6x
higher average damages when plaintiff makes a specific high numerical demand vs. a general request
43%
of jurors report the plaintiff's demand influenced their assessment of damages "significantly"
$1B+
initial demand in reptile cases that resulted in nuclear verdicts exceeding $100M — 2023–2024
76%
of Americans believe damages in lawsuits are too low or fair — Swiss Re Institute 2025
The Opening Argument
Anchoring is not a tactic plaintiff attorneys try. It is a systematic method with documented outcomes — and understanding it is the first step in defending against it.
In nuclear verdict litigation, the size of the plaintiff's initial demand is not a negotiating position. It is a psychological intervention designed to shift the reference point from which jurors evaluate all subsequent numbers. This is anchoring — and the research on its effectiveness is unambiguous.
Anchoring exploits a well-documented feature of human cognition: when people must estimate an unknown quantity, they are heavily influenced by the first number they encounter, regardless of whether that number is reasonable or relevant. Plaintiff attorneys have built their damages strategy around this finding.
The Research
What the data shows about anchoring's effect on verdict outcomes
6x
higher average damages awarded when plaintiff makes a specific high numerical demand versus a general request for compensation
Guthrie, Rachlinski & Wistrich, Cornell Law Review
$1B+
Initial demand in Reptile cases that resulted in nuclear verdicts exceeding $100M — 2023-2024
Marathon Strategies 2024
43%
of jurors report that the plaintiff's demand influenced their assessment of appropriate damages "significantly" or "very significantly"
American Bar Foundation Research
The Mechanism
How anchoring works — and why it is so effective
Anchoring is effective because it operates below conscious awareness. Jurors who believe they are making an independent assessment of fair compensation are, in fact, making adjustments from a reference point that plaintiff counsel has deliberately established.
The initial demand sets the reference point. When plaintiff counsel asks for $50 million, that number becomes the psychological baseline from which jurors work. Even jurors who reject the specific amount as excessive tend to award significantly more than they would have in the absence of the anchor. A $50 million ask that "fails" may produce a $15 million verdict — still a nuclear outcome.
Precision amplifies the effect. Specific demands — "$47,350,000" rather than "$50 million" — are more effective anchors than round numbers. The precision implies that the number has been carefully calculated, increasing juror confidence that it represents a legitimate starting point for deliberation.
Repetition reinforces the anchor. Plaintiff attorneys introduce the demand figure early — often in opening statement — and return to it repeatedly throughout trial. Each repetition strengthens its role as the reference point. By closing argument, the number has been normalized through exposure alone.
Defense counter-anchoring is necessary but insufficient. Defense counsel who simply argue that the demand is excessive without providing their own specific counter-anchor are allowing plaintiff's number to stand as the only reference point. Research supports the use of specific defense counter-anchors — but timing, framing, and credibility all affect their effectiveness.
Anchoring in Property Litigation
How anchoring is deployed in commercial real estate, habitational, and hospitality cases
Anchoring in property-related nuclear verdict cases typically combines financial demands with non-economic damage framing designed to make large numbers feel proportionate. Plaintiff counsel argues that the organization's conduct — its policies, its training practices, its response to known risks — justifies a demand that reflects not just the plaintiff's injury but the organization's systemic failure.
Commercial Real Estate
Premises liability cases involving security incidents, slip-and-fall injuries, and tenant safety allegations. Plaintiff counsel anchors on the organization's revenue, asset value, or insurance limits — framing the demand as a proportionate response to an institution that had resources to prevent the harm and chose not to invest them.
Habitational
Habitability and tenant safety cases where plaintiff counsel frames the organization as having systematically prioritized profits over resident welfare. Anchors in these cases often reference the organization's entire portfolio value — arguing that the demand should reflect the systemic nature of the failure, not just the individual incident.
Hospitality
Guest injury and security incident cases where plaintiff counsel uses brand recognition and corporate affiliation to justify large anchors. The argument that a major hotel brand "could have done better" is particularly effective with jurors who have personal experience as hotel guests and hold expectations of safety that the incident is framed as violating.
The Alliance Perspective
Preparation is the most effective response to anchoring
Understanding that anchoring will occur is the first step. Preparing for it specifically — with defense counsel, before trial — is the second. The Verdict Risk Alliance provides members with access to briefings on anchoring and counter-anchoring strategies developed from the current research on damages psychology in property-related nuclear verdict cases.
Anchoring is most effective when defendants have no documented record of proactive risk management. An organization that can demonstrate, through documents and testimony, that it knew the risks and actively managed them is a materially harder anchoring target than one that cannot. Operational preparation is not just a risk management investment — it is a litigation defense investment.
For more information on Alliance membership and resources, visit
"The findings confirm that juror sentiment has shifted decisively toward plaintiffs, and this shift is influencing verdicts in measurable ways. Legal system abuse shows no signs of abating, and pricing uncertainty remains extraordinarily high."
Swiss Re Institute — Verdicts on Trial: Behavioral Social Inflation Study, 2025
Research Finding
How Anchor Amount Affects Average Jury Award
Controlled study — same facts, varying plaintiff demands
Source: Swiss Re Institute Behavioral Social Inflation Study 2025 — nationally representative sample of 1,150 U.S. adults in randomized legal simulations
verdictriskalliance.org.
