An Exxon sign at a gas station.
PHILADELPHIA – Over the objections of business and legal reform groups, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a $725 million verdict made up entirely of non-economic damages in the case of a gas station worker who claimed benzene in gasoline caused his leukemia.
The verdict was one of a few that led to Pennsylvania juries giving out the third-highest amount of money in 2024 and was cited as a so-called “nuclear verdict.” In arguing the sum was excessive, it was noted that one juror tied the verdict to climate change, called Exxon a villain and celebrated that the jury “rocked” its world.
“Honestly, the best feeling ever seeing the defense counsel look like they were going to puke,” Juror No. 2 blogged after the trial. He also revealed the jury was aware Exxon had rejected a $1.2 million settlement offer before the verdict.
But a three-judge panel of the Superior Court on Thursday found nothing improper about the verdict, which ballooned to $816 million with delay damages. Exxon argued Philadelphia trial judge Carmella Jacquinto should have granted its motion on the issue of causation, wrongly allowed plaintiff lawyers to say there is no safe threshold of benzene and should have assessed the juror’s “dishonesty” during selection – claiming he could be objective even though he saw Exxon as a villain.
Exxon’s arguments regarding the juror were made after the 10-day window for post-trial motions, both Jacquinto and the Superior Court found.
“We discern no abuse of discretion when a trial court dismisses a motion to supplement a defendant’s post-trial motions nunc pro tunc, where, as here, that motion to supplement is filed over three months late, and does not suggest anything improper during trial or jury deliberations,” Judge Deborah Kunselman wrote.
A coalition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, the Washington Legal Foundation, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association had urged the Superior Court to reverse the verdict.
They argued the size of the verdict went beyond “making the plaintiff whole,” complaining there are no guidelines for jurors when they decide non-economic damages. This allows plaintiff lawyers to spin tales of corporate greed to them to raise their anger, they said.
Lawyers from Kline & Specter, Locks Law Firm, Emmanuel Law Firm and Waters, Kraus & Paul represented the Gills. At trial, they wrote on an easel that Exxon sells 12.5 billion gallons of gasoline each year and added $3 per gallon on it.
Large verdicts like this one cause increased costs for everyone, the business groups said, adding blockbusters like the Gills’ discourage settlements and encourage protracted litigation.
"Yet, these awards permeate innumerable aspects of Americans' daily lives. They increase the costs of food, housing, health care and other critical goods and services, as well as insurance for things such as a car, home or other property,” their brief said.
“Those social costs can be reduced by limiting non-economic damages to their purpose: compensating the plaintiff for his or her harm."
Exxon argued plaintiff Paul Gill and his wife failed to show there was enough benzene in Mobil Oil gasoline to consider it carcinogenic, a change from the claim Gill’s experts failed to opine that gasoline can cause leukemia, the Superior Court said.
“Exxon may not make a new argument regarding causation for the first time on appeal,” Judge Kunselman wrote, finding fault with other parts of Exxon’s post-trial strategy. She said the company failed to raise issues regarding expert testimony with the trial court before advancing them with the Superior Court.
As to whether the verdict was excessive, it backed Judge Jacquinto’s decision to not change it. Deciding if the amount shocks “judicial consciences” would be to usurp the power of the jury and the trial court, Kunselman wrote.
“Exxon also asks us to substitute our view of what verdict amount is shocking to our consciences for that of the trial court, rather than deferring to the trial court, who heard and saw the witnesses testify,” she added.
“Hence, Exxon asks us to overstep our role as a reviewing court and invade the provinces of both the jury and the trial court. This not the function of an appellate court.”
