The American Tort Reform Association's 2025–26 Judicial Hellholes® Report paints a mixed picture for Pennsylvania’s civil justice environment. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ranked #1 last year, has dropped to the report’s Watch List, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas remains firmly entrenched among the nation’s most plaintiff-friendly courts, landing at #5.

For employers, insurers, transportation companies, and all sectors relying on predictable legal standards, the report’s message is clear: venue instability and forum shopping continue to distort Pennsylvania’s civil justice system—even as the state’s highest court shows some signs of moderation.

Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas: A Magnet for Litigation

Philadelphia continues to draw national attention for its mass-tort docket, exceptionally large verdicts, and procedural dynamics that make it a favored venue for plaintiffs’ lawyers—often in cases with little connection to the city. For transportation companies and other statewide industries, this environment translates into higher exposure and greater uncertainty.

In 2024, Philadelphia produced two of the Top 10 largest corporate verdicts in the United States, including a $2.2 billion Roundup verdict, exemplifying what critics describe as the city’s “nuclear verdict” culture. While 2025 saw fewer large trials, the report notes this reflects strategic settlements by defendants—not improvements in the legal climate. The court’s Complex Litigation Center still hosts major asbestos, medical-liability, and product-liability dockets filled with out-of-state claims.

Record-Setting Cases

In July 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a record-setting $207.6 million medical malpractice verdict against the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, including $80 million for pain and suffering. The ruling raised eyebrows because the trial judge allowed an improper “anchoring” tactic during closing arguments—invoking Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts’ $51 million contract to influence the jury’s perception of damages. Critics argue this underscores Philadelphia’s reputation for exceptionally high awards.

The Superior Court is also considering the appeal of a $1 billion verdict—the largest crashworthiness award in state history—against Mitsubishi. A Philadelphia jury awarded $180 million in compensatory damages and $800 million in punitive damages after deliberating for less than 30 minutes. The verdict drew widespread concern because the trial court barred Mitsubishi from presenting federal safety-compliance evidence and failed to instruct jurors on core crashworthiness principles. Observers say these omissions contributed to an unprecedented and legally distorted outcome with far-reaching consequences for manufacturers and insurers.

Philadelphia Becomes a “Congested Center” for Medical Liability Cases

Philadelphia has also become a “congested center” for medical liability filings, as described by Superior Court Judge Alice Beck. This trend stems from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2022 decision eliminating its long-standing venue rule that once required malpractice suits to be filed where the alleged negligence occurred.

Once the guardrail fell, filings tripled in a single month, and by October 31, 2025, Philadelphia had received 520 malpractice cases—nearly double the number filed statewide in 2022. The influx has pushed medical malpractice premiums sharply upward: nearly half of Pennsylvania physicians saw double-digit premium increases in 2024, and from 2015–2024, the state paid $2.8 billion in malpractice claims, second only to New York on a per-capita basis.

These rising pressures are already affecting patient care. Earlier this year, a maternity unit closure left seven rural counties without labor and delivery services.

Legislators have taken notice. In 2025, Senate committees held hearings on venue abuse and its impact on healthcare, with hospital leaders warning that some facilities are “one lawsuit away from closing their doors.” Sen. Chris Dush introduced S.B. 125, a proposed constitutional amendment to shift venue-setting authority from the Supreme Court to the General Assembly.

Meanwhile, appellate courts have begun to push back at the margins. In July 2025, a Pennsylvania court upheld a venue-selection clause requiring a malpractice suit to proceed in Bucks County rather than being moved to Philadelphia—offering healthcare providers a limited but meaningful tool to avoid abusive forum shopping.

New Frontiers: Climate-Liability Theories in Philadelphia

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has also embraced novel theories of liability targeting the oil and gas industry and other manufacturers, exploring whether companies could be held responsible for climate-related injuries and even so-called “climate-change deaths.” His office has said it is “exploring legal avenues by which we may seek accountability from polluters,” including potential criminal charges. The initiative gained momentum after consultations with David Arkush of Public Citizen’s Climate Program, who has been promoting these theories in academic and policy circles. Critics warn this approach may further cement Philadelphia’s reputation as a testing ground for unprecedented and unpredictable liability theories.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Drops to the Watch List — But Concerns Remain

Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is no longer ranked among the nation’s top Judicial Hellholes, the Watch List designation reflects ongoing concern about the Court’s civil justice direction.

A central example of improvement is the Court’s September 2025 decision in Tranter v. Z&D Tour, a case with major implications for trucking and transportation. The lawsuit stemmed from a multi-vehicle crash in Westmoreland County, yet plaintiffs filed their claims in Philadelphia, nearly 300 miles away. The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decision to transfer the case back to the proper venue, reaffirming longstanding forum non conveniens principles and reenforcing that trucking companies and other defendants should not be forced to litigate far from where an accident occurred when witnesses and evidence are local.

The report describes Tranter as a meaningful but limited improvement, noting that several other decisions still raise concerns about expanding liability or limiting arbitration. And importantly, the move to the Watch List does not signal a structural improvement in Pennsylvania’s overall legal climate. As the report underscores, the greatest risks remain in the courts where cases are actually heard and decided—especially in Philadelphia—where heavy plaintiff-side verdicts and strategic venue choices continue unchecked.

What This Means for Pennsylvania’s Business Climate

The Judicial Hellholes report reinforces what many industries already experience:

• Philadelphia’s venue rules and litigation culture continue to attract mass-tort filings from around the country.
• The courts where cases are tried remain a major driver of legal uncertainty and escalating costs.
• Even with some moderation at the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania’s underlying liability structure has not fundamentally changed.

For industries like trucking—already facing rising insurance costs, regulatory pressures, and workforce challenges—Philadelphia’s unpredictable verdict environment remains a significant concern.

PMTA will continue monitoring these developments and keeping members informed about how judicial trends may affect Pennsylvania’s business and operating landscape.