Last month, DRC conducted a study to gauge prospective jurors’ attitudes toward COVID-19–related litigation. After conducting an anonymous survey of 420 jury-eligible citizens in the counties comprising the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, we found that there is widespread support for ending coronavirus litigation. The survey focused on attitudes toward COVID-19 litigation and juror decision-making. In May, DRC asked if people’s cases are being pushed forward instead of resolving, and whether jurors would be willing to serve. We further examined how respondents felt about litigation related to COVID-19 and the legal process.
When COVID-19 struck, courts across the country shuttered their doors, quickly transitioning to virtual venues or halting proceedings. As a result, many cases were delayed. The study sought to better understand how prospective jurors perceive COVID-19–related litigation and whether the pandemic has influenced their willingness to participate in the legal system.
LeMaitre’s report of new cases filed in federal courts found that the majority of contract cases (1.6% increase) have been driven by business interruption insurance litigation and that most cases are related to healthcare workers’ compensation. (1) Despite the influx of coronavirus-related litigation, courts remain largely closed and jury trials have been postponed indefinitely.
DRC’s study specifically gauged support for these types of cases. For state-level cases, we found that 77% of respondents supported coronavirus-related litigation. However, for federal-level cases, that number dropped to 62%.
Strongly Support: 4%
Somewhat Support: 13%
Neutral / Unsure: 28%
Somewhat Oppose: 32%
Strongly Oppose: 23%
A similar trend was observed regarding colleges and universities that closed and switched to online classes, where lawsuits were filed alleging inferior instruction. Overall, there was significant opposition to these lawsuits, particularly at the federal level.
Respondents were also asked to indicate how much they support or oppose lawsuits in which consumers are suing companies for not providing ticket refunds (e.g., airline tickets, sporting events, concert tickets).
Strongly Support: 2%
Somewhat Support: 6%
Neutral / Unsure: 19%
Somewhat Oppose: 32%
Strongly Oppose: 41%
Universities, students, and city employees have had in-person services moved online. Approximately 60.4% of respondents noted having taken online courses themselves, and felt strongly that online education should cost less than in-person instruction. Respondents expressed frustration that tuition remained unchanged despite the move to online learning.
In light of insurance litigation disputes, DRC sought to better understand jurors’ views regarding business interruption insurance payouts for losses due to a business not operating because of COVID-19. When asked whether insurance companies should be required to reimburse businesses for losses due to pandemic-related shutdowns, respondents were largely supportive.
In a prior segment, DRC asked jurors whether they would consider COVID-19 litigation as a new risk that was not contemplated by insurance policies. Responses indicated mixed opinions, with many respondents acknowledging that pandemic-related business interruption insurance disputes may require legislative or regulatory clarity.
Yes: 19%
Justified: 75%
Unjustified: 16%
No Opinion: 9%
The majority of respondents believed lawsuits stemming from COVID-19 were justified, particularly those involving financial losses beyond the control of businesses.
Strongly Agree: 43%
Agree: 31%
Neither Agree Nor Disagree: 23%
Disagree: 2%
Strongly Disagree: 1%
Naturally, business owners with more resources to litigate and recover losses were perceived to have greater advantages. Respondents expressed concerns about fairness, corporate responsibility, and accountability during unprecedented public health emergencies.
DRC anticipates that jurors’ attitudes toward COVID-19–related litigation will significantly impact trial outcomes. These findings suggest that jurors may be more sympathetic to plaintiffs seeking relief for pandemic-related losses, especially when claims involve insurance coverage disputes or business closures mandated by government orders.