Judicial Hellholes 2024/2025: A Rising Storm of Litigation Abuse

The City of St. Louis, Missouri (#7): The Asbestos Litigation Hub and Ground Zero for Nuclear Verdicts

St. Louis City continues its long-standing reputation as a Judicial Hellhole, maintaining a position within the top 10 for yet another year. The City has firmly entrenched itself as a national hub for asbestos and toxic tort litigation, driven by its plaintiff-friendly legal environment and permissive approach to scientific evidence. Asbestos litigation in St. Louis is not only prolific but increasingly dominated by out-of-state plaintiffs drawn to the jurisdiction by its history of generous verdicts, which are often not tied to any meaningful evidence and are purely based on speculation and emotion.

In September 2024, a St. Louis City jury delivered a staggering $462 million verdict against Wabash National Corp. over a fatal highway crash, including $450 million in punitive damages. Plaintiffs' attorneys in that case argued that Wabash saved this amount by manufacturing trailers with allegedly defective rear impact guards (RIGs) for decades—despite the fact that the RIG in question met federal standards when built.

A driver of damages in this case was also the Court’s decision to keep key evidence was withheld from the jury due to Missouri’s “seatbelt gag-rule,” preventing the defense from pointing out that neither plaintiff was wearing a seatbelt, while plaintiffs’ attorneys were allowed to claim the crash would have been survivable with a better RIG. The jury also never heard that the driver was over the legal blood alcohol limit, despite the clear weather and daylight conditions suggesting impairment may have played a role in the fatality.

Another notable highlight of 2024 was the staggering $745 million verdict in the “Whip-It” nitrous oxide case, where a jury assigned United Brands Products 70% responsibility for a fatal crash involving a driver under the influence of inhaled nitrous oxide canisters. This case was tried in St. Louis County – the county just west of the actual City of St. Louis, which was for a long time considered much more conservative and defendant-friendly.  The verdict is emblematic of the metropolitan area’s alarming trend toward nuclear verdicts, where damages awarded bear little connection to the actual harm/evidence proven at trial. Cases and verdicts like this set a dangerous precedent for causation, effectively expanding liability far beyond reasonable limits.

Efforts to curtail excessive awards in Missouri have stalled in the state legislature in 2024. Proposed reforms to rein in inflated damage calculations, particularly the use of “phantom damages” based on inflated medical bills, have met with significant resistance. This lack of legislative inertia leaves defendants vulnerable to outlandish damage claims and undermines efforts to restore balance to the tilted system.

Another troubling aspect of St. Louis courts is the growing reliance on questionable scientific evidence. Courts have frequently allowed testimony from experts whose methodologies fail to meet rigorous scientific standards, stacking the deck against defendants. This trend is particularly evident in asbestos/talc litigation, where plaintiffs’ experts often present speculative theories of causation that go unchallenged for the most part.

The legal landscape in St. Louis also faces additional risks from forum-shopping practices. Plaintiffs from across the country seek to exploit Missouri’s lenient procedural rules and favorable jury pools, further exacerbating the jurisdiction’s reputation for “jackpot or lottery” style awards. For the immediate future, we believe that St. Louis will likely remain a preferred venue for high-stakes litigation, to the detriment of defendants, insurers and the broader economy.

King County, Washington (#9): A Growing Threat with Troubling Trends

In an award that no one wants, we would like to highlight King County, Washington for making its debut on the Judicial Hellholes list, reflecting a rapid and concerning shift in its legal environment in the Pacific Northwest. Once considered a relatively neutral venue, King County courts are now becoming a focal point for litigation abuses, characterized by innovative but problematic procedural practices and an openness to adopting plaintiff-friendly legal standards/damage models.

A key driver of King County’s emergence as a Judicial Hellhole is the increasing use of group trials. In one highly publicized 2024 case, the court consolidated multiple claims into a single trial, severely limiting defendants’ ability to present individualized defenses. This procedural tactic undermines due process and fairness by forcing juries to consider complex issues en masse, leading to inflated awards that bear little relation to the specific circumstances of each case/injury.

Another troubling trend is the selective application of laws from other jurisdictions when doing so benefits plaintiffs. King County judges have shown a willingness to override Washington state law in favor of more permissive statutes from other states, further tilting the scales of justice. This practice not only creates uncertainty for businesses but also erodes the integrity of Washington’s legal system.

Expert testimony with questionable scientific underpinnings is frequently admitted, skewing outcomes in favor of plaintiffs. In cases involving product liability and environmental claims, this leniency has opened the door to speculative theories of causation.

King County’s inclusion in the Judicial Hellholes report serves as a warning for businesses operating in the Pacific Northwest. Without intervention from state lawmakers or higher courts, Washington risks the slippery slope of inclusion for opportunistic litigation that undermines both the local economy and the broader legal system.

Oregon: A State on the Brink of Judicial Hellhole Status

While Oregon has not yet broken into the top tier of Judicial Hellholes for 2024-2025, the state’s legal landscape is trending in a troubling direction. Like Washington, we identified a growing wave of toxic tort litigation, with a sharp increase in cases and decisions targeting the timber industry and pesticide use. Oregon courts have shown a marked sympathy for these claims, often adopting expanded interpretations of liability that pave the way for more lawsuits.

The state’s willingness to entertain class-action lawsuits on tenuous grounds is another red flag. Recent cases have demonstrated a troubling propensity to certify large classes based on minimal commonality among plaintiffs, effectively amplifying the risk for defendants. This trend has been particularly pronounced in environmental and product liability cases, where courts have allowed broad theories of harm to proceed despite weak evidence of causation or damages.

Oregon’s legal system also faces challenges from a burgeoning plaintiffs’ bar that is increasingly targeting the state as a fertile ground for litigation. If current trends continue, Oregon risks becoming a more prominent player in the Judicial Hellholes report, with significant implications for businesses operating within its borders.