Texas’ Fight Against Nuclear Verdicts: Comparing Two Texas House Bills on Damages in Personal Injury Cases

The Texas Legislature is considering two key bills, House Bill 1419 and House Bill 939, that could significantly impact personal injury litigation by placing limits on noneconomic damages. Both bills aim to curb the so-called “nuclear” verdict and provide predictability in damage awards, but they approach this issue differently. Below, I’ll break down each bill's content and compare their potential effects.

Nuclear Verdicts in Texas

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, Texas has emerged as a prominent state for nuclear verdicts, with a study identifying 130 cases totaling $16 billion in awards.[1] A nuclear verdict refers to an exceptionally high jury award in a civil lawsuit, typically involving amounts that significantly exceed what would be considered reasonable compensation based on the evidence or damages in the case. These verdicts often surpass $10 million and are most common in cases involving personal injury, wrongful death, or catastrophic damages.

A significant factor behind these large verdicts is the use of anchoring techniques, where attorneys propose specific, often arbitrary figures for damages.[2] These strategies influence jurors’ perceptions, often resulting in higher awards.[3]

For instance, in 2023, during a Texas automobile accident case, the plaintiff’s lawyer suggested calculating damages based on "two cents" per mile for every mile driven by the defendant company’s trucks, resulting in a $39 million jury award that closely aligned with the suggested figure.[4] The Texas Supreme Court later ordered a retrial, citing the use of "unsubstantiated anchors" and other improper practices as reasons for the decision.[5]

Overview of HB 1419

House Bill 1419 introduces a tiered cap system for noneconomic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases. The highlights are:

• For physical pain and suffering: The cap is set at three times the economic damages awarded to the claimant.

  
  

• For mental or emotional anguish: Two separate caps apply:

  • $1 million if the primary injury is emotional.

  • $250,000 if the primary injury is physical.

  • Annual adjustment: Starting January 1, 2027, these caps will increase annually by 1.75%.

  • Single-defendant treatment: All entities liable under vicarious liability are treated as one defendant for the purposes of applying these limits.

Overview of HB 939

House Bill 939 takes a more straightforward approach by imposing a single cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury claims:

• Cap Amount: The greater of:

  • $5 million, or

  • Five times the economic damages awarded to the claimant.

    
    

• Effective Date: This cap would apply to cases filed on or after January 1, 2026.

  
  

Comparison of the Bills

Aspect	HB 1419	HB 939
Basis for Caps	Tied to specific types of damages and adjusted over time.	Based on a fixed multiplier of economic damages or a flat amount.
Maximum Cap Amount	Variable, depending on economic damages; up to $1M for emotional injuries.	$5 million or five times the economic damages.
Annual Adjustments	Caps increase by 1.75% annually starting in 2027.	No provision for annual adjustments.
Defendant Treatment	All responsible entities treated as one for liability.	Silent on this matter.
Primary Goal	Differentiated limits by damage type; cost predictability.	Broad cap, designed for simplicity and uniformity.

Potential Effects on Personal Injury Litigation

1. Impact on Claimants:

   
   

HB 1419’s tiered system may disproportionately affect cases involving significant noneconomic harm but limited economic damages. For example, claimants with severe emotional distress might receive lower awards unless tied to high economic costs. HB 939, by contrast, offers broader compensation for substantial noneconomic harm, though it caps extremely large awards.

2. Effect on Insurers and Businesses:

   
   

Both bills are likely to reduce exposure to large noneconomic damage awards. HB 1419 might offer greater predictability for insurers due to its annual adjustments and specific damage-type caps. HB 939 simplifies calculations, which could streamline risk assessment processes.

3. Litigation Strategies:

   
   

Attorneys may adjust their approaches under these laws, focusing on maximizing economic damages in HB 939 cases or tailoring evidence to fit HB 1419’s tiers.

Conclusion

Both bills represent an effort to curb “nuclear” verdicts by enacting caps to noneconomic damage awards, but they reflect different philosophies. HB 1419 emphasizes tailored caps based on damage types and gradual adjustment, while HB 939 provides a broader, fixed framework. As these proposals evolve, understanding their nuances will be crucial for insurers, businesses, and legal practitioners navigating the Texas personal injury landscape.

Stay tuned for updates as the Texas Legislature debates these important measures.

[1] “Which States Have the Most “Nuclear” Verdicts?,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, July 11, 2024, https://instituteforlegalreform.com/blog/which-states-have-the-most-nuclear-verdicts/#:~:text=Texas%20is%20a%20leading%20state,tactics%20required%20a%20new%20trial.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.