A NONPARTISAN ISSUE GUIDE FOR PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS
Why Civil Justice Matters To You
In 2026, all 203 Pennsylvania House seats and 25 of the 50 Senate seats are on the ballot. The legislators elected will make decisions affecting lawsuits, health care, insurance, jobs and consumer prices.
When state law encourages more lawsuits or unusually large awards, the costs are passed along through higher premiums, medical expenses and prices for everyday products and services. Liability expansion makes Pennsylvania less affordable for families and less attractive to employers.
Voters should know where candidates stand on these important issues. PCCJR has compiled a Legislative Scorecard which shows how incumbents voted on the civil justice issues, as well as their lifetime percentage votes on these issues. This interactive website allows users to click on individual legislative names to see a breakdown of the legislation and their respective votes.
Review PCCJR’s Legislative
Scorecard Before Voting
ON THE BALLOT All 203 Pennsylvania House seats and 25 of the 50 Senate seats.
Medical Liability, Venue and Affordable Health Care
Pennsylvania has experienced medical liability crises before. Rising insurance costs caused difficulty accessing health care for Pennsylvanians. Doctors retired early or stopped providing high-risk services. Reforms helped stabilize the system and restored access to care.
One reform required medical liability cases to be filed in the county where the care occurred. This “venue” rule prevented cases involving care elsewhere from being moved into Philadelphia. The protection was eliminated effective January 1, 2023.
Philadelphia medical liability filings increased from 275 in 2022 to 544 in 2023. In 2024 and 2025, 616 medical liability cases were filed in Philadelphia. Almost 50% of the cases now filed in Philadelphia involve care provided outside Philadelphia and would not have been filed there under the former rule.
Medical liability costs are health-care costs. Higher awards and settlement demands increase insurance expenses, strain hospital budgets and affect where physicians practice. Rural and underserved communities are especially vulnerable when specialists reduce services or leave.
Candidates should support fair compensation for injured patients while protecting affordable health care. The General Assembly should restore the requirement that medical liability cases be filed where the care occurred and adopt a more balanced standard to determine where all other civil cases are filed.
PHILADELPHIA FILINGS 275 in 2022 → 544 in 2023; 616 cases in 2024 and 2025.
Restore the Fair Share Act
Pennsylvania enacted the Fair Share Act in 2011 so defendants would pay damages according to their share of responsibility.
Before the Act, a defendant found only slightly responsible could sometimes be forced to pay nearly the entire award. This is called “joint and several liability.” It encourages lawyers to target businesses deep pockets even when someone else caused most of the harm.
In Spencer v. Johnson, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the Act applies only when the person bringing the lawsuit also shares some fault. That requirement does not appear in the law.
Lawmakers should restore the Act’s original intent: defendants should generally pay only their fair share. Otherwise, unpredictable liability costs are passed on to Pennsylvania consumers.
Nuclear Verdicts
DEFINITION A “nuclear verdict” is an exceptionally large award ($10 million and above) far beyond reasonable compensation for the harm involved.
A “nuclear verdict” is an exceptionally large award ($10 million and above) far beyond reasonable compensation for the harm involved. Pennsylvania—and Philadelphia in particular—has become known for these verdicts.
Recent examples include:
- A $182.7 million Philadelphia medical liability award.
- A $177 million product-liability judgment, including $150 million in punitive damages.
- A $1 billion vehicle case award, including $800 million in punitive damages, later set aside because of faulty legal instructions.
Even when reduced or overturned, these awards require businesses, hospitals and insurers to spend heavily responding to them. Their threat also drives settlement demands and insurance premiums higher.
Candidates should support safeguards that keep awards connected to the facts, actual harm and reliable evidence. Unpredictable awards make health care, insurance and everyday products more expensive.
Anchoring Damage Awards—Oppose HB 1913
“Anchoring” occurs when a lawyer suggests an extremely large amount for pain and suffering or uses a made-up formula to calculate it. The number is not evidence. It creates a high starting point for deciding damages.
For example, a lawyer might assign a dollar amount to every day or hour of suffering and use it to demand millions of dollars without objective support.
HB 1913 would expressly permit lawyers to suggest lump-sum amounts and mathematical formulas for damages. These unsupported numbers can influence verdicts and settlement negotiations.
Candidates should oppose HB 1913. Lawyers should argue from evidence, not manufacture price tags that encourage larger awards, higher settlements and increased consumer costs.
Private Rights of Action
A “private right of action” allows private attorneys to file lawsuits to enforce a law even when the Attorney General or a state agency has enforcement authority.
These provisions have multiplied rapidly. During the 2025-26 legislative session alone, 116 bills introduced in the Pennsylvania House and Senate contained private-right-of-action provisions.
Giving both government agencies and profit-driven private attorneys enforcement power can produce inconsistent outcomes with different results in different counties. Businesses may also face multiple lawsuits over conduct that could be addressed through one statewide investigation.
These lawsuits add legal expenses, settlement pressure and uncertainty—all of which raise prices or reduce services. Candidates should oppose private-right-of-action provisions when an accountable public agency already has sufficient enforcement authority.
LEGISLATIVE SNAPSHOT 116 bills introduced so far during the 2025-26 legislative session contained private-right-of-action provisions.
Pennsylvania False Claims Act—Oppose HB 1697
Fraud involving public funds should be investigated and punished. HB 1697 would create a state False Claims Act allowing private bounty-hunter relators and their attorneys to sue for mis-spent funds in the Commonwealth’s name. Bounty-hunter relators receive a big chunk of the government’s recovery plus attorney fees.
This rewards profit-driven litigation and exposes health-care providers, contractors, nonprofits and businesses to costly lawsuits involving complicated billing rules or disputes that do not involve intentional fraud.
Pennsylvania already benefits from federal False Claims Act enforcement, including Medicaid cases. A PCCJR analysis found that Pennsylvania would often keep less from a Medicaid recovery under a state False Claims Act than through the existing federal process.
Candidates should oppose HB 1697 while supporting strong public enforcement against genuine fraud. Pennsylvania should not create a duplicative bounty system that encourages litigation and leaves taxpayers with less money.
Third-Party Litigation Funding
Third-party litigation funding occurs when an outside investor provides money connected to a lawsuit in exchange for part of any recovery.
A funder with a large investment may influence important decisions or oppose a reasonable settlement because it would not produce enough money to repay the investment and expected profit. This can prolong cases, increase settlement demands and leave the person whose claim is involved with less money and less control.
Pennsylvania should require disclosure of the funder, its financial interest and any control it has over legal or settlement decisions. The person involved in the case — not an outside investor — should decide whether and when to settle.
Transparency would help prevent litigation funding from inflating settlements and raising costs for Pennsylvania businesses and consumers.
Make an Informed Choice
Pennsylvania needs a civil justice system that is fair to injured people, consumers, employers, health-care providers and taxpayers. Balanced laws control costs, provide stability, improve the business climate and encourage employers and medical professionals to remain and grow here.
When lawsuit expansion makes Pennsylvania less affordable, every family pays the price.