Managing Venue Risk in Complex Claims

Two claims involving similar facts and injuries can develop differently depending on where they are litigated. Local liability rules, court procedures, jury expectations and damage standards can affect reserves, defense strategy, legal spend, settlement posture and ultimate claim cost.

‍

Venue should therefore be evaluated early and revisited as a claim develops. Jurisdictions can rise or fall in litigation rankings as legislatures enact reforms, appellate courts issue decisions and local filing or verdict patterns change.

‍

‍

Key Takeaways

‍

• Venue can affect claim exposure, reserves and litigation strategy.
• Litigation conditions often vary by county, city or court—not just by state.
• Venue profiles can change quickly and require ongoing monitoring.

‍

‍

Why Venue Can Change Claim Exposure

‍

Venue determines where a lawsuit will proceed and helps shape the legal and financial environment surrounding the claim. Depending on the jurisdiction, significant differences may include:

‍

• liability rules, including comparative fault and joint-and-several liability;
• standards governing damages, medical-expense evidence and interest;
• court procedures, expert-evidence requirements and opportunities to transfer a case; and local jury patterns, case duration and defense costs.

‍

These differences are receiving greater attention as insurers confront social inflation and unusually large verdicts.

‍

A 2024 U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform study identified 1,288 verdicts of at least $10 million between 2013 and 2022. California, Florida, New York and Texas collectively accounted for approximately half of those verdicts.¹ Swiss Re's 2025 behavioral study also found that juror attitudes and injury severity can influence recommended awards.²

‍

Large verdicts are only one part of venue risk. Extended case duration, unfavorable fault-allocation rules, higher interest costs and local litigation practices can increase claim costs even when a case does not reach trial.

‍

‍

Selected Venue-Risk Hotspots

‍

The American Tort Reform Foundation's 2025–2026 Judicial Hellholes report identifies eight jurisdictions that it considers particularly challenging for civil defendants.³ The report reflects a defense-oriented tort-reform perspective rather than a neutral judicial assessment. It nevertheless provides one indicator of jurisdictions that may warrant closer review.

‍

‍

Venue-Risk Hotspots Identified by the American Tort Reform Foundation, 2025–2026

‍

‍

Why Venue Risk Must Be Monitored

‍

Annual changes in litigation rankings demonstrate why a venue assessment should not remain static. In the 2024–2025 report, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the top position. New York City ranked second, Georgia fourth and California fifth.⁴ One year later, Los Angeles moved to the top, Philadelphia fell to fifth and Georgia moved to a watch list following significant tort reform. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also moved to the watch list after an important venue decision.

‍

Movement in a ranking does not mean that a jurisdiction suddenly became safe or unsafe. It may reflect new legislation, appellate decisions, changes in verdict or filing patterns, or emerging litigation practices.

‍

Georgia enacted a broad 2025 tort-reform package addressing noneconomic damages, medical-expense evidence, negligent security and trial procedures.⁵ Louisiana adopted a modified comparative-fault system under which a plaintiff found 51% or more responsible is barred from recovery, effective January 1, 2026.⁶ South Carolina also modified aspects of fault allocation and joint-and-several liability in 2025.⁷

‍

Court decisions can also change a venue's risk profile. In 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the transfer of cases arising from a Westmoreland County highway accident from Philadelphia, where the plaintiffs filed suit, to Westmoreland County, where the accident occurred and many potential witnesses were located.⁸

‍

‍

What Effective Venue Management Looks Like

‍

‍

‍

‍

How Alan Gray Can Help

‍

Independent review can determine whether reserves, litigation plans and legal spend reflect venue-specific exposure. Alan Gray can assist carriers, TPAs, captives, program managers and self-insured organizations by:

‍

• identifying claims requiring venue-based escalation;
• evaluating reserves against local liability and damage conditions;
• reviewing litigation strategy, counsel performance and legal spend; and
• identifying claim concentrations by state, county, court or claim type.

‍

Reviews can focus on individual high-exposure claims or a broader portfolio. Portfolio analysis may identify inconsistent reserves, differing results among defense firms or growing exposure in jurisdictions where litigation conditions are changing.

‍

‍

Citations

‍

1. Silverman, Cary, and Christopher E. Appel. "Nuclear Verdicts: An Update on Trends, Causes, and Solutions." U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, May 2024.
2. Boerlin, Martin, and Surbhi Gupta. "Verdicts on Trial: The Behavioral Science Behind America's Skyrocketing Legal Payouts." Swiss Re, 24 Sept. 2025.
3. American Tort Reform Foundation. "2025–2026 Executive Summary." Judicial Hellholes, 2025.
4. American Tort Reform Foundation. "2024–2025 Executive Summary." Judicial Hellholes, 2024.
5. Georgia General Assembly, Office of Legislative Counsel. Summary of General Statutes Enacted at the First Session of the 158th General Assembly of Georgia. 2025, p. 53.
6. Louisiana State Legislature. House Bill No. 431, Act No. 15. 2025 Regular Session.
7. South Carolina General Assembly. Act No. 42, H. 3430: Tort Reform and Liquor Liability. 2025.
8. Tranter v. Z&D Tour, Inc. Nos. 18–32 EAP 2024. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 25 Sept. 2025.