The Core Finding
Your defense attorney has been losing on purpose — just not intentionally.
Researchers at Tyson & Mendes spent a year analyzing closing argument transcripts from more than 100 real nuclear verdict cases — jury awards of $10 million or more — from courtrooms across the country. They were looking for a pattern. They found one.
In every single one of those 100 cases, the defense failed to use at least one of four specific trial tactics that research and courtroom experience show dramatically reduce verdict sizes. In most cases, defense counsel failed to use two or three of them. In many, they used none at all.
These are not exotic techniques. They are basic, teachable, data-validated courtroom practices. And the defense team your carrier selects — paid with your premium dollars — is almost certainly not using all of them.
"Not a single one of the 100 nuclear verdicts analyzed resulted after the defense used all four elements. Not one."
Nuclear Verdicts: The Apex, Break the Pattern — Tyson & Mendes LLP (2025)
What This Means for Your Organization
Nuclear verdicts are not primarily caused by bad luck, runaway juries, or unpredictable social forces. Research published in 2025 — based on analysis of 100 real trial transcripts — shows they are caused in a documented, measurable way by defense teams failing to deploy proven courtroom strategies. As a member of the Social Inflation Risk Alliance Purchasing Group, you have the right to understand what good defense looks like. This briefing tells you what to look for and what to ask.
Research attribution: The data and framework cited throughout this briefing are drawn from the published research of Tyson & Mendes LLP, including their 2025 analysis of 100 nuclear verdict trial transcripts and their book Nuclear Verdicts: The Apex, Break the Pattern, co-authored by Robert F. Tyson Jr. and Cayce E. Lynch. Additional context is drawn from interviews published by Insurance Journal and the FDCC podcast series. The alliance's advocacy positions build on this research from the member and insured perspective.
The Four Tactics
What your defense team must do in every high-exposure trial
Tyson & Mendes identified four specific tactics that, when used together, consistently reduce verdict sizes — even in cases that ultimately go nuclear. Each tactic addresses a specific psychological dynamic that plaintiff attorneys are actively exploiting in the courtroom. Researchers call this framework the "Core Four."
62%
average damage reduction when defense accepts responsibility vs. when they don't
Plaintiff counsel's dominant theme in nuclear verdict cases is "holding this corporation accountable." When defense accepts responsibility for something — a product, an employee, a decision — that theme loses its power. Refusing to accept any responsibility inflames the jury and validates every claim the plaintiff is making. And yet, according to the Tyson & Mendes research, defense counsel fails to accept responsibility 85% of the time.
75%
average damage reduction when defense gives the jury an award number
Plaintiff counsel opens with a specific dollar figure — often $50 million or more. That number anchors in the jury's mind for the entire trial through a well-documented psychological phenomenon. If defense counsel doesn't immediately counter with their own number, plaintiff's figure is the only reference point jurors have. Defense counsel refuses to give a number 54% of the time. When they seek a full defense verdict without giving any number, verdicts average double what plaintiff asked for.
22%
of cases where defense personalized the corporate defendant — vs. 90% for plaintiff
Plaintiff attorneys share personal stories about their clients in approximately 90% of nuclear verdict cases. Defense attorneys humanize the corporate defendant in only about 22% of cases. Anti-corporate sentiment is the baseline emotional starting point for most juries today. When jurors see a faceless corporation, awarding against it is easy. When they see real employees, real families, real community impact — the dynamic shifts meaningfully.
64%
of nuclear verdict cases where defense failed to argue non-economic damages at all
Non-economic damages — pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress — represent the largest component of most nuclear verdicts. They are also the most subjective, which means the side that engages them most effectively wins. When defense counsel ignores this category and focuses only on economic damages, they leave the most explosive part of the verdict entirely in plaintiff's hands. Defense fails here in 64% of nuclear verdict cases.
Impact Analysis
How verdict size changes as defense deploys more of the Core Four
Zero tactics used
Verdicts avg. 150% of plaintiff's ask
150%
Three tactics used
Verdict avg. 43.7% of ask
43.7%
All four tactics
Not found in any of 100 cases
—
Source: Analysis of 100 nuclear verdict trial transcripts by Tyson & Mendes LLP, published in Nuclear Verdicts: The Apex, Break the Pattern (2025). Chart represents verdict size as approximate percentage of plaintiff's demand by number of Core Four tactics deployed.
How Often Defense Skips Each Tactic
These aren't occasional misses. They are the documented norm.
The Tyson & Mendes research reveals not just that defense fails to use the Core Four — but how consistently and how severely across 100 analyzed cases.
85%
Accept Responsibility
Defense failed to accept any responsibility in 85 of 100 nuclear verdict cases. This is plaintiff's most important theme — and defense surrenders it nearly every time.
54%
Give a Number
Defense refused to give the jury any damages number in more than half of cases. When they also sought a full defense verdict, verdicts averaged 200% of plaintiff's ask.
78%
Personalize the Defendant
Defense failed to humanize the corporate defendant in the vast majority of cases — even as plaintiff counsel personalized their client approximately 90% of the time.
64%
Argue Non-Economic Damages
Defense abandoned the pain and suffering argument in nearly two-thirds of nuclear verdict cases — ceding the largest and most emotionally powerful component of the verdict entirely to plaintiff.
The Inconvenient Truth
This isn't happening to rookie lawyers. It's happening to your carrier's longtime panel counsel.
One of the most striking findings in the published research is where nuclear verdicts are actually landing. They are not concentrated among inexperienced attorneys making rookie mistakes. They are happening to the same lawyers insurance companies have been using for 10, 20, and 30 years.
Carrier loyalty to familiar panel counsel — without performance standards tied to current trial science — is a systemic problem that directly affects member exposure. The defense bar has continued doing what it has always done while the plaintiffs' bar has been actively evolving, sharing intelligence, and deploying increasingly sophisticated courtroom psychology.
Experience is not a substitute for current training. The relevant question is not whether your defense counsel has tried cases before. It is whether they have been trained in the specific methods that data shows actually work against modern plaintiff tactics.
"Insurance companies are hiring the same defense lawyers they've been using for 10, 20, 30 years — while the plaintiffs' bar has completely changed the game."
Robert F. Tyson Jr., Founding Partner — Tyson & Mendes LLP, as reported by Insurance Journal (2025)
Alliance Advocacy Position
What the Alliance advocates on your behalf
The Alliance exists to close the information gap between what happens in courtrooms and what members understand about their own defense. Based on the data in this briefing, the Alliance advocates that carriers handling member excess liability demonstrate the following standards for panel counsel selection and trial management.
Core Four awareness: Defense counsel on high-exposure member files should be trained in and actively deploying all four tactics — acceptance of responsibility, a defense damages number, defendant personalization, and non-economic damages argument.
Performance standards: Carrier selection of panel counsel should include documented criteria beyond years of experience — specifically, training in modern verdict science and demonstrated familiarity with current plaintiff tactics including anchoring and reptile theory.
Early trial theme development: On any file with nuclear verdict exposure, defense theme development, expert selection, and opening statement strategy should begin at file opening — not in the weeks before trial.
Your right to ask: Members have the standing — and the Alliance encourages them — to ask their broker and carrier: "Is our defense team using these methods?" Your broker is a partner in this conversation. The Alliance gives both of you the language to have it.
Questions to raise with your broker about your defense team
Has our carrier's panel counsel received training in current nuclear verdict defense methods — specifically the Core Four framework or an equivalent structured approach? When was this training last updated?
On our high-exposure files, is defense counsel actively counter-anchoring plaintiff's damages demand in opening statement — or waiting for an economic expert to address it at trial, when it is already too late?
What criteria does our carrier use to select trial counsel on cases with nuclear verdict exposure? Is that selection based on demonstrated trial advocacy capability or primarily on established relationships?
Is our defense team developing a trial narrative and theme for high-exposure files from the beginning of the case — or only in the months before trial, when the opportunity to shape the case is largely gone?
Are there minimum two attorneys approved for trial on any file where the plaintiff demand exceeds $10 million?
The Alliance does not dictate how carriers run their claims operations. What the Alliance does is ensure that members understand what good defense looks like — and have the language and standing to advocate for it. The data in this briefing is drawn from a meticulous analysis of 100 real nuclear verdict trial transcripts published by Tyson & Mendes LLP. The pattern is real. The remedies are known. The question is whether the team defending your organization is using them.
For additional briefings in the Defense Tactics Series, or to access other resources in the member library, speak with your broker or visit your member portal.