In the digital age, the intersection between law and insurance is more complex than ever. From AI-driven underwriting to the surge in cyber claims, technology is reshaping the legal landscape for insurers. We will explore the challenges and opportunities at this crucial crossroads, asking: Are insurers prepared for the legal implications of emerging tech? How can technology be harnessed to mitigate risk and streamline legal processes? What impact are nuclear verdicts having on the insurance industry and how can insurers proactively mitigate their impact?
Transcription:
Transcripts are generated using a combination of speech recognition software and human transcribers, and may contain errors. Please check the corresponding audio for the authoritative record.
Patti Harman (00:14):
Welcome to this edition of Leaders. I'm so glad you could join us today. I'm Patti Harman, editor in chief of Digital Insurance In the Digital Age, the intersection between law and insurance is more complex than ever from AI driven underwriting to the surge in cyber claims, technology is reshaping the legal landscape for insurers. We're also seeing a rise in nuclear verdicts, which have become one of the top risks identified by insurance executives. Here to discuss all of this and more today, a Robert Tyson founding partner of Tyson Mendez and the author of Nuclear Verdicts, defending Justice For All, and his latest book that's coming out this fall, nuclear Verdicts, the Apex Break the Pattern. And Cayce Lynch, national managing partner at Tyson and Mendez, and the co-author with Bob on the book coming out this fall. Thank you both for joining us today.
Robert Tyson (01:15):
Thank you, Patti.
Cayce Lynch (01:16):
Thank you, Patti.
Patti Harman (01:18):
So there have been a number of studies published in the industry focusing on the risks that concern insurance executives and the rise in the number of nuclear verdicts is definitely one of them. I thought maybe we could just start with a quick overview of when the insurance industry started to see these types of verdicts and how you've seen them evolve over the last decade or so. Bob, maybe I'll throw that to you first.
Robert Tyson (01:46):
Yeah, great. Thank you. Patti. The most famous and really most publicized early on nuclear verdict was the McDonald's hot coffee case, and I think that was like 1997. And that got a real response from folks and a lot of pushback and a lot of people are outraged by that verdict. And it was, if you recall, a woman had ordered a hot coffee and it was passed to her and it was too hot. She spilled it on her lap and had serious burns and got $2.7 million. And what's interesting is 2.7 million, I don't know, doesn't really sound like that much right now, to be honest. That was 1997, what just happened a couple months ago with a California plaintiff's lawyer who, I won't say his name because I've said his name a lot over my career, just hit against Starbucks in a hot tea case for $50 million.
(02:49):
So 1997 was 2.7 million. Everyone was outraged. This verdict where they had, it was kind of like a DoorDash driver had ordered hot tea and he was delivering it, and it was handed to him in one of those cardboard little trays, and there was three of them. And if you see the video and they have the video, it looks like the third one wasn't put down all the way. So when it was handed through the drive-through counter, it fell on his lap and scalded him. There was no economic damages, no recovery of wage loss or medical expenses. It was all $50 million for pain and suffering for non-economic damages. So that really speaks to what's going on in just talking about two cases. So nuclear verdicts have been on the rise for probably not since 1997. They've really taken off in the last 15 years. In 2009, there was a plaintiff book that came out called The Reptile Theory, written by a guy named David Ball who's written a few books.
(03:50):
And that really has changed the approach that plaintiff's lawyers take to these trials and it's borne out in the data. And if you look at the data over the last 15 years, what we've been able to detect is that plaintiff's lawyers have changed the way they trial lawsuits. And what others have been able to detect just from pure data in researching the insurance industry is that the severity and frequency of nuclear verdicts, which is typically defined as a verdict of $10 million or more, the frequency and severity of them have increased dramatically over the last 15 years. And we believe it's because plaintiff lawyers have changed the way they try lawsuits and the defense and the insurance industry is doing what we've always done. So yeah, there's been a big growth in nuclear verdicts and some folks are calling verdicts above a hundred million dollars thermonuclear verdicts. So they're adding a new name now.
Patti Harman (04:50):
Wow. Cayce, anything that you want to add to that? Anything that you've seen over the last couple of years?
Cayce Lynch (04:57):
Well, in our analysis of 100 nuclear verdicts, this analysis we undertook for writing book number two on the subject, we're seeing the use of anger. Bob talked about the plaintiff's bar changing the way they try lawsuits. And what's particularly changed is that they're no longer focused on getting jurors to feel sympathy for the plaintiff. Instead, they're trying to get jurors angry and they know that this non-economic damages category of damages, these damages for pain and suffering, that is really where jurors are going above and beyond and where the vast majority of money is being awarded in these cases.
Patti Harman (05:44):
That's the perfect segue to my next question because I was going to ask you, are the same factors that drove these verdicts still in play now or are you seeing some new causes that are affecting maybe some of the more recent verdicts?
Cayce Lynch (06:00):
Yeah, I think anger's absolutely there in a way that we never saw before. And as we analyzed these 100 cases, the way we did it is that we pulled the trial transcripts and the closing argument transcripts from the cases because this is really ground zero. Where are nuclear verdicts happening? Well, they're happening in courtrooms. So what's happening in the courtroom when a jury goes to $50 million? And we're seeing that plaintiff's attorneys are focused on tactics and arguments to drive juror anger. And it's also what was very surprising along these lines is just that it's more outrageous than ever before. And I know we'll talk about that a little bit more later. The other thing that we're seeing is anti-corporate bias really is at an all time high post the 2020 pandemic. And so the vast majority of these defendants, again, are corporations and businesses of all sizes that are being targeted in this way.
Patti Harman (07:10):
Bob, are you seeing what are some of the biggest mistakes that carriers are making that can lead to a nuclear verdict and have they changed over the years?
Robert Tyson (07:21):
Yeah, what's interesting is your prior question was the factors changing? Well, the reality is because the insurance industry hasn't changed at all, what's their change for plaintiff's lawyers? About 15 years ago, they started changing the way they try lawsuits, which is really in two major ways. Cayce said one which is anger. And just to everyone knows that's a major shift. When I first started trying cases 30 years ago, 35 years ago, we're always worried about sympathy, right? We are always worried that the plaintiff was going to come in in a wheelchair or was the plaintiff going to cry on the stand? Now, that's not what the case is about. The case is about anger. So the focus now is on the insured, is on the defendant in the case. That's a radical shift. And then the other thing that's changed is plaintiff's lawyers are asking for big numbers first, trying cases.
(08:21):
They often wouldn't give the jury any numbers, and they certainly wouldn't want to give a big number. They thought it would be off-putting. So they've completely changed the way they try lawsuits. And some of the biggest mistakes that carriers are making is they haven't changed anything. I mean, I present to 500 people, a thousand people, and I'll say that, okay, two radical shifts in the way plaintiff's lawyers are changing cases. They're asking for big numbers, and they're going for anger. They've completely changed the way they're trying these lawsuits. This happened 15 years ago. Okay, what are you and your defense counsel doing differently today? And I'm telling you, I do not care how big the room is, the conference room, the hotel is with these people in it. When I ask that question, Patti, it's crickets. Either they don't know what their defense counsel is doing or their defense counsel is doing nothing differently, which by the way, is the definition of insanity to just keep doing the same thing over and over again using the same defense approach and hoping for a different outcome.
Patti Harman (09:35):
That's crazy. It is. And that kind of leads into my next question, which was are there actions that insurers are taking or that they can take to mitigate this rise in nuclear verdicts then? Because you said they haven't changed a whole lot. Have they made the effort? In some respects, and it's interesting to me, I have been in rooms with insurance executives and I know this is a huge issue for them. So maybe you're seeing the other side.
Robert Tyson (10:09):
I'm going to let Cayce answer that, but I just want, with what can be done, but I just need to point out the absurdity of it all. What is happening? Claims people are walking down hallways scratching their heads saying, I don't get juries today. I don't understand how they could give that much money in this case. I don't understand how we lost. Jurors are crazy. Judges are crazy. Everyone's crazy but them okay? And the reality is that jurors are your neighbors. Okay? Yes, we all have some crazy neighbors and people want to talk about the pandemic and how much everything's changed and all that. But you know what? It's your neighbors that are giving these verdicts and your neighbors are being manipulated. Let me be blunt. Your neighbors are being manipulated by extremely talented and incentivized. Plaintiff lawyers incentivized to win. We get paid by the hour. I get paid the same amount of money whether I win or lose, every one we go up against only gets paid if they win. Insurance companies don't pay for value. Insurance companies just pay for time.
(11:32):
Is that a problem? Could be. Could be. We should talk about how it shouldn't be, right? Like that. Everyone should just be natural born competitors, whether they're fighting to put food on their table or not. But it might be nice to have the defense lawyers have some skin in the game, just throwing that out there. No one has really taken us up on it, but I've offered to insurance companies, I'll try your case for free, I'll try it for free. And then they're like, oh, that sounds great. And I'm like, all right. I only want to be paid if I win. Well, what does that mean? It's the same as plaintiff's counsel only pay me if I bring value. If I don't bring value. Don't pay me. Don't pay me just to spend time. But that's what the insurance industry does. That's the way they want to be. That's fine. So stop scratching your heads.
(12:20):
Juries are not nuts. Juries show up wanting to do the right thing. They're being manipulated. Here's the thing though. They've been manipulated for 15 years. We have the data. Cayce has the data. The great news is there's things you can do. The only thing is you have to do something that the insurance industry and the defense industry kind of loaves. It's change. You have to change the way you do things because what's happening is they're walking down what jurors are crazy. I just used the data shows that nuclear verdicts happen to the most experienced defense lawyers. The best defense lawyers in America are getting killed. The data shows that the best insurance claims professionals, the most experienced are getting killed because the game has changed. You're doing everything the way you always did. Plaintiff's lawyers freaking love it. They love it. They're thrilled. So Cayce, let me ask Patti's question. Is there anything that the defense can do to change all of this?
Cayce Lynch (13:29):
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Robert Tyson (13:32):
Is that too much of a buildup, Patti?
Patti Harman (13:34):
Nope, that was good. Actually. Well go ahead, Cayce and answer it, and then I'll share a few insights from my side. Oh, thank you.
Cayce Lynch (13:42):
Thank you. So what's been so validating for us is that on our analysis of 100 nuclear verdicts, we have found in the data supports that nuclear verdicts fit a pattern. And so all you have to do to stop nuclear verdicts is break the pattern, and we want to focus on what we can control right now. So insurance companies have huge governmental affairs, arms and lobbyists that go out and work on their behalf. We're writing our congressmen and women, and we are working as a whole nation, as a whole industry here to try to maybe get more tort reform or maybe try to get more disclosure on third party litigation funding. Those things take time, right? A very long time. And we have tools today in every single trial that claims folks are handling to approach these cases in a different way and change the trajectory of these claims by stopping nuclear verdicts where they start.
(14:41):
And that's in the courtroom. So we have developed a approach to these cases, a defense approach to these cases that we're calling the apex, and it's a series of methods that build upon one another, all aimed towards diffusing anger at the end of the day, because we feel like when we stop plaintiffs psychological warfare and psychological tactics in the courtroom, when we combat that, when we're prepared for it, when we have our own narrative, when we take back control in the courtroom on these cases, we're able to diffuse the anger and that's going to stop the unjust results.
Patti Harman (15:20):
Interesting. So Bob, you were talking about jurors. I have served on two different juries and you have a wide range of individuals in that room. And I remember sitting on one trial going, yep, I would've picked the judge in terms of who was going to be making the decision. It really depends who end up on the jury. I think a lot of times. And I remember asking questions in the jury room and people just looking at me and I'm thinking, these are very practical questions and things to consider. So it's really, it's just an interesting experience for sure. So you've mentioned it a few times, Cayce, and I don't really want to steal any thunder from your book that's coming out in October, but as you've said, you reviewed a hundred nuclear verdicts as part of your research. Did anything surprise you or stand out in these types of verdicts that maybe helped you formulate your strategies?
Cayce Lynch (16:26):
Yes. Thank you for that question. So just a personal note, one thing that shocked me as an attorney and as someone who's passionate about these issues, before we started writing the book, Bob and I would pull transcripts from nuclear verdicts just for fun to read them. And so when we started doing it as part of a formal analysis for this book, one thing that really shocked me is that even I was angry reading the transcripts as a very conservative defense lawyer. I'm thinking, of course, the jury's angry. Of course, this verdict was nuclear. This is an awful set of facts, or this is an awful injury. And that just shows the power of how the plaintiff's bar has evolved to focus on anger and how the defense in large has not responded in kind and certainly hasn't responded when the cases end up going nuclear.
(17:23):
But the data supports that. There are four things that we need to be doing as a defense team in the courtroom in order to diffuse juror anger. And I'm very happy to share those four with you. We call them the core four. First, we must personalize our defendant. We must make our defendant human. Our jury needs to connect with who the defendant is. We cannot be just a faceless corporation that's seen as having deep pocket, so personalizing the defendant. The second is that we must accept responsibility for something in every single case. Now, I did not say liability. We accept responsibility in every case at Tyson and Mendez, and we get defense verdicts all the time. The reason we say that you must accept responsibility is because accepting responsibility is the number one way to diffuse juror anger in a courtroom. The third thing defense teams must do is sponsor a defense number.
(18:26):
Bob mentioned how the two things that the plaintiff's bar is doing differently is focusing on anger and giving big numbers. We have to do the exact same. It's just the psychological phenomenon of anchoring. If a panel of jurors only hears plaintiff's number by the end of trial, that is the only just result that seems reasonable to jurors. So we have to sponsor a defense number and again, in every single case, not only in admitted liability cases, even when we're going for a defense verdict, and I promise you it's still possible to get a defense verdict when you've given a number. Finally, we argue pain and suffering in every single case. So this is the biggest component of most nuclear verdicts. The plaintiff's bar has the most creative strategies and arguments around why $50 million is fair and reasonable, and it convinces our everyday neighbors that $50 million is fair and reasonable. And then in response to that, they're hearing silence from the defense. So the defense has to have creative arguments, and we do, and we share that in the book with our audience on ways that we must argue pain and suffering again in every single case, even when we're going for a defense verdict, to equip jurors with an alternative narrative around the most significant component of damages in these big cases.
Patti Harman (19:44):
Wow. Such practical information for insurer's attorneys to adopt. Bob, is there anything you want to add to that maybe that surprised you because you've been doing this for a while and you've seen a lot of cases?
Robert Tyson (20:01):
Yeah, I mean, if you think about where this came from, nuclear verdicts start taking off, it seems unjust to me. I mean, just kind of by its definition, by the sound of it, a nuclear verdict is unjust. I, and so I started thinking, well, why hasn't our firm had any nuclear verdicts and what are we doing differently? And then I was coached by a business consultant who's since passed Mort, who's unbelievable, brilliant man, and he suggested I write the first book and just lay it out. And then what happened was a lot of insurance companies bought the book. Insurance companies bought it by the hundreds. Travelers Insurance bought 2000 copies of it, and we don't really do much travelers work. So I mean, it was embraced by the entire insurance history. Plaintiff's spa bought a lot of the copies as well. They're always trying to perfect their trade because they only get paid if they win.
(21:00):
So they want to know what we're doing, and I don't know how much we know what they're doing, but we shared it. And you see all this out there, and you wonder, the question from insurance carriers was, that's great. That's your experience over 30 years, 35 years, whatever it is. Do you have any data to back that up? And that's where Cayce and Ashley Feco really started drilling into the data. Because on the one hand, we have a tech company that has millions of closed claims files, so we could get more nuclear verdict data, but to get the actual trial transcripts is quite the undertaking, right? You've got to call
(21:40):
A courthouse and South Dakota, and then you got to find out who was the court reporter. Then you got to get her number, and then you got to see if she'll transcribe it. To get a hundred of 'em was a nightmare. That's why it's taken a few years then to analyze it all. But what's interesting is, and I was really curious about this, is that when you look at the sampling and the data and do the analysis, there has never been a nuclear verdict where all four of those things were done that Cayce was talking about. It's never been a nuclear verdict where all four of those things were done. Now does that mean if you personalize the defendant, accept responsibility, give a number, argue pain, and suffering, what we're calling the core four, that's part of the Apex method. Does that guarantee you're not going to have a nuclear verdict?
(22:32):
No. But if your insurance company and you like data and you like addressing risk and playing the odds of winning or losing, use all four, we've yet to find one where they've used all four. So let's go. Let's change, let's go. This works. We've got the solutions, let's do this. We can do it. It's real easy. And it's all legal. That reptile book that tries to get jurors angry, almost half the book is devoted to getting around the laws of the different states in America because what he's asking them to do is illegal. Everything we're doing is within your defense counsel's control. The only problem is you've never tried cases this way and you're going to have to change the way you tried cases, or you can just keep walking down the hallway scratching your heads and complaining about your neighbors.
Patti Harman (23:27):
Well, and unfortunately the insurance industry's reputation is that they are not quick to change whether it's the way that they operate or even in the technology space. And we cover a lot of the intersection between insurance and technology, and I think the pandemic was kind of a jumpstart for carriers, and we've seen them adopt and change a lot more I think in the last couple of years than we had previously. So I recently attended a conference where one of the panels discussed the importance of carriers sharing some of their information, like jurisdictions where there have been multiple suits or information on judges or attorneys or types of claims that seem to be more prone to jury verdicts. Are you seeing any sort of collaboration now between carriers and legal counsel, maybe across the industry a little bit more so than before, as a way to kind of counteract some of these lawsuits?
Robert Tyson (24:37):
I am seeing a lot of talk about that. Yes. Just like you said, Patti, you've heard a lot of talk. Okay, I wrote Nuclear verdicts defending Justice for All. If I had put it up for a vote of my partnership, I just consulted with my partners, they would've voted against it and said, don't publish it. Why? Well, they had a number of reasons. You've given away our secrets. You're giving away the plaintiff's bar. You're giving away the defense bar. But the other thing that they all said is, well, how come no one else has ever done it? The defense has never written a book for the defense. All the books that are out there, if you go on Amazon, are all for plaintiff's lawyers. So I do this groundbreaking book, and I just told you how popular it was. Amazon number one seller.
Patti Harman (25:23):
I've read it. You
Robert Tyson (25:25):
Even read it, Patti read it. My mom read it. Everybody read it. It's killing it. And defense lawyers are reading it and some of them being forced to read it, right? Because the insurance industry loves this so much. Okay, how many books and all insurance carriers talk about you go to, we need to share this information. My book killed it right now. I get to meet with you and Cayce and do a book. Number two, how many other defense books do you think have been written in the last five and a half years since the book came out?
Patti Harman (25:57):
I don't think any have
Robert Tyson (25:58):
None like this. None addressing this stuff. Is the world going to change? Probably Is the defense insurance energy going to change? I don't know. A lot of talk about it though, Patti. A lot of talk about like we share everything we share. So the plaintiff's bar, how's our playbook, has our playbook. They file motions to stop us from doing those Core four. They lose every time because it's not illegal. It's about being a good person. It's about being a good human being. It's like about not being a robot and just getting caught up in the law and making ridiculous arguments that kind of are offensive in the face of all reason. And so they're trying to stop us from doing this. The fact that plaintiffs don't want you to change, isn't that reason enough to change? Doesn't that tell you something? The plaintiff's bar wants the insurance industry to do what it's always been doing. They have a whole approach, assuming insurance companies and the defense lawyers are going to show up and do what they always do, and to date, we have, aside from our firm, true.
Patti Harman (27:08):
One of the panelists, it was interesting, she suggested that carriers and their attorneys could utilize AI to kind of sort through some of these documents and track trends and identify red flags that could lead to larger problems on a claim. Are you seeing a greater use of AI or other technologies to kind of help with collecting this information and helping insurers as they prepare? And Cayce, I'm going to ask you this question because you talked about going through these 100 cases, that was a lot of paperwork. So I'm wondering if you were able to use AI or any other sort of technologies for that.
Cayce Lynch (27:50):
So for purposes of this book, no. And intentionally no. I mean, when we started three and a half years ago, I did not know of, we did not have the technology that we had now. I almost wish I would have started the book now because AI has evolved so quickly and it is so sophisticated and it is so accurate. But it was good for me. We flex our creative muscle, we flex our legal minds. And so really, really excited to share the data that humans analyzed as part of this book. Maybe we can charge a premium for it, but carriers along the lines of how good technology is. Now. Bob, can you share a little bit about what technology carriers use?
Robert Tyson (28:40):
Yeah. So look, there's a lot of talk about using technology in insurance companies. I mean, if you listen to the C-Suites, whenever the financial reports come out, you have the Evan Greenbergs and the CEOs of these companies talking about how we're maximizing technology to take advantage of our data. But by the time you get down to the claims department, it's really not happening. I mean, there's a lot of data that should be analyzed. And we have come up with our first solution, which is an AI machine learning product called Naval. In the background here, we created a separate company based upon our client's needs. The number one question I've gotten in giving all these presentations from insurance companies has been, that's great. This is the method to stop 'em. How can we spot them before they happen? Because what I said is the data shows that nuclear verdicts are happening to very experienced claims professionals.
(29:41):
And what's happened is the game has changed. And while very experienced claims professionals have experience with thousands of files or tens of thousands of files, they don't have experience with millions of 'em. They don't have experience with millions of them in the last year. And that's where AI can come in and help. So while there's been a lot of talk by insurance companies about utilizing ai, we've got a product that works, that has created an algorithm to detect these problematic cases based upon a lot of the factors that you mentioned earlier that insurance companies want people sharing. Plus there's secret sauce and other stuff that goes in there. And now we've got almost an 80% accuracy rate with spotting cases before they go nuclear using ai.
Patti Harman (30:32):
Wow. And that was going to be one of my next question was whether or not there were ways that carriers and their legal counsel can use AI to help them detect or identify the potential in claims. Do you find that there are certain types of claims maybe that might be more likely to be or result in a nuclear verdict? Or is it just pretty much across the board?
Cayce Lynch (30:59):
So we certainly have hotbeds, right? Hotbed practice areas and hotbed jurisdictions, and they're the ones that everybody knows. The industries that have been hit the absolute hardest. We're talking about the trucking industry and the medical practice, medical malpractice industry. I mean, there are medical clinics that have shut down in the last five years because they've either been hit with a nuclear verdict or they simply cannot carry medical, the cost of medical malpractice insurance for their small rural clinic. And it's because the cost of insurance and the cost of claims is going up because of these unjust verdicts. So we believe we have to do this for justice and for Americans, we have to change the way we try lawsuits to bring medical care to areas of the country that need it. It's that simple. And then there are also the traditional jurisdictions, what some call judicial hell holes, these very, very plaintiff friendly cases where you'll see a case out of downtown Los Angeles Superior Court.
(31:58):
And that's no surprise, right, that that's a traditional verdict. But what is so interesting is that the way the plaintiff's bar collaborates in shares will have methods that get a nuclear verdict in a trucking case or in a medical malpractice case or in downtown la. And all of a sudden you're seeing those same methods drive nuclear verdicts in just a slip and fall and just a slip and fall in Kansas somewhere that you would never expect. And in a type of case that you would never expect. And that is why AI is so important. An AI solution like Naval gives this additional set of eyes and expertise on all the claims to make sure that nothing's slipping through the clocks.
Patti Harman (32:43):
It really gives them a great overview. And just, it was interesting. I interviewed two physicians a couple of weeks ago, and we were talking about the use of AI in the medical fields. And the way they described it was AI has the ability to see beyond what the human eye can see, and it just flags information. And not that it answers everything, it just says this area needs more attention, pay attention, investigate this more. And I'm seeing this here in the insurance and yeah, in the insurance space. Can you think of any downsides to using AI or similar technologies as part of the preparation process? And we've covered AI a lot at digital insurance, and there are problems sometimes with hallucinations with making up or it doesn't quite capture data just right. Are you aware of any problems or anything, any red flags or things for carriers to be aware of?
Cayce Lynch (33:48):
So what I want to say is that it's not a problem with ai. It's a problem with humans, actually. I think that it's a tool. It is a tool that is transforming the world at a pace I cannot understand. I cannot comprehend, and we have to just keep using it. This very, very powerful tool for what it is. It's a tool and it's not a substitute. And so the errors that we've seen, particularly in the practice of law come where attorneys have used it as a substitute. And that AI is not a substitute, in my opinion at all. It's a tool. And it makes all of us as humans and claim professionals and attorneys better. So I am all for data. We know it is the future, it is here, and we have to embrace it. And the fears that we have around hallucinations, those things need to be verified. The fears we have around data privacy and security, those can be addressed. We just need to get over the hurdle and we need to fully, fully jump in and use it for what it's bringing. That is going to be a huge, huge tool in stopping nuclear verdicts and stopping social inflation. Wow.
Patti Harman (34:58):
It'll be exciting to see how that develops over the next couple of years.
Robert Tyson (35:02):
You don't have to look far,
Patti Harman (35:04):
Right? I know,
Robert Tyson (35:05):
But you're saying that Patti is part of the problem. Cayce just said it. Get over it. It's here and it's being used. We saw a trial last year and we got a video clip of this phenomenal plaintiff's lawyer in la, and I can't remember his name. I don't mind saying this guy's name. And he was doing a closing argument and he said, I decided to put together a poem about my client's problems for closing.
(35:45):
And he said, so last night I generated this poem. I am miss so-and-so. And it was like this really good kind of poem. But what I didn't realize the first time, I was like, wow, that's pretty creative, right? He's using a poem to tell a story about his client. But one of the young people in our marketing department pointed out to me was he used the word generate. Have you ever sat down to write someone a letter and say, I generated a letter to Aunt Betty? No. He used ai. This is a year ago. A preeminent plaintiff's lawyer in la, which makes him one of the best in the country, is using AI to deliver a multimillion dollar jury verdict. And the insurance industry is sitting around saying, yeah, we got to be careful. Come on, let's go. If you are fighting the use of ai, you've lost the battle. It's here. You got to take advantage of it.
Patti Harman (36:48):
That's what everybody's saying. If you're not using it now, you're going to so far behind, it's just too late. So Bob, where do you see nuclear verdicts going in the next two to three years? Will the carriers in the insurance industry become more proactive? Maybe. I mean, they're getting to the point where you can't just ignore it that I would think you would need to take some sort of action.
Robert Tyson (37:15):
Patti, you're killing me. Look, read what the Evan Greenberg's, what every quarterly financial report says from any insurance company in America. It says, our number one risk, our biggest risk concerns are social inflation and climate change, right? That's what they say. Social inflation is driven by nuclear verdicts. You stop nuclear verdicts, you stop social inflation, stop talking about it and do it. This is what your boss's boss wants you to do. This is what the CEOs of the insurance companies are talking to each other about. But by the time it trickles down to people on the front lines who've been doing stuff the way they always have, it's not happening. This book, book number two, to be honest with you, we really didn't need it. Sorry Cayce. We laid it out in book number one, but this is what the insurance injury says to us.
(38:17):
Do you have any data to support that? We now have the data. You have 35 years of experience of trial lawyers. You have five years of data of nuclear verdicts. Here is the pattern. I beg you, I beg you. Please break the pattern. Please break the pattern. It's just not fair. I mean, the reason I wrote the first book was at some point you went to law school for justice. I believe in justice. I believe in right and wrong. It's not just our neighbors are being manipulated into giving away generational wealth every day. And there are tools that we can do that are not hard to do. Change is hard. Change for the insurance industry is hard, but to implement this stuff, you can implement it on Monday. So am I optimistic? I'm hopeful. There's nothing that shows that nuclear verdicts are going away. So our hope is that in October they buy this new book and they use it. They do it. It's right there.
Patti Harman (39:27):
Alright, well, we have covered a lot over the last 30 minutes or so. Is there anything that I haven't asked you that you think is important for our audience to know about nuclear verdicts or the implementation of new technologies or just is there anything that we haven't covered or we haven't mentioned that you want them to have as a takeaway?
Robert Tyson (39:49):
Cayce,
Cayce Lynch (39:51):
I just want to leave piggybacking off what Bob just said, I want to leave on a high note and I want to leave on a message of hope because we talk a lot about it. And I know as defense lawyers, it's easy to get down because we're in the trenches on these issues every day. And I want to leave people with a message of hope that there is a solution. And the solution is us. We are the solution. We have the tools we can change, and we have to embrace AI to do it. The technology is out there, it's great, it's accurate, it's secure. So yeah, be the change that we can be.
Robert Tyson (40:24):
Yeah, and look, there's a lot of talk about things that lead to nuclear verdicts and social inflation, like litigation funding, attorney advertising, lack of tort reform, right? All that stuff. That's great, right? Wonderful tort reform. They've been talking about it since I was first a lawyer. It hasn't gotten any better, but keep it up. Fight all those things. Right? Go ahead. But if you really want to stop nuclear verdicts, literally talk to your claims people and talk about changing the way you do business today. And it's not radical changes. We're still getting defense verdicts, we're still winning. I mean, I'll put our record up against anybody. And the way you would know that we're getting hit for nuclear verdicts, we'd be in the paper. No news from us is good news. And we can do this. We can do this together. It's all within our control. We don't have to write our congressman. We can change the landscape tomorrow together.
Patti Harman (41:27):
And I think that's a really valuable lesson is that this is within our power to change that we can do this. So thank you Bob and Cayce for sharing your insights on this important topic. And thank you to our audience for joining us. We hope you'll tune in next month when we focus on the use of AI and workers' compensation. Thank you very much, and enjoy the rest of your day.
