A recent US jury verdict awarding more than US$ 600m following a fatal truck accident has once again highlighted the scale of liability exposures companies can face in the United States. What makes the case particularly striking is that responsibility was not limited to the driver and motor carrier involved in the accident. The freight broker was also found liable, despite arguing that it did not employ the driver and had selected a carrier that held a satisfactory safety rating.

For risk managers, the message is clear: in the US legal environment, liability can extend well beyond the party directly involved in an incident. Questions around contractor oversight, governance, decision-making processes, documentation and marketing may become just as important as the facts of the incident itself. Nuclear verdicts, commonly defined as jury awards exceeding US$ 10m, remain one of the most significant casualty risk trends affecting companies with exposure in the United States. While these verdicts are rooted in the US legal system, their implications extend far beyond US-headquartered corporations. Any company with operations, premises, products, employees, business relationships or customers in the United States should understand the potential exposure. 

No US headquarters does not mean no exposure

Many companies continue to believe that nuclear verdicts are primarily a concern for US corporations. This assumption can create a dangerous blind spot.

A company does not need to be headquartered in the United States to become involved in US litigation. A manufacturing facility, local subsidiary, distributor, contractor, company vehicle, product sold in the US market or even a relatively limited business presence can result in exposure to the US legal system. What may initially appear to be a local incident can quickly develop into a multi-million-dollar liability event.

The larger the organisation, the greater the potential exposure. Plaintiff attorneys are often successful in presenting a narrative that large corporations prioritize profits over people. When this argument resonates with a jury, verdicts can rapidly reach extraordinary levels. 

The risk environment continues to evolve

The factors driving nuclear verdicts have not disappeared. Plaintiffs’ attorneys continue to pursue increasingly sophisticated litigation strategies. Third-party litigation funding has become an established part of the legal landscape. Claims inflation continues to exceed economic inflation in many casualty classes and the cost of litigation continues to rise.

At the same time, the US litigation landscape is becoming less predictable. States and jurisdictions previously regarded as relatively business-friendly are now also producing substantial jury awards. This makes it increasingly difficult for companies to assess potential claim severity based on geography alone.

Nuclear verdicts continue to increase both in frequency and severity

The latest figures of the Marathon Strategies Report underline the scale of the trend. In 2025, nearly 200 lawsuits against corporate defendants resulted in verdicts of at least US$ 10m, an increase of more than 40% compared with 2024 and the highest annual number recorded since the analysis began in 2009. More than 40 verdicts exceeded US$ 100m. Although slightly below the 2024 figure, this remained well above the level recorded in 2023.

With many of the underlying drivers still present, both the frequency and severity of large verdicts are likely to remain a significant concern.

Social media is adding another dimension. Public narratives around an incident can spread globally within hours, often long before the legal process has concluded. Companies may therefore find themselves managing legal, reputational and stakeholder pressures at the same time.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are also using social media advertising to reach potential claimants more quickly and on a much larger scale than was possible through traditional television or newspaper campaigns. This can contribute to higher claim frequency.

Social media may also affect claim severity. In one recent case involving the death of a young person on an amusement ride, a video of the incident circulated widely online. The jury awarded US$ 310m to the victim’s family. While it is not possible to isolate the video’s influence on the verdict, its continued availability and broad distribution formed part of the wider context in which the family’s non-economic loss was considered.

A recent case highlights important lessons

The recent US$ 604m transportation verdict illustrates why risk managers should look beyond the immediate cause of an incident.

According to publicly reported information, the accident involved a motor carrier whose safety rating had remained satisfactory. Nevertheless, questions were raised during the proceedings regarding carrier selection, prior safety concerns and decisions made before the collision occurred. The jury ultimately attributed a substantial portion of responsibility to parties beyond the driver .

Every case is unique and subject to appeal. However, the broader lesson is relevant across industries. Plaintiffs increasingly seek to expand the scope of liability by examining not only what happened, but also how organisations selected suppliers, managed contractors, documented decisions and applied oversight.

For risk managers, this reinforces the importance of understanding third-party exposures and ensuring that governance standards extend beyond their own operations.

Emerging liability risks deserve attention

Risk managers should not only focus on established casualty exposures. They should also monitor emerging liability trends that have the potential to shape future litigation.

One emerging example is litigation involving ultra-processed food (UPF). Whether it develops into a major mass-tort exposure remains uncertain. However, the combination of evolving scientific research, public health concerns, regulatory scrutiny and increasingly coordinated plaintiff activity illustrates how quickly new liability narratives can take shape.

Recent cases also show how litigation strategies may evolve. Where claims based on individual bodily injury face significant causation hurdles, plaintiffs and public authorities may increasingly turn to alternative theories such as deceptive marketing, consumer protection or public nuisance. This can potentially broaden the scope of litigation beyond individual injury claims.

For risk managers, UPF is therefore less a prediction of the next major mass tort than an early-warning example. Developments worth monitoring include emerging regulatory definitions, new scientific evidence, government enforcement activity, litigation targeting marketing practices, and attempts to coordinate claims across jurisdictions.

What can risk managers do now?

1. The first step is awareness.
   Organisations need a clear understanding of where and how they are exposed to the US legal environment. This includes reviewing operations, supply chains, contractors, products, customers, business relationships and marketing practices, especially if products and services are intended for children or other vulnerable groups.
2. The second step is prevention.
   Companies should regularly review internal policies, safety standards and governance frameworks. Robust procedures are important, but consistent implementation is even more important.
   One of the most damaging statements a jury can hear is:"The company did not even follow its own internal guidelines."
   For this reason, organisations should ensure that internal standards are realistic, consistently applied and properly documented.
3. The third step is preparedness.
   Once an incident occurs, early action can make a significant difference. Effective claims management, strong coordination and access to experienced local expertise can help organisations navigate a highly complex legal environment. 

Understanding exposure before a claim becomes a crisis

European courts are unlikely to produce nuclear verdicts on the scale seen in the United States. However, that does not mean European companies are insulated from their effects. For organisations with US exposure, the more relevant question is whether they understand where liabilities may arise and whether they are prepared to respond when they do.

Nuclear verdicts remain a powerful reminder that legal, operational, reputational and societal factors have become closely interconnected. Companies that proactively identify vulnerabilities, challenge assumptions and monitor emerging liability trends will be better positioned to manage uncertainty in an increasingly complex casualty risk environment.