Why Nuclear Verdicts Matter to Truckers, and How They Drive Up Insurance Costs

For many truckers and fleet operators, rising insurance costs feel disconnected from their day-to-day operations—especially for those with strong safety records. One of the most significant forces behind higher premiums and tighter underwriting is the rise of “nuclear verdicts.” 

These large jury awards are reshaping commercial auto liability insurance across the trucking industry, affecting not only transportation carriers directly involved in serious claims, but also those that operate responsibly and prioritize safety. 

This article explains what nuclear verdicts are, why they appear to be increasing, and how they influence insurance pricing, underwriting scrutiny, and access to commercial auto liability coverage throughout the market. 

What nuclear verdicts are—and why they’re increasing

In industry discussions, nuclear verdicts typically refer to exceptionally large jury awards, often described as verdicts of $10 million or more, arising from claims involving severe injury or fatalities. In trucking-related litigation, these outcomes are rarely tied only to the collision itself. Instead, courts and juries often evaluate a carrier’s safety culture, supervision, and decision-making.

Several factors help explain why these verdicts have become more common.

A broader focus beyond the crash

In high-severity claims, litigation frequently extends well beyond the events of the accident. Plaintiffs may examine hiring and onboarding practices, driver training programs, disciplinary policies, dispatch pressures, vehicle maintenance records, and the consistency of supervisory oversight. The central question is often whether safety was managed as a system, rather than treated as a set of written policies.

Documentation is treated as evidence of process

Claims and litigation turn on what can be demonstrated. In that context, documentation is more than administrative support. It is often treated as evidence that risks were actively monitored and addressed. 

Training records, monitoring logs, coaching notes, and maintenance histories are used to demonstrate whether safety controls were applied consistently over time. Gaps, inconsistencies, or outdated records can increase exposure by creating uncertainty about how risks were identified and addressed.

Severity risk and the “Long tail” of losses

Commercial auto liability results are shaped less by average claims and more by a small number of high-severity losses. Even when crash frequency remains stable, an increase in large verdicts can significantly worsen overall loss experience. For insurers and reinsurers, this “tail” risk is critical, as a single verdict may consume a substantial proportion of expected premium.

How nuclear verdicts affect insurance costs across the industry

Nuclear verdicts influence the insurance market through a familiar cycle: higher claim severity increases expected losses, which in turn drives changes in pricing, underwriting standards, and insurance capacity. 

Rising premiums

When insurers experience larger losses, rates typically rise over time to reflect that increased severity. These adjustments affect pricing for commercial auto liability broadly, rather than only the fleets involved in a specific lawsuit. As a result, even well-performing carriers may face higher premiums in a market shaped by nuclear verdict risk.

Stricter underwriting standards

Underwriters often respond to increased severity by requiring clearer evidence of risk control and governance. This may include:

• Complete and current driver qualification files,

• Documented monitoring and coaching activity,

• Detailed safety policies with evidence of enforcement,

• Consistent records demonstrating compliance and corrective action.

The focus is not simply on having policies in place, but on showing how they are applied consistently.

Tighter insurance capacity

Large verdict risk may reduce appetite for high-limit placements, particularly where layered coverage and reinsurance are involved. This can result in higher attachment points, reduced flexibility in program structure, and increased difficulty assembling adequate liability limits, especially for growing fleets.

The role of safety culture and documentation

In many underwriting environments, effective risk control is increasingly treated as a baseline requirement for access to stable pricing and insurance capacity. Certain practices repeatedly appear as practical indicators of a mature safety program.

Telematics data, for example, may help demonstrate ongoing monitoring of driving behavior and provide time-stamped records of events. STAR Mutual’s article on the role of technology in modernizing trucking operations provides additional context on how modern tools create operational visibility and support consistent oversight.

Hours-of-service (HOS) compliance remains foundational to fatigue management and safety. Governed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations under 49 CFR Part 395, strong programs typically show not only written policies, but also consistent records that align with actual operating reality.

Motor vehicle record (MVR) review and ongoing monitoring are also treated as critical components of driver qualification risk. In high-severity litigation, the question is often whether the process is consistent and documented, including how exceptions are handled and how follow-up actions are documented.

Driver scorecards may bring these elements together by linking telematics data, incident history, and coaching outcomes into a repeatable oversight framework. In a nuclear-verdict environment, scorecards also serve as structured evidence of intervention and corrective action.

Ultimately, a strong fleet safety culture is difficult to demonstrate without documentation. In both litigation and insurance underwriting, records often function as the proof layer. Useful records typically include:

• Training documentation (topics, dates, attendance, evaluation),

• Written policies that align with actual practices,

• Supervisory reviews and coaching logs,

• Maintenance and inspection records,

• Corrective action documentation following incidents or repeated risk signals.

What reduces exposure in real operations

Reducing exposure is rarely about a single tool or policy. More often, it reflects whether systems are applied consistently and reviewed over time. Practices that tend to reduce severity exposure include:

• A documented safety program that links monitoring to coaching and follow-up,

• Clear records that show how exceptions are reviewed, escalated, and resolved,

• Incident response documentation that preserves accurate, time-stamped records,

• Defined governance: who reviews safety data, how often, and what actions follow.

These practices cannot eliminate risk, but they may reduce the likelihood that a severe incident escalates into a high-severity verdict.

Conclusion

Nuclear verdicts are reshaping trucking insurance costs, underwriting expectations, and access to commercial auto liability coverage. Their impact extends across the industry, affecting even transportation carriers with strong safety performance and clean loss histories.

In this environment, consistent risk management and clear documentation matter more than ever. What once provided a competitive advantage is increasingly a minimum requirement for stable insurance capacity and long-term sustainability.

Through its work with members, STAR Mutual RRG supports owner-operators and fleets by focusing on stable commercial auto liability coverage, risk awareness, and disciplined approaches to safety and documentation—helping carriers navigate a market shaped by rising severity and evolving expectations.

This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal or insurance advice.