The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have earned the number one spot in the American Tort Reform Foundation’s (ATRF’s) 2024-2025 "Judicial Hellholes" report for the first time since 2021. Meanwhile, Georgia has improved slightly, moving to spot number four after claiming the number one spot in the previous two reports.
After Pennsylvania, the remainder of the top “Judicial Hellholes,” in order, are New York City; South Carolina Asbestos Litigation; Georgia; California; Cook County, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri; the Michigan Supreme Court; King County, Washington; and Louisiana. Some of these jurisdictions, according to ATRF, “are known for allowing innovative lawsuits to proceed or for welcoming litigation tourism, and in all of them state leadership seems eager to expand civil liability at every given opportunity.”
No. 1 Ranking for Pennsylvania Explained
“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,” according to ATRF. “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.” Currently, the court is considering a case that will impact the availability of arbitration.
Campaign Contributions
Other problems plaguing the state include campaign contributions from plaintiff’s firm donors to LawPAC, the state trial bar’s PAC; and the Committee for a Better Tomorrow, the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers’ Association PAC, which have exceeded $15.3 million since 2017.
Nuclear Verdicts
Furthermore, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently reported that from 2013 to 2022, “Pennsylvania ranked [number seven] for top states by cumulative Nuclear Verdicts ($10 million or more) in personal injury and wrongful death cases.” However, in 2023, Philadelphia courts had 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 pre-pandemic years. In 2023 alone, “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.” Furthermore, plaintiffs are winning over 50% of their cases since the pandemic, a steep increase since the 40% success rate from 2017 to 2019.
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 the 2023/2024 Judicial Hellholes list,” the report states. “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 verdict stemmed from a car accident in which the plaintiff crashed his car when attempting to pass a vehicle. He alleged that the seatbelt of his 1992 Mitsubishi 3000 GT failed to restrain him and contributed to his injuries. Mitsubishi has appealed the verdict, as evidence was kept from the jury and court’s instructions.
Other contributing factors include glyphosate litigation, medical liability cases, and asbestos lawsuits. In the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, specifically, factors in its ranking include duplicative damages in consumer protection cases and expansion of product liability law. Currently, there are cases on the state’s watchlist.
CLM Insights
CLM discussed the number-one jurisdiction with some CLM members who know it best. “One of the biggest issues that I see is that we elect state court judges here,” says Amy Blumenthal, partner, Kutak Rock. “The plaintiffs’ bar probably gives 20 times more money than the defense bar to support them for their elections, and defense lawyers have a hard time raising hourly rates. So, is it any wonder our state court trial judges are plaintiff oriented?”
John J. Hare, Esq., chair of Marshall Dennehey’s Post-Trial and Appellate Advocacy Group, adds, “Pennsylvania's ranking as number-one in the 2024–25 Judicial Hellhole Report once again highlights the historic surge in civil liability in the Commonwealth's courts in recent years. As the report explains, health care providers, corporations, and other defendants are facing unprecedented risk across the range of civil litigation, as best illustrated by the increase in so-called Nuclear Verdicts."
He adds, “This expansion of liability has serious societal consequences, including raising the cost of insurance and consumer goods and services, and limiting the availability of health care, all of which fall most heavily on people who can least afford to bear those consequences.”
Despite the currently bleak state, the ATRF report says there is a glimmer of hope for 2025, as state Rep. Torren Ecker (R) held a press conference addressing the “urgent need for tort reform in Pennsylvania.” The ATRF report states that he, along with other lawmakers, “recognize the financial toll and burden lawsuit abuse [has] 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 small business from the economic fallout of excessive litigation."
No. 2—New York City
“A ‘fraudemic’ hit the Big Apple in 2024. Some of the worst examples of lawsuit abuse came to light in New York City with the filing of several RICO lawsuits against plaintiffs’ law firms,” the report states.
See CLM's in-depth coverage of the RICO lawsuits in our feature, "A Light Shines on Fraud"
“Lawsuit abuse is driving up the costs of goods and services and driving employers and insurance companies out of the state," the report says. "Unique New York laws like the Scaffold Law and the state’s Consumer Protection Act are ripe for abuse and plaintiffs’ lawyers have seized the opportunity to cash in, leaving New York small businesses and unknowing residents left to pick up the pieces.” According to the report, judges across the five boroughs turn a blind eye to the abuse.
Some of the other issues include large, strategic campaign investments by plaintiffs’ lawyers (totaling $4.7 million since 2017) to keep the status quo in their favor, fraud schemes plaguing the state’s construction and transportation industries, plaintiff-friendly judges, trip-and-fall schemes, Nuclear Verdicts, food and beverage litigation, Americans with Disabilities Act litigation, serial plaintiffs, New York City asbestos litigation, and novel social media litigation on the rise.
No. 3—South Carolina
“South Carolina’s asbestos judge has a clear bias against corporate defendants, particularly insurers,” according to the report. “The bias is obvious in rulings that result in unfair trials and severe verdicts. Anti-corporate bias is also evident in the judge’s imposition of unwarranted sanctions, a willingness to overturn or modify jury verdicts to benefit plaintiffs, and frequent appointment of a receiver to maximize recoveries from insurers.”
Other significant issues plaguing South Carolina asbestos litigation include more claims driven by out-of-state firms and perceived favoritism, as the appointment of Judge Jean Toal was chosen to “serve as judge for all of the state’s asbestos jurisdiction.” Since 2019, the number of asbestos case filings increased substantially, whereas asbestos litigation was not active in the state beforehand. Furthermore, Judge Toal has “expanded the asbestos docket by appointing a receiver over various defunct entities to subject the companies to lawsuits like other asbestos defendants.”
Since Judge Toal began managing asbestos litigation, the number of defendants named has dramatically increased for both mesothelioma and lung cancer lawsuits, and has exceeded the national average, according to the report.
State Rep. Jordan Pace (R) recently described South Carolina’s legal system as “desperately incestuous” in the Palmetto State News due to the fact that government-appointed officials argue in front of judges, and the judges depend on elected officials for their jobs, creating a “horrible cycle of back scratching at the expense of the general public.”
Other issues cited by the ATRF report include severe and unwarranted sanctions; boosted awards through unfair partial setoffs, “blessed by the South Carolina Supreme Court”; weak causation standard applied and affirmed in a 2024 case; Nuclear Verdicts; the fact that even when defendants win, they may lose, due to Judge Toal’s bias; improper consolidation of asbestos trials; and opening the door for more lawsuits.
No. 4—Georgia
“Georgia’s civil justice system is plagued by skyrocketing Nuclear Verdicts, inflated awards for medical costs, expansive premises liability, and laws that set up defendants to fail, creating endless liability,” states the report. “Georgia also continues to embrace an archaic seatbelt gag rule that precludes a jury from hearing evidence about whether an occupant wore a seatbelt at the time of a crash.”
The state fell from its number one spot the previous two reports due, in part, to “the sheer volume of abuses occurring in other jurisdictions, but also due to a sense of optimism that 2025 may bring some much-needed legislative relief.” The hope is fueled by Gov. Brian Kemp’s focus on addressing lawsuit abuse, which he positioned as a top priority for his administration in 2025.
A recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that the state had the fourth-most Nuclear Verdicts in personal injury litigation per capita basis, with 64 verdicts from 2013 to 2022. Nuclear Verdicts continue to dominate Georgia courts, driven by anchoring, phantom damages, and the reptile theory.
One Nuclear Verdict in particular, was a $1.7 billion punitive damage verdict against Ford in 2022, in which the plaintiff alleged that Ford's “Super Duty” models had “defectively weak roofs,” after a fatality in a rollover accident. According to the report, the case was “riddled with ethically questionable events and biased court orders. Ford was prohibited from informing the jury that the plaintiffs were improperly wearing their seatbelts during the crash or about scientific studies finding that the roof’s strength did not cause the plaintiffs’ deaths.”
However, in November, the Georgia Court of Appeals threw out the verdict, finding that “the trial court should not have sanctioned Ford as it did and should have allowed the automaker to introduce evidence of seatbelt usage and, potentially, the rollover studies. The court ordered a new trial and advised the lower court to revisit the admissibility of several pieces of evidence.” The plaintiffs’ lawyers have indicated that they plan to appeal the ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court.
Other major issues include excessive sanctions on defendants, premises liability cases generating Nuclear Verdicts, abuse under the state’s “Standard of Triviality,” and the mirror-image rule.
No. 5—California
“California is the trial bar’s laboratory. It’s where they go to pursue innovative new theories of liability and push the envelope with regard to expanding liability for business,” according to the report. “The courts welcome these theories with open arms and businesses are overwhelmed with claims. In addition to creating new avenues to sue, the state also has the most Nuclear Verdicts of any state in the country and the state attorney general is leading the charge in baseless environmental litigation.”
On the product liability front, manufacturers are now subject to a “Duty to Innovate,” meaning that even if a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous, a company can be held liable if it was researching and developing another product that it “‘knew was safer’” and did not release it quickly enough.
Campaign contributions by consumer attorneys is another major issue. The top 20 plaintiffs’ firms that donated the most to political campaigns in the state combined contributed over $15.5 million, with over 43% donated to committees affiliated with the Consumer Attorneys of California. Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom received nearly $2 million in contributions.
Other problems include PAGA, or the “‘Sue Your Boss’” law; the lemon law (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act) lawsuits rising; Prop-65 lawsuits; Americans With Disabilities Act Litigation; environmental litigation; asbestos litigation; burdensome discovery orders; and two pending cases that could impact the ability of arbitration in California.
Watch List and Dishonorable Mentions
The report states that its "Watch List" jurisdictions “may be moving closer to or further away from a designation as a “Judicial Hellhole.” This year’s Watch List includes only one jurisdiction: the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, which has a history of “erroneous rulings [that have] the practical effect of imposing unnecessary delays and costs for litigants,” as well as an expansive view of product liability and consistent procedural errors.
Dishonorable Mentions “generally comprise singularly unsound court decisions, abusive practices, or other actions that erode the fairness of a state’s civil justice system and are not otherwise detailed in other sections of the report.” This year’s Dishonorable Mentions include Madison and St. Clair Counties in Illinois, which are referred to as plaintiffs’ preferred jurisdictions for asbestos claims; Maryland High Court, which rejected Proposed Rule 702 Amendment (the state’s expert evidence rule), which “reinforces the critical role judges serve as gatekeepers that prevent junk science from serving as the basis for litigation”; and Tennessee, which is listed as a new hotspot for abusive Americans With Disabilities Act litigation.
Points of Light
The report’s Points of Light “typically comprise noteworthy actions taken by judges to stem abuses of the civil justice system not detailed elsewhere in the report.” Examples include that “state supreme courts in Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio amended their states’ rules of evidence governing the admissibility of expert testimony to be consistent with the newly amended Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence”; federal courts stressed the importance of judicial gatekeeping under newly amended Rule 702; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that state tort lawsuits that would require a weedkiller to carry cancer warnings that a federal agency has found unwarranted by science must be dismissed; the Kentucky Court of Appeals threw out a multi-million-dollar defamation verdict that followed a verdict punishing an employer for investigating and reporting a suspicious surge of disability claims; and the Utah Supreme Court upheld a statute of repose for medical liability lawsuits.