because OP just posted an angry rant without providing sufficient details for outsiders to determine if he was just mad or if he was right.

It's cute when people are naive and think juries aren't manipulated and moronic at times. They think the system works!

This is an ironic comment. What is your expertise with juries? I have been plaintiffs counsel in a case where the jury returned a verdict of over $40 million. It was a wrongful death case and after that, we sent the DOJ our case file and the nursing home operator was prosecuted for fraud and sentenced to 20 years in jail. I have also been at the plaintiffs counsel table when the jury awarded zero. I have had trials and settlements for many amounts in between those two extremes.

This is my career for the last 16 years. I have reviewed the details of hundreds of jury verdicts and settlements for my job. I have researched comparable verdicts and settlements in verdict search databases. There is wide variability in results and no two cases are identical.

Again, you just reiterated my point:

Who knows about this case.... maybe it was justified.

Then you jump to attack a straw man of your own creation:

assuming the system works so well that this could never happen is laughable.

I did not say that. I do not contend that the system always works. In fact, just a few months ago, I said a large verdict sounded “ridiculous” to me on its face.

https://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=32475855

That said, defendants and insurance companies are not being blindsided at these trials. In 99.9% of cases, there are extensive negotiations before suit is filed or at least before trial. There is discovery that permits the parties to uncover all of the claims and defenses in the case.

Sometimes juries get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. But the important thing to know is that if the case reached trial, the insurance company chose that path because they thought they could do better than the plaintiff’s settlement proposals.

In fact, it’s likely one of the unstated reasons OP is so ticked. That is, the plaintiff in his case probably offered to settle for much less than $9 million. Perhaps he offered to settle for under $1 million. But because OP or his team thought it was worth the risk, they tried the case and they lost control of the result. That’s the system we have. Usually it benefits insurance companies.

It’s ok though because insurance companies have so much volume (some years ago I heard just one company, State Farm, was fielding 33,000 new claims per day) that they can underpay on a million cases, and save enough to cover all the money they paid on the one “runaway” verdict. The runaway verdict gets publicized and the insurance company gains more sympathetic adherents like you, while the million people who settled $50,000 claims for $5,000 because they didn’t want to hire a lawyer or didn’t want to jump through all the insurance company’s hoops get what they get and no one cares.