Verdicts

Largest Medical Malpractice Verdict in State History Upheld

In July 2025, a Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a $207.6 million award against the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in a case that originated in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The court held that the verdict “did not shock one’s sense of justice,” despite it being the largest reported medical mal-practice verdict in the state’s history. The verdict included an award of $80 million for pain and suffering.

At trial, the judge permitted the plaintiff’s lawyer to raise improper considerations when speaking to the jury about the potential damage award. The plaintiff’s lawyer employed a tactic known as “anchoring,” which is where a lawyer plants an extremely high amount into jurors’ minds to set a base dollar amount for a pain and suffering award. Here, the lawyer referenced Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts’ $51 million football contract in his closing argument.

$725 Million Verdict Appealed

Exxon has appealed a 2024 $725 million verdict out of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The case involves a claim filed by a New York auto service station mechanic alleging that exposure to benzene caused his development of leukemia.

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. 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 verdict, the pre-siding judge added $90 million in delay damages, bringing the total to over $800 million.

Exxon has asked for a new trial on the basis that the trial court summarily dismissed allegations that a juror had hidden strong “anticorporate hostility” during jury selection. Following the trial, Exxon also found evidence that one of the jurors posted 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.

Moreover, Exxon argues that an award of that size is more punitive than compensatory, and goes significantly past making the plaintiff whole, which is the entire point of compensatory damages. This is compounded by the fact that punitive damages are “subject to a higher standard” and “extreme remedies [are] available only in the most exceptional circumstances.” When these factors are considered together, they implicate the defendant’s due process rights.

Judge Jacquinto previously denied Exxon’s motion to dismiss and in June 2025, the company filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Update on $1 Billion Mitsubishi Verdict

The Pennsylvania Superior Court is considering an appeal of a $1 billion verdict against Mitsubishi. 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.

Getting Worse Not Better?

Pennsylvania long has prohibited lawyers from urging jurors to award specific amounts or use mathematical calculations to reach noneconomic damage awards, finding that such tactics “tend to instill in the minds of the jury impressions not founded upon the evidence” and are “of course improper.”

Research repeatedly confirms that offering such an “anchor” manipulates jurors into reaching far higher verdicts than they would if left to decide based upon their own values and life experiences. It seems some plaintiffs’ lawyers have circumvented this restriction, such as by mentioning the salary of a football contract during a closing argument. A bill introduced in the state legislature in September 2025 would do away with the restrictions entirely, allowing personal injury lawyers to urge jurors to return amounts in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars for pain and suffering.

Medical Liability

Philadelphia — A “Congested Center” for Medical Liability Cases Thanks to Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Alice Beck noted in a March 2025 opinion that Philadelphia has become a “congested center” for medical liability cases with little to no connection to the city. This concerning development has a direct correlation to a problematic decision by the state supreme court.

Plaintiffs now flock to areas like Philadelphia, where juries are more willing to award higher verdicts in favor of plaintiffs. 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. As of October 31, 520 medical liability suits have been filed in 2025 in Philadelphia. This is almost double the amount of lawsuits filed in all of 2022 (275), before the rule was struck down.

This litigation onslaught is having detrimental real-life consequences for healthcare in the state. Medical malpractice premiums in Pennsylvania are among the fastest growing in the United States.

The American Medical Association reports that, in 2024, Pennsylvania was one of states in which medical liability insurance premiums increased by 10% or more. In fact, nearly half of Pennsylvania doctors got hit with a premium increase of 10% or more that year, the second highest percentage of any state. Pennsylvania was one of a handful of states on that list that experienced similar premium increases between 2022 and 2023.

From 2015 to 2024, nearly $2.8 billion was spent on medical malpractice payouts in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s payouts per capita during this period were higher than any state except New York.

The increase in costs is driving providers out of the state and impacting access to care. Earlier this year, a hospital maternity unit closed in the state, leaving seven counties in rural north-central Pennsylvania without any labor and delivery care.

The emerging healthcare crisis has caught the attention of some state legislators. In May 2025, the Pennsylvania Senate Institutional Sustainability and Innovation Committee held a public hearing where issues of healthcare tort reform and the elimination of medical venue shopping were discussed. The CEO of Penn Highlands stressed the significant problems that rural healthcare facilities face as a result of the combination of venue shopping and the availability of unlimited awards for noneconomic damages. Additionally, the President and CEO of the Hospital and Healthsystems Association of Pennsylvania emphasized that, “our hospitals are one lawsuit away from closing their doors.”

A group of members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives introduced an amendment to incorporate the language of the now-repealed medical liability venue rule, formerly 1006(a.1), into Pennsylvania’s state constitution. However, this proposal was blocked and ruled “out of order,” which prevented it from being voted on. If this proposal progressed, it would have made it more difficult for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to make similar changes to the state’s venue rule regarding medical liability suits.

Pennsylvania state Sen. Chris Dush introduced S.B. 125 in September 2025. This bill is a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to take over venue policy from the Supreme Court. The Senate State Government Committee, chaired by Sen. Dush, held a hearing on the bill on October 27, 2025.

Forum Shopping – GOOD NEWS!

Pennsylvania healthcare providers are taking steps to protect themselves from abusive forum shopping. In one instance, a Bucks County pain management center inserted a venue-selection clause in a patient contract requiring disputes to be heard in Bucks County — rather than Philadelphia. A plaintiff attempted to circumvent the contract provision and filed a malpractice case in Philadelphia. In July 2025, a Pennsylvania appellate court ruled that a venue-selection clause was valid and enforceable. Citing Pennsylvania contract law, the court held that parties may “pre-select” venues and that such clauses supersede procedural venue rules. It rejected the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas’s finding that the clause was unconscionable, noting the patient could have crossed it out before signing and that Bucks County’s courthouse was significantly closer to the plaintiff’s home than Philadelphia’s.

“Our hospitals are one lawsuit away from closing their doors.”
–— President and CEO of the Hospital and Healthsystems Association of Pennsylvania

Completx Litigation Center - If You Build It, They Will Come

Roundup Litigation

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas remains 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 $250 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages. The massive verdict was based on junk science that other courts had excluded and with a jury that reached this extraordinary outcome after only one hour of deliberation. Judge Susan Schulman later reduced the award to $404 million, and the decision was appealed in July 2024.

There are more than 400 Roundup cases alleging that exposure to glyphosate in the weedkiller caused plaintiffs to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Complex Litigation Center, as trial lawyers look to capitalize on its plaintiff-friendly reputation.

In addition to the $404 million judgment, several other multi-million-dollar awards were upheld on appeal in 2025. These cases all were sparked by the now-infamous study from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which has served as 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 and Health Canada — concluded that glyphosate is “probably 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 involvement, the final glyphosate study published by IARC was altered in at least 10 ways to either remove or reverse conclusions finding no evidence of carcinogenicity.

In one Philadelphia case that resulted in a $177 million verdict, which was upheld in May 2025, Monsanto was prevented from introducing studies proving that glyphosate is not a carcinogen but plaintiffs were allowed to rely on the controversial IARC study, which is “at odds with the extensive weight of scientific evidence worldwide.” The EU has re-approved the use of glyphosate for 10 years, following successful health and safety scientific assessments, and more courts outside of the U.S., including in Australia, have dismissed lawsuits with similar claims, finding that sound scientific evidence does not support a link between glyphosate and cancer.

Paraquat Litigation

Paraquat litigation, designated a mass tort in the Philadelphia Complex Litigation Center in 2021, involves claims that the widely used herbicide causes Parkinson’s disease. In March 2023, Judge Abbe Fletman approved a short-form complaint process, accelerating filings. As of November 18, 2025, over 1,550 Paraquat cases were pending in the CLC, with the first bellwether trial now scheduled for January 2026.

In July 2025, the Philadelphia CLC rejected Syngenta and Chevron’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The defendants argued that nearly 1,000 non-Pennsylvania plaintiffs could pursue their claims where they live, rather than in Philadelphia. Additionally, the defendants argued that Philadelphia jurors should not have to “bear the burden of jury duty” when these cases lack relevancy or connection to Pennsylvania or Pennsylvania law. Yet, the CLC ruled that “the attorneys benefit from the effectiveness and efficiency of Philadelphia’s Mass Tort Program,” which “clear[s] backlogs of cases not just in Philadelphia but throughout the country.”

Lawyer Reprimanded by Court for Interfering in Paraquat MDL Settlement Negotiations

Aimee Wagstaff, who resigned from the plaintiffs’ executive committee in the Paraquat multidistrict litigation, appeared before U.S. District Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel in Illinois to address allegations that she interfered with confidential settlement negotiations in the Paraquat MDL. Wagstaff is representing several clients in similar litigation in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

At issue was Wagstaff’s decision to email several plaintiffs’ lawyers on a list associated with an organization called Women En Masse. Judge Rosenstengel expressed concern that her actions appeared intended to “subvert the MDL settlement process.” Wagstaff maintained that she “never planned to sabotage a pending settlement” and was acting in the best interests of her clients pursuing separate cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which would be excluded from the federal settlement. Judge Rosenstengel, however, remained unconvinced, stating that Wagstaff seemed to be attempting to “undermine” and “blow up the settlement.”

The judge also questioned Wagstaff’s plans to discuss details of the confidential settlement and her decision to host a September 18 webinar attended by 263 plaintiffs’ lawyers. According to court transcripts, Khaldoun Baghdadi, co-lead counsel in the paraquat MDL, said there was “no way to interpret it apart from an effort to gain leverage in the Philadelphia proceedings.”

Hair Relaxer Litigation

In May 2025, the CLC designated litigation targeting hair relaxing products as a mass tort action, a move that is likely to attract plaintiffs’ lawyers from across the country who may prefer to avoid the similar, larger MDL established for federal cases. The litigation alleges that use of these products increases the risk of uterine cancer and can lead to other health problems. As of November 18, 2025, there were 26 cases pending in the CLC, but plaintiffs’ lawyers expect that number to increase according to their own websites. They also make it clear that they chose to bring their claims in the CLC based on its plaintiff-friendly reputation and handling of previous mass tort litigation.

Talcum Powder

This new mass tort designation, created alongside the hair relaxer designation, concerns Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder, or shower-to-shower powder, that is alleged to cause ovarian cancer. As of mid-November 2025, there were 177 suits that have been consolidated in Philadelphia, with the first two trial dates set for 2026. A recent KCIC report predicts a 25% increase in talc filings compared to 2024. Given Philadelphia is a preferred jurisdiction by plaintiffs’ lawyers for asbestos litigation, it most likely will see a surge in filings.

“Our lawyers anticipate that number to increase. Philadelphia is an attractive place to bring these claims. Given the volume of mass torts already litigated in Philadelphia, such as those involving Paraquat and Roundup, the city offers a tested and plaintiff-accessible venue with a proven track record of significant outcomes to worthy victims.”
–— Miller & Zois, LLC

Philadelphia Remains a Top Hotspot for Asbestos Litigation

According to KCIC’s 2024 report on asbestos litigation nationwide, Philadelphia was the nation’s fourth-most popular jurisdiction for asbestos filings for the fifth consecutive year. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas saw 267 new asbestos lawsuits in 2024, up 26 cases (11%) from the prior year.

In 2025, through July 31, Philadelphia saw a 57% increase in asbestos lawsuit filings over the same period during the previous year. Notably, lawsuits filed in Philadelphia pinning a person’s lung cancer diagnosis to asbestos exposure doubled during this period (48 v. 97). Part of this influx is due to Weitz & Luxemberg’s increased activity in the city. The firm’s asbestos lawsuit filings increased by 69%.

Climate Homicide Liability

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is part of an effort to make the oil and gas industry–and other manufacturers–pay for costs attributed to climate change and hold them responsible for alleged “climate-change deaths.” This novel theory of liability, championed by climate change activ-ists, includes exploring potential criminal charges against energy companies. Krasner’s office has stated that it is “exploring legal avenues by which we may seek accountability from polluters.” The initiative follows a meeting between Krasner’s office and David Arkush, the director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program, who has been promoting his legal theory widely, including in a presentation at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School.

First-of-Its-Kind Lawsuit Targeting “Ultra-Processed Foods” Filed in Philadelphia Court

Here we go again … one of the nation’s most prolific plaintiffs’ firms, Morgan & Morgan, has set its sights on a new sector of American industry, manufacturers of “ultra-processed foods.” In what should come as no surprise, the firm chose the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to file a first-of-its-kind lawsuit in December 2024 alleging that companies including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestlé and others designed and marketed “ultra processed foods” in a way that is addictive to children, leading to a rise in chronic diseases.

The lawsuit was removed to federal court and dismissed over the summer, but the judge left the door open for the plaintiff to amend his complaint, which the plaintiff’s lawyers sought to do in September 2025.

In search of their next “golden egg,” the plaintiff’s lawyers’ litigation theory mirrors the tobacco litigation from decades ago and alleges the companies used the same playbook. It seeks to pin the blame for the increased rate of chronic disease and childhood obesity on food manufacturers. In this instance, the plaintiff alleges that he developed Type 2 Diabetes at 16-years-old as a result of consuming “ultra-processed foods” as a child.

As pointed out by Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy for Consumer Brands Association, “There is currently no agreed upon scientific definition of ultra-processed food.” Despite a lack of consensus among the scientific community around defining what “ultra-processed foods” are, the plaintiffs’ lawyers still generated litigation.

Absent scientific consensus, they adopted their own definition to fit their needs. According to the plaintiff’s lawyers, “ultra-processed foods (“UPFs”) are industrially produced edible substances that are imitations of food. They consist of former foods that have been fractioned into substances, chemically modified, combined with additives, and then reassembled using industrial techniques such as molding, extrusion and pressurization.”

“Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities.”
–— Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy for Consumer Brands Association

Case to Watch

Bucks County plaintiffs have turned to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to address allegations that Sunoco Pipeline’s reckless, negligent, and “irresponsible ownership” of the Twin Oaks–Newark Pipeline caused a “catastrophic environmental disaster” that poisoned their neighborhood.

The Bucks County plaintiffs chose to bring their environmental lawsuit in Philadelphia rather than where they live and where the harm occurred.

Latest News

View all News

Since its inception in 2002, the American Tort Reform Foundation’s Judicial Hellholes® program has documented in annually published reports various abuses in the civil justice system, focusing on jurisdictions where courts are radically out of balance.

Connect

To receive new posts automatically via e-mail, enter your name and email address:

[mc4wp_form id="8256"]

© 2026 Judicial Hellholes.