The Seattle Times recently reported that Washington state’s tort lawsuit payouts and legal costs have set another record, reaching nearly $614 million in the past fiscal year. It reports the state paid out more than $537 million to settle lawsuits and tort claims alleging government misdeeds in the 2026 fiscal year. That’s up roughly $500 million from 2025. In addition, the state paid about $76 million for legal defense costs, up from about $58 million the previous year. There is a 14-member port study committee including plaintiff and defense attorneys as well as representatives of state agencies, local governments and other advocates studying the issue

 The defense costs included $43.6 million paid to outside law firms hired to help the caseload. The majority involved lawsuits and tort claims over alleged abuse and neglect in the state’s foster care system. Because the state is self-insured, the lawsuit payouts are siphoning dollars that would otherwise pay for schools, health care, child welfare and other services.

The surge in lawsuits over childhood sexual abuse claims in recent years has followed the elimination of a statute of limitations on these claims. Lawsuits can be brought over decades-old allegations of abuse against foster parents. The bulk of the lawsuits against the state targeted the Department of Children, Youth and Families, which oversees foster care and investigates reports of child abuse and neglect. Crimes against this entity have accounted for nearly 80% of the state’s legal settlements last year. In 2025, more than 1100 claims were filed against the agency compared with just 13 in 2020. State actuarial reports have projected billions of dollars in additional liabilities based upon cases pending. Most of the settlements stem from incidents occurring before 2000, with some stretching back to the 1960s. These cases have spotlighted the ongoing failures in the state child welfare system. In June, the department agreed to pay $80 million to settle lawsuits filed on behalf of two children who were left with permanent injuries, including amputations and severe burns, after being left in the care of their biological parents despite reports of abuse and neglect.

 The rising costs of lawsuits is not limited to the state. A report from the Washington State Association of Counties pointed out that claims against the county’s risk pool have increased by 60% since 2021 and liability insurance premiums have risen by more than 380% in recent years.

Jury verdicts in general have also increased. One recent example, of many, is a jury in Dallas County, Texas, reached a verdict in July totaling more than $600 million in a personal injury case. That marks one of the largest verdicts in a truck crash case. The question is whether continued “nuclear verdicts” like this one and the payment of substantial claims against the state of Washington could result in a change of Washington tort law.

If verdicts continue to grow, proposals likely would involve limits on non-economic damages;  More judicial review of exceptionally large verdicts; Changes to procedures for claims against state and local governments; greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding and venue or forum reforms in certain categories of cases.

At this time, Washington has not enacted tort reform measures.  The 2026 legislative session ended without major changes. Washington’s political makeup and judiciary have generally favored preserving jury authority and access to the courts. That said, the growth of very large verdicts is having an impact in several areas. There is increased pressure for reform. Business groups, insurers, medical organizations, and others are arguing that large verdicts increase insurance costs and make it more expensive for those who operate. In the area of governmental liability, the legislature considered legislation (SB 620 three 9 ) intended to reduce the state’s liability exposure. It included proposals affecting claims against the state and local governments. The bill did not pass in the 2026 session. High-profile verdicts, including a reinstated $185 million verdict by the Washington state Supreme Court, have intensified the discussion about whether changes should be made.

The history of tort reform in many states suggests a recurring pattern. A series of exceptionally large verdicts receive intensive media attention. Business organizations, insurers, and public entities then argue that the verdicts are driving up insurance premiums and the cost of operation. Legislators conclude that the civil justice system has become unpredictable, whether the evidence fully supports that conclusion. As a result, fraud reforms are enacted and apply to all cases, not just the extraordinary ones that prompted the debate.

The result is that modest but legitimate claims often bear the greatest burden. Damage caps, procedural hurdles, and restrictions on liability do not distinguish between an exceptional case deserving a very large verdict and an ordinary case involving a seriously injured person.

Washington has historically resisted broad tort reform, in part because of its constitutional protections and judicial decisions. Even so, no state’s legal system is immune from political change. If a substantial number of headline-grabbing verdicts create a widespread public perception that the system is out of balance, pressure for legislative reform is likely to increase.

For that reason, some of the most respected plaintiff trial lawyers have long argued that the profession should think beyond winning the individual case. They have suggested that maintaining the long-term credibility of the civil justice system is itself an obligation. As Gerry Spence often emphasized, a trial lawyer’s duty is not merely to maximize a recovery but to preserve the integrity of the jury system on which all future clients depend.

The difficult balance is this: a lawyer owes complete loyalty to the individual client, while also recognizing that a pattern of verdicts perceived as excessive can produce reforms that ultimately reduce justice for future injured people. Whether that concern justifies changing litigation strategy is debatable, but it is a conversation worth having within the plaintiffs’ bar.