Texas Senate Bill 30: An Existential Threat to Justice Based on a Fictional “Nuclear Verdict” Crisis According to Two Prominent Attorneys

An op-ed by leading attorneys Cody Dishon and Will Moye provides insights into why Texas Senate Bill 30 is an existential threat to justice based on a fictional “nuclear verdict” crisis.

During Texas' current legislative session, the insurance lobby is targeting key pillars of justice: the Texas Constitution, our court system, the right to a fair jury trial, and long-established rule of law. 

Two identical bills—House Bill 4806 and Senate Bill 30 (“SB 30”)—have been filed in Austin. If passed, the new law will dramatically increase insurance company profits to the detriment of everyday Texans. These proposals would also strip away protections from people killed or severely injured on Texas roads, refinery workers burned and maimed in explosions, sexual assault survivors, and families who have lost someone in tragic accidents.

Proponents of the bill, primarily the notorious Texans for Lawsuit Reform (“TLR”), which has funneled millions and millions of dollars to influence Texas politicians for decades, recently confessed under oath that general liability and commercial automobile policy premiums will not decrease with the passage of SB 30. [1] Nevertheless, TLR continues to support SB 30, driven by corporate greed.

While CEOs at these insurance companies are making over $20 million a year [2] and operating with record-breaking billion-dollar profits, [3] TLR has introduced no bill addressing insurance reform. There are no bills to cap the excessive salaries of wealthy executives, but TLR made sure to cap damages for victims of sexual assault, injured children, and other catastrophic hurt Texans. No bill to hold accountable the bad companies who prioritize profits over safety. No bill to tackle bad faith insurance practices that drive up litigation costs and harm Texas families.

Instead of focusing on insurance reform, holding unsafe companies accountable, or addressing bad faith insurance practices, TLR concentrates on making it difficult for innocent victims of tragic circumstances to seek justice. Indeed, TLR’s latest bills are designed to close the courthouse doors to some of the most vulnerable citizens in Texas.

To justify the elimination of Texans’ rights and attack on our court system, the insurance lobby has embraced the new marketing buzzword “nuclear verdict.” However, upon closer evaluation, this marketing pitch provides no justification for undermining Texans’ fundamental rights. The Texas Legislature faces a choice: to protect people or to protect insurance companies.

Seeking sweeping and unprecedented change, SB 30 aims to functionally eliminate damages for victims and families. Traditional elements of damages for mental anguish, physical impairment, [4] disfigurement, [5] loss of companionship, and loss of consortium would be gutted under SB 30.[6] Most of these human damages [7] have been part of Texas law for over a century.

These are not just abstract legal concepts. These are real injuries, real families, and real lives that SB 30 would devastate.

The Senate Committee heard powerful testimony from a corporate attorney and mother who spoke out against the bill. [8] Her five-year-old child suffered severe burns to half of his face, neck, chest, and arms due to a defective product. After multiple surgeries and skin grafts, he was left with permanent disfigurement—yet under SB 30, her child would be left with nothing, despite a long-standing history of allowing the jury discretion in awarding disfigurement damages under Texas law.

Moreover, sexual assault victims had to share their most emotionally and physically traumatic stories in front of the Senate Committee and the public. It was impactful, brave, and courageous. But why must sexual assault victims share these horrible events with the Senate? These victims deserve full justice against the wrongdoers and do not owe an explanation to the Senate or TLR. Under current Texas law, sexual assault victims can recover damages. Perhaps this alone illustrates the absolute insanity surrounding the controversial SB 30 bill being proposed.

Forcing sexual assault victims to relive and recount their personal trauma in front of the public, just to ensure their current rights are protected against an insurance-friendly bill, is cruel and violates human decency. As stated by Charla Aldous, a prominent attorney who testified on behalf of her clients, “[f]or many of our clients, the emotional, physical, and mental toll of sexual assault is already unbearable. Senate Bill 30 threatens to worsen their suffering by shielding corporate wrongdoers from accountability.” [9]

 

SB 30 would similarly eliminate the jury’s discretion in awarding damages for loss of consortium and loss of companionship and society, which are those damages awarded to families who lose the love, support, and closeness of a parent, spouse, or child due to wrongful death or serious injury. The Senate heard heartbreaking stories from grieving families who emphasized the irreparable impact of such losses. These damages, recognized by the Texas Supreme Court time and time again, [10] are now subject to crushing limitations that, in practice, will eliminate them.

 

To disregard Texans’ fundamental rights and eliminate their recovery, TLR uses the alarming term "nuclear verdicts." This is precisely how the insurance industry wants it to sound. They coined the phrase and spread it widely across the legal and media landscape, shaping public perception to believe that Texas is facing a wave of massive, unpreventable jury awards. What supporters of SB 30 hope Texans won’t realize is that, despite costly marketing campaigns by international insurance companies aimed at increasing profits, these so-called nuclear verdicts are actually extremely rare.

An objective analysis of Texas jury verdicts between 2021 and 2025 reveals that only 4.6% of all verdicts exceeded $10 million. [11] It is unclear how many of these included actual damages for essential needs such as future medical care and lost earnings. Nearly half (48.4%) of all verdicts were less than $50,000. Motor vehicle accident cases made up 74.2% of all trials, with a median award of a mere $38,600. In fact, roughly 66% of all tried cases resulted in either a defense verdict or an award of less than $50,000.

TLR is desperately attempting to take away Texans’ constitutional rights by claiming juries are getting it wrong. But as the actual evidence shows—not just rhetoric and anecdotal stories from TLR—juries are typically accurate and remain the best arbiters of factual disputes between parties.

The Honorable Mike Engelhart, recipient of the 2024 Trial Judge of the Year Award from the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists, [12] testified in opposition to SB 30. Drawing on his 16 years on the bench, he reminded lawmakers that juries are essential part of the judicial system and generally reach the correct result. [13] The former judge also confirmed that his extensive judicial experience aligns with the data: “nuclear verdicts” are extremely rare, and appellate courts already serve as an effective backstop for verdicts unsupported by evidence. Notably, no testimony or evidence presented to the Senate Committee cited even a single appellate case upholding a nuclear verdict that lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

It is time for TLR to respect our Constitution, our juries, and our judges.

Another reason we know the so-called “nuclear verdict” crisis is merely a marketing tactic for profit is that insurance companies are thriving. AM Best, a credit rating agency focused on the insurance industry, recently revised its 2024 profit figures upward by $25 billion, bringing the total to $169 billion. You read that right. Big insurance companies made $169 billion in profits last year. That is a 90% increase from 2023 and a 333% increase from 2022! The idea that there is an insurance crisis driving the need for significant tort reform is pure fiction, manufactured by industry lobbyists.

Despite making billions in profits and paying executives millions each year, insurance companies refuse to lower premiums for consumers. As one analysis put it, “Insurance companies are very fond of increasing their policyholders’ premiums and then crafting an explanation for the hikes that fits their interests, even if it doesn’t fit the data.” [14]

Insurance companies and TLR love blaming judges, juries, and lawyers for ‘social inflation.’ But the ‘social inflation’ argument is without merit. As detailed in Unpacking the Insurance Industry’s “Social Inflation” Lie, “[w]hen we look at the data, the theorized “social inflation” does not exist and claims payouts by insurers are not skyrocketing. Instead, insurance companies are hyping up this assertion as an excuse to price-gouge businesses and consumers.” [15]

Can TLR please focus on meaningful insurance reform, particularly addressing price gouging, instead of targeting sexual assault victims, victims of catastrophic injuries, or grieving families who have lost a loved one due to corporate negligence?

The bottom line is that SB 30’s passage will not lower rates at all. Lee Parsley, a lobbyist from TLR who testified in favor of SB 30, made this point crystal clear during a hearing before the Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence regarding a separate trucking tort reform bill aimed at limiting liability for companies that break the law and endanger lives. He stated: “I will not tell you today that this bill will lower insurance rates. I won’t do it, and the insurance industry probably won’t either, because we don’t know that.” [16]

 

There is more to the new controversial law. SB 30 wants to cap past and future medical expenses in violation of the Texas Constitution. [17] The purpose behind this part of the bill is to make it harder and more expensive for families to receive medical treatment after being injured by others. SB 30 further limits patient access to care and forces families, healthcare providers, and the public to cover medical bills that exceed either an arbitrary and incomplete database or restricted Medicare rates.

If you or a loved one are slammed into by a reckless driver and transported from the scene by ambulance through no choice of your own, and the ambulance charges exceed the arbitrary caps set by SB 30, you will be responsible for those charges with no recourse against the at-fault party. This is just one of countless examples of the real-world impact SB 30 will have on Texans.

According to the Texas Medical Association, “Texas is the uninsured capital of the United States. More than 4.3 million Texans—including 623,000 children—lack health insurance.” [18] If you do not have health insurance, the Texas Legislature wants to cap your recoverable medical bills in a lawsuit. This deters, if not eliminates, healthcare providers from treating the most vulnerable Texans and shifts the financial burden to families or the public through Medicare, Medicaid, or other government assistant programs. Meanwhile, the party responsible for causing the injuries avoids accountability and passes the costs onto victims and taxpayers.

It is important to remember that Texans are only seeking medical care because a company or another wrongdoer harmed them. 

 

One misleading and frankly silly narrative repeated throughout the Senate Testimony was the claim that healthcare providers can charge whatever they want and that there is little to nothing the defense bar can do, leaving juries clueless. [19] That claim does not reflect litigation practices or reality. In almost every case, big or small, the defense bar routinely hires medical billing experts to evaluate and challenge the reasonableness of medical charges. The jury hears testimony from both the defense’s billing expert and the healthcare providers regarding billing before reaching a decision. It is the jury, not the Senate or TLR, that decides whether those charges are fair and reasonable.

Additionally, SB 30 mandates that a victim’s lawyer create a two-year spreadsheet of payments to healthcare providers. Beyond the undue burden, unnecessary expenses, HIPPA violations, and accounting challenges this imposes, SB 30 does not require the defense bar to maintain a two-year record of all payments to their preferred experts. The purpose is to stack the deck against victims and the lawyers that try to help them.

People from all walks of life have spoken out against the controversial SB 30, including a former trial court judge with 16 years of experience, medical doctors and other healthcare professionals, sexual assault survivors, conservatives, defense lawyers, and families who lost loved one’s due to corporate negligence.

There is no doubt that these changes overwhelmingly favor big insurance companies and corporations at the expense of people. If SB 30 becomes law, many sexual assault and injury victims will be left without the financial support they need to cover medical expenses, lost wages, and long-term care. Failure to hold the responsible companies accountable will result in the public picking up the costs, as sexual assault victims and families devastated after a tragic event generally do not have the financial resources to cover such losses.

If passed, SB 30 would give sweeping legal immunity to insurance companies and negligent parties by stripping away critical rights from all Texans. It would gut nearly a century of established law, deny fair compensation to victims, and tilt the scales of justice in favor of corporations over communities.

This is not reform—it’s an injustice. And it flies in the face of the rule of law.

Cody Dishon is a board-certified personal injury trial lawyer who became a lawyer to help people and make a difference in their lives. He is a strong advocate of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, firmly believing that people in the community should be deciding disputes.

Will Moye is an ABOTA-admitted trial lawyer who spent twenty-five years defending clients at trial for insurance companies including defending the high exposure and “nuclear verdict” type of cases. He left that side in March of 2024, to open a Plaintiff’s litigation boutique firm.

Notes

[1] See https://house.texas.gov/videos/21687 (starting at 6:20:35 - 6:21:40) (emphasis added).

 

[2] See e.g., “As Insurance Rates Skyrocket, Executives Pull in Millions,” Consumer Federation of America. https://consumerfed.org/press_release/as-insurance-rates-skyrocket-executives-pull-in-millions/.

[3] See e.g., “The Insurance Industry is Quietly Making Record Profits,” American Association for Justice (AAJ), accessed on April 1, 2025. https://www.justice.org/resources/research/insurance-industry-is-quietly-making-record-profits.

 

[4] Physical impairment damages, for example, have been commonly recognized in Texas courts since the early 1930s. They exist to compensate people who can no longer walk, lift, drive, or care for themselves due to their injuries. In its Golden Eagle decision, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of these damages being separate from mental anguish and even referenced a 1933 opinion to underscore their historical and legal significance. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 766-772 (Tex. 2003) (citing Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Rainboldt, 66 S.W.2d 496, 501 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1933), rev'd on other grounds, Schroeder v. Rainboldt, 128 Tex. 269, 97 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. 1936) (physical impairment were properly awarded to a young girl who was struck by a delivery truck and could no longer have children due to permanent bladder injury caused by the crash—clearly an impairment worth compensating) (emphasis added). In fact, all of the human damages are separate from mental anguish, but TLR pushes for them to either be eliminated or improperly conflated with other damages. That violates a century of Texas case law.

[5] Disfigurement is different than physical impairment and mental anguish. See e.g., Hous. Transit Co. v. Felder, 146 Tex. 428, 433, 208 S.W.2d 880, 883 (1948). For example, disfigurement damages specifically address the permanent scarring on a five-year-old child’s face—it has nothing to do with mental anguish damages like TLR suggests. See infra.

 

[6] That is because SB 30 fails to properly categorize these human damages as required by well-established Texas Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, SB 30 attempts to narrowly define human damages based on a selective and incorrect interpretation of legal precedent. The initial version of SB 30 and current House Bill 4806 sought to outright eliminate physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium, and loss of companionship.

 

[7] Human damages include physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of companionship, and loss of consortium. Each of these damages are separate and have distinct meaning under the law.

 

[8] See https://senate.texas.gov/videoplayer.php?vid=21561&lang=en (starting at 2:53:28).

[9] See Aldous, C. (2025, April) Discussing her testimony before the Senate on the bill in question. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/charlaaldous_on-monday-i-testified-before-the-texas-senate-activity-7313728913979936770-S3ez/; see also https://senate.texas.gov/videoplayer.php?vid=21561&lang=en (starting at 2:01:17).

 

[10] See e.g., Estate of Clifton v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 709 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1986).

 

[11] Data compiled from LexisNexis Verdict & Settlement Analyzer reports.

[12] “UHLC alumnus Mike Engelhart ’95 wins 2024 Trial Judge of the Year Award,” University of Houston Law Center. https://www.law.uh.edu/alumni/Featured-Alumni/2024-0514Engelhart.asp

 

[13] See https://senate.texas.gov/videoplayer.php?vid=21561&lang=en (5:11:35 through 5:55:12).

 

[14] DeLong, Michael. “Unpacking the Insurance Industry’s “Social Inflation” Lie. Consumer Federation of America. https://consumerfed.org/unpacking-the-insurance-industrys-social-inflation-lie/ (emphasis added).

 

[15] Id. (emphasis added).

[16] See https://house.texas.gov/videos/21687 (starting at 6:21:06 – 6:21:16) (emphasis added).

 

[17] TLR seeks to cap victims’ recoveries, but why not also cap insurance executives’ salaries?

 

[18] See e.g., https://www.texmed.org/uninsured_in_texas/ (emphasis added).

 

[19] Other misleading narratives suggest that defendants cannot obtain the plaintiff’s medical history before trial, particularly regarding pre-existing conditions. These narratives are falsehoods. It would constitute reversible error for any trial court to deny defendants access to the plaintiff’s prior medical history concerning relevant pre-existing conditions.