By Curt Schroder, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform
When most people think about inflation, they think about groceries, gasoline, housing, or electricity. But another form of inflation is quietly making Pennsylvania more expensive, and most people have never heard of it.
It does not happen at the grocery store. It happens in the courtroom.
A major new academic study by researchers from Georgia State University and Brighthouse Financial has confirmed that lawsuit costs are increasing faster than normal inflation and that the biggest reason is rapidly growing jury verdicts. The researchers analyzed more than 74,000 jury verdicts and settlements nationwide from 2009 through 2024 and concluded that civil liability costs are rising well beyond what ordinary inflation can explain.
Economists and insurers call this social inflation. In plain English, it means the cost of legal claims is climbing faster than the prices of ordinary goods and services. A verdict that merely kept pace with inflation would reflect the declining value of a dollar. Social inflation is the additional increase caused by changes in litigation behavior, jury expectations, and the legal environment. That extra cost is harder to predict, price, and absorb.
Why should anyone outside the legal profession care? Because the public ultimately pays the cost of larger and less predictable lawsuits. Businesses, hospitals, physicians, nonprofit organizations, schools, manufacturers, trucking companies, contractors and retailers all buy liability insurance. When claims become more expensive, premiums rise. Those costs eventually appear in health care bills, prices for goods and services, and decisions about whether to hire, expand, or invest.
The study found several trends. Plaintiffs are winning a larger share of cases that reach trial. Fewer cases are settling before trial. Most significantly, jury verdicts have increased dramatically even after researchers accounted for differences in the kinds of cases being heard. This is not simply a story about a few billion-dollar “nuclear verdicts.” Awards across the range of cases are moving upward, suggesting a broad shift rather than a handful of sensational headlines.
That should give Pennsylvania lawmakers pause. House Bill 1913, now before the General Assembly, would allow lawyers to suggest specific dollar amounts for economic and noneconomic damages during closing arguments. In cases involving pain and suffering, that practice is called anchoring. Once jurors hear a large number, it becomes the reference point against which they evaluate an award, even when the number has little objective connection to the evidence.
Supporters say both sides should be free to recommend a figure. But the larger policy question cannot be ignored: if jury verdicts are already the principal driver of lawsuit inflation, should Pennsylvania adopt a practice that will push awards higher still? Damage awards should be grounded in facts and evidence, not in the strategic power of the first enormous number placed before a jury.
The same caution should apply to third-party litigation funding, in which outside investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a share of any recovery. The study found stronger social inflation in states without regulation of that practice, and Pennsylvania currently has no consumer protections against third-party litigation funding.
None of these mean injured people should be denied fair compensation. They should be made whole. Fairness, however, also requires balance and reasonable predictability. A system that rewards increasingly untethered awards affects not only defendants. It affects every patient, policyholder, employer, nonprofit, and consumer who absorbs the resulting costs.
Pennsylvania knows what is at stake. Philadelphia recorded 12 verdicts of at least $10 million in 2024, more than in any year going back to at least 2017, according to reporting by a legal news daily. The median damages award in the city reached $192,664, nearly twice the previous high of $100,000. Those figures underscore why evidence about rising verdict severity deserves attention here.
Every proposal affecting civil liability should therefore be judged by a simple question: Will it make Pennsylvania more affordable or less affordable? The answer matters far beyond lawyers and courtrooms. It reaches family budgets, medical practices, community organizations, and employers deciding where to grow and hire.
At a time when affordability is among the biggest concerns facing Pennsylvania families, lawmakers should be wary of policies that invite larger verdicts, more litigation, and greater uncertainty. A fair civil justice system must compensate legitimate injuries. It must also preserve the balance, predictability, and economic competitiveness that benefit every Pennsylvanian.
The Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform is a 501(c)(6), not-for-profit, nonpartisan advocacy organization comprised of a diverse group of organizations and individuals committed to bringing fairness to Pennsylvania's courts by raising awareness of civil justice issues and advocating for legal reform.
