The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Legislature recently introduced House Bill No. 1913 that would permit attorneys to suggest to a judge or jury an “appropriate award for all past and future economic or noneconomic damages.” Pa. H.B. 1913, 2025-2026 Leg. Sess. (2025). This is commonly referred to as “Anchoring,” a practice which has long been prohibited in the Commonwealth’s trials for recovery of personal injuries.
The Current Status of Anchoring
Currently, attorneys in Pennsylvania are prohibited from asking jurors for a specific amount of noneconomic damages in personal injury cases. In Pennsylvania, like most states, noneconomic damages include: (1) pain and suffering; (2) embarrassment and humiliation; (3) loss of ability to enjoy the pleasures of life; and (4) disfigurement. 231 Pa.C.S. §223.3. In so doing, jurors can consider factors including the age of the plaintiff, severity of the injuries, whether the injuries are temporary or permanent, the extent of the injuries, the duration and nature of medical treatment, the health and physical condition of the plaintiff prior to the injuries, and the nature of disfigurement and consequence to the plaintiff. 231 Pa.C.S. §223.3.
Courts around the country are split on whether Anchoring is appropriate. In Pennsylvania, courts have held that suggestions of a calculation for noneconomic damages are appropriate grounds for mistrial. See Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply, 107 A.3d 146, 161-62 (Pa. Super. 2014). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reasoned that “any statement to the jury by counsel that calls the juror’s attention to claims or amounts not supported by the evidence is error.” See Wilson v. Nelson, 258 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa. 1969).
Introducing Anchoring to the Commonwealth
The House Bill, if passed and signed by the Governor, would permit attorneys, during closing argument, to specifically argue to the judge, jury or other tribunal lump sums or mathematical formulas the amount the attorney deems appropriate to be awarded for all past and future noneconomic damages. The House Bill also requires prior disclosure to (1) the court, and (2) opposing counsel that they intend to make such an argument during closing. Pa. H.B. 1913, 2025-2026 Leg. Sess. (2025).
What Are The Effects of Permitting Anchoring?
Questions remain as to what the effects such a change would have on civil trials throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. How will this change verdicts? Will the change reduce “nuclear verdicts” in Philadelphia, Allegheny, and Lackawanna Counties? Will it raise verdict values in more conservative counties?
Also, there is much to be done about addressing omissions from the House Bill. What constitutes proper disclosure? How soon before closing qualifies as proper disclosure? Does proper disclosure require a particular monetary amount?
Anchoring will unquestionably affect trial strategies and tactics.
[View source.]
