Plaintiffs' law firms are using big data, online mock juries, and artificial intelligence to drive jury awards and settlement demands higher, and insurers are struggling to keep pace. The shift is reshaping how injury and claims litigation gets prepared, funded, and tried.
Nick Kosiavelon, an insurance defense attorney in Massachusetts, saw it firsthand during a recent brain-injury lawsuit. Within an hour of seeing the potential juror list, the opposing lawyers from Morgan & Morgan appeared to have social media postings, property records, education levels, employment history, and more on their laptops. "They definitely had a lot more information than I had," Kosiavelon said.
The data-driven playbook
The tactics go beyond jury research. Some injury and claims firms now hire online mock juries of up to 1,200 people to test legal theories and arguments. They sift through data to identify sympathetic jurors and favorable venues. AI programs analyze trial arguments in minutes, for both sides of a case.
"It's true now more than ever: The competition is not other insurance companies. It's the plaintiffs' lawyers," said Brian McCarthy, CEO of eMaxx Assurance, a group of Florida-based property/casualty insurance firms.
McCarthy said the growing use of AI and software lets plaintiffs' lawyers target what behavioral scientists call the "reptilian brain" - the primitive part of the mind that produces revulsion at an insurer's actions or sympathy for an injured plaintiff.
JuryBall and the Moneyball approach
One product drawing attention is JuryBall, a 2024 book and app by trial lawyers Alicia Campbell, John Campbell, and Sean Claggett. The title references the 2003 book "Moneyball" about data use in baseball. The method: vet arguments with hundreds of mock jurors, collect data, and use it to increase damage awards.
In one case study from the book, a child sexual-abuse victim in New Mexico was offered $15 million to settle. Arguments tested with online mock juries showed that even a bad trial day would bring at least $77 million. The case went to trial and the jury returned a $485 million award.
Mock juries themselves are not new, but the scale is. Mock jurors can be hired online for less than $60 each to hear an argument that takes about an hour. Different groups hear different variations until the strongest case emerges. The book argues big data will soon be needed on every case worth more than $500,000.
This approach does not sit well with some defense lawyers who spent years developing instincts about arguments and juries. "They're taking instincts and intuition out of the equation," said Greg Katz, national managing partner for Lewis Brisbois, one of the largest U.S. insurance defense firms. "They think they've come up with a different way to ring the bell and, in their words, add zeroes to awards."
Funding and verdict trends
Those zeroes are piling up as private equity and litigation funders treat lawsuits as revenue streams. Litigation funding in the U.S. has surged 70% in recent years, now topping $16 billion annually and projected to reach $25 billion within a decade, according to The Washington Legal Foundation.
Injury lawsuits have climbed 70% in state courts and 33% in federal courts over the past decade, according to Thomson Reuters Westlaw data reported by the New York Times. Nuclear verdicts - those of at least $10 million - jumped 41% from 2024 to 2025 to their highest level since 2009, per Marathon Strategies.
"So many plaintiffs' firms have all this private equity money now that they can put into this," Katz said.
Available tools for both sides
Several products now serve this market. JuryVision, an app available on the AppStore, lets lawyers input opening arguments or rebuttals and receive AI feedback within minutes on delivery, appearance, and substance. Lexis-Nexis offers a platform called Protégé that analyzes arguments, references actual court opinions, and provides a trial roadmap.
John Riordan, an insurance lawyer with Kelley Kronenberg, said the stakes are clear. "If plaintiffs' counsel is employing these tools while defense counsel continues to rely exclusively on traditional questioning, handwritten notes, and instinct, the carrier may be placed at a strategic disadvantage during one of the most important stages of trial," Riordan said.
Katz urged insurers and their defense firms to invest in the new approach. Kosiavelon agreed, though he noted it comes down to what an insurance company wants to spend.
The technology does not guarantee wins. In Kosiavelon's brain-injury case, the Middlesex County jury awarded less than 10% of what the plaintiff's lawyers had asked for. The plaintiff was not very credible, he said, and real-time data likely did not overcome that.
Katz said defense firms that understand the technology and use it are still getting good results. "I can't say that JuryBall and all of this has changed the game completely," he said. "But you do need defense firms that understand it and have lawyers that are using the technology and are ready to fight."
Why this matters for insurance professionals
If plaintiffs' firms are systematically testing arguments with hundreds of mock jurors and using AI to refine trial strategy, carriers that rely on traditional defense preparation will face higher verdicts and costlier settlements. The data on nuclear verdicts and litigation funding suggests the pressure is not temporary. Insurance executives and claims leaders should ask their defense counsel what tools they use for jury research, argument analysis, and data-driven trial preparation - before the next case goes to trial.
Your membership also unlocks:
