Personal Injury Damages: Limiting the Risk of Inflated Verdicts by Countering Plaintiff's Anchor

This CLE course will discuss how defense counsel can counteract the damages figure suggested by the plaintiff's counsel - while still pressing for a defense verdict.

Study after study shows that the value a plaintiff's counsel first assigns to a case greatly influences jurors. Simply by requesting more significant damages at the outset, plaintiffs verdicts are higher. The results of this strategy can be staggering--verdicts of eight to 10 figures.

Parts of the defense bar have long operated on the belief that offering a counter value is tantamount to conceding liability, or that proffering a number will create a damages floor. But left with nothing else, juries rely on the plaintiff's valuation. Despite "tort reforms" and damages caps in many states, recoveries on even ordinary claims appear to have skyrocketed.

Is the "no-number" defense strategy still working? Although providing a value of the case may seem counterintuitive, some research shows that jury verdicts are between 20-40 percent lower when the defense addresses damages head-on. While there may be times not to offer a counter-value, pushing back on the plaintiff's significant number with an alternative amount can reduce the risk of a company-ending verdict.

Listen as our panel discusses when and how to offer alternative damage amounts to achieve lower verdicts and better results, as well as best practices for doing so.