How Juries Actually Decide—and What Defense Teams Must Do About It

Why the winning story isn’t always in the record (and how to adapt your negotiation playbook).

In our recent SigmaSight webinar on modern negotiation, Jason Rosen shared a hard truth: juries often decide on factors neither side anticipated—sometimes on points that weren’t even discussed at trial. If you’re planning your strategy around perfect briefs and airtight facts alone, you’re missing the variable that changes outcomes: human interpretation.

“Juries make decisions based on things the parties never even thought about… sometimes on what wasn’t even discussed at trial.”

What juries actually do (not what we hope they do)

In theory, jurors weigh evidence and apply law. In practice, they also respond to credibility, coherence, and narrative fit. The side that frames the dispute in a way that “feels” true—clear, human, and consistent—often shapes the verdict range long before the jury room.

Three forces at play:

1. Cognitive shortcuts: Under time and information pressure, jurors lean on simple, memorable narratives.
2. Story over stack: A compelling through-line beats a binder of exhibits nobody can hold in working memory.
3. Unexpected salience: Jurors sometimes fixate on details counsel considered minor—or never raised.

The risk for defense teams

• Anchoring disadvantage: If the plaintiff sets the first coherent number + story, you’re negotiating inside their frame.
• Late narrative building: Waiting for discovery to “tell your story” cedes months of persuasion.
• Process drag = price drag: Cases that stay open longer usually cost more—especially with time-limit demands and third-party funding in the mix.

A modern defense response (playbook)

1) Counter-anchor with a story, not just a number (early).
Lead with a defensible offer range backed by a tight narrative: liability/causation limiters, venue/judge data, comparator outcomes, and credibility tells.

2) Front-load presentability.
Quickly assess who tells the more persuasive story live: plaintiff vs. insured. If the plaintiff is highly presentable, move earlier with fair money. If not, hold your line.

3) Package your case like you mean it.
Deliver an offer package—not a terse counter. Include:

• A concise theory of the case (3–5 bullet arc)
• Key evidentiary supports (brief, scannable)
• Venue/judge/attorney analytics and historical ranges
• Clear, reasonable settlement proposal + path to closure

4) Share it before the mediation.
Give opposing counsel time to socialize it with the client. Surprises on mediation morning harden positions; pre-reads create movement.

5) Train for negotiation (not just litigation).
Tactics to institutionalize: ask more questions, decouple your offers from plaintiff demands, and negotiate to your evaluation, not their anchor.

Where SigmaSight fits

SigmaSight’s AI-enabled offer packages™ help defense teams frame early, persuasively, and consistently by:

• Aggregating claim notes, counsel work product, and key documents
• Surfacing overlooked arguments and weak points likely to sway jurors
• Pairing offers with venue/judge/attorney analytics for credible ranges
• Producing a clean, plaintiff-ready brief you can send before the mediation

Bottom line: when juries can be moved by unexpected factors, your safest move is to control the frame early with a story-first, data-backed offer package.

Watch the full webinar

This excerpt is just one moment from a wide-ranging conversation on how technology, storytelling, and negotiation practices are reshaping insurance defense.

Whatch it here