Case Trend: New York Jury Verdicts and Settlements
The trend emerging in 2026 in New York personal injury litigation: settlement value is increasingly being priced against verdict risk, not just historical settlement averages.
That does not mean every case is worth more. It means that claims professionals, insurers, and defense counsel must evaluate settlement value through a more precise question:
What could this case become if liability is lost and the damages story reaches a New York jury?
The 2026 cases show both sides of the problem. Courts are sustaining substantial verdicts when the damages proof is supported by the record. But courts are also reducing excessive awards when the number does not match the plaintiff’s actual functional limitations. At the same time, courts are correcting verdicts that are too low when the jury’s damages award cannot be reconciled with its own liability or injury findings.
New York Verdict Trend: Courts Are Deferring to Supported Damages Proof
The most important lesson from the 2026 verdict decisions is not that every verdict will survive appellate review. The lesson is that a verdict supported by medical proof, functional evidence, life-care evidence, and comparable verdict authority is difficult to disturb.
In Dowdy v Brooklyn Hospital Center, the Second Department affirmed a premises liability verdict after the plaintiff slipped and fell on food at the interior entrance of a cafeteria. The jury found the defendant 60% at fault and the plaintiff 40% at fault. The damages award included $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1 million for future pain and suffering over 25 years, and $1.1 million for future medical expenses.
The defendant challenged the verdict as excessive and sought post-trial relief. The Second Department rejected that argument, holding that the award did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.
The Court’s holding is important because the case involved a premises accident, comparative fault, a plaintiff-side damages narrative, and future medical expenses. For claims professionals, the decision reinforces that even where the plaintiff bears a substantial percentage of fault, the remaining exposure can still be significant if the medical and future-care proof is accepted.
The same pattern appears in Carroll v South Nassau Communities Hospital, a medical malpractice case where the jury awarded damages for lost earnings and pain and suffering. The judgment totaled more than $1.9 million. The defendant moved under CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict, but the Second Department affirmed.
The message is straightforward: New York appellate courts are not automatically suspicious of seven-figure verdicts. If the verdict is supported by a rational view of the evidence, courts are reluctant to disturb it.
Courts Still Reduce Verdicts When the Number Exceeds the Proof
The countertrend is just as important. Courts are not simply rubber-stamping large verdicts.
In Gogo v Swiander, the plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury. The jury awarded $1 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering. The court reduced those awards to $750,000 for past pain and suffering and $2 million for future pain and suffering.
The reason was not that traumatic brain injuries are insignificant. The reason was that the plaintiff’s functional proof did not support the full jury award. The court emphasized that the plaintiff was still able to attend college, drive, live independently, travel, and retain most functional abilities.
That distinction is critical for defense counsel. The best damages defense is not simply “the number is too high.” The better argument is:
The verdict does not match the plaintiff’s functional evidence.
For insurers and claims professionals, Gogo is a reminder to build the damages defense around the plaintiff’s real-world function: work capacity, independence, travel, daily activities, treatment gaps, pre-existing conditions, objective findings, and the actual need for future care.
Courts Are Also Policing Verdicts That Are Too Low
The 2026 trend is not exclusively defense-friendly.
In Hichak v Grand Plumbing, Inc., the jury found that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the significant limitation category of Insurance Law § 5102(d). But the jury awarded only $15,000 for past pain and suffering and awarded nothing for future pain and suffering, past medical expenses, or future medical expenses.
The Second Department held that the damages award could not be reconciled with the jury’s finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury. Once the jury found a qualifying serious injury, the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for all injuries caused by the accident. The court therefore allowed a new trial on damages.
This is an important warning for defendants. A low verdict is not automatically safe. If the jury’s damages award contradicts its own injury finding, the plaintiff may have a strong argument for additur or a new trial.
For claims handlers, this affects settlement evaluation. A defense verdict or low number may look attractive, but if the liability or injury findings create internal inconsistency, the post-verdict risk remains real.
The Settlement Trend: Verdict Risk Is Driving Negotiation Value
Because most settlements are confidential, public data rarely gives a complete picture of settlement trends. But the verdict decisions tell us how settlement value is being calculated.
The settlement question is no longer only:
What have similar cases settled for?
The better question is:
What is the verdict downside if the plaintiff wins liability and the jury accepts the damages proof?
That is especially true in New York cases involving:
- Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) claims;
- premises liability with surgery or future medical care;
- motor vehicle cases with serious injury findings;
- construction accidents;
- traumatic brain injury claims;
- spinal fusion claims;
- future lost earnings claims;
- medical malpractice cases;
- cases involving life-care planners or future medical expenses.
The 2026 cases suggest that settlements are increasingly being negotiated in the shadow of the worst credible jury number. That is different from negotiating from the historical average.
Litigation Funding and Reform Pressure Are Part of the Trend
The verdict and settlement environment is also being affected by broader litigation-finance and insurance-cost pressure.
New York’s Consumer Litigation Funding Act reflects legislative concern about the role of litigation funding in personal injury claims. The statute regulates consumer litigation funding transactions and addresses contracts tied to the proceeds of a settlement, judgment, award, or verdict.
At the same time, there is recent legislation that addresses auto-insurance reform aimed at fraud, litigation costs, and excessive insurance burdens. That legislation is important because it shows that verdicts and settlements are no longer just claims-file issues. They are now part of a larger New York discussion about insurance affordability, litigation funding, fraud, and damages inflation.
For insurers, that means settlement strategy should account for both courtroom risk and market pressure. A claim may be legally defensible but still carry significant verdict risk if the plaintiff has a strong damages narrative, sympathetic facts, or a venue where pain-and-suffering values are rising.
Practice Pointers for Defense Counsel
The defense should build the damages record before trial, not after the verdict. The record should include:
- comparable verdict research;
- functional-capacity evidence;
- surveillance or social-media evidence where appropriate;
- testimony about activities of daily living;
- employment and earnings records;
- prior medical history;
- treatment gaps;
- life-care-plan challenges;
- future medical expense objections;
- collateral-source proof;
- preserved objections to improper summation arguments;
- a clear damages anchor for the jury.
A post-verdict motion is only as strong as the trial record. If the defense wants remittitur, the record must show why the verdict materially deviates from reasonable compensation. If the defense wants to avoid additur, the record must explain how a low damages award can be reconciled with the jury’s injury findings.