Legal Insights

Anchoring in Closing Arguments: The High-Stakes Impact of Pennsylvania House Bill No. 1913

January 8, 2026
By: Jaiden J. Moore

Anchoring, a simple shift in closing-argument practice, could dramatically reshape civil verdicts in Pennsylvania. House Bill No. 1913 aims to authorize plaintiffs’ attorneys to propose specific dollar amounts for non-economic damages directly to a jury during closing argument. 

How Anchoring Influences Jury Decision-Making

In the context of damages assessment, an “anchor” is a reference point – a specific numerical value – that can be used to persuade a jury. During closing argument, anchors create a psychologically powerful baseline for jurors who face the task of assigning a monetary value to pain and suffering. It is a well-established cognitive bias: when individuals are presented with a numerical value, even an arbitrary one, their judgments tend to gravitate toward that figure. Behavioral psychology and jury research have long demonstrated that when plaintiffs request specific, high damages figures, jurors’ awards tend to increase dramatically, even when jurors are instructed that the proposed numbers are mere suggestions rather than evidence.

The Text and Purpose of House Bill No. 1913

The relevant portion of the Bill, § 8320.0 – Permissible Argument for Damages, provides as follows:

(a) In any civil action tried before a judge, jury, or other tribunal, an attorney may, during closing argument:

1. Specifically argue, in lump sums or by mathematical formula, the amount the attorney deems to be an appropriate award for all past and future economic or non-economic damages, or both; and
2. On behalf of the defendant, argue that an award of any lesser amount is appropriate if liability is found.

While some jurisdictions already allow this practice, Pennsylvania traditionally has not permitted plaintiffs to present a specific non-economic damages figure directly to the jury. If adopted, this bill would mark a significant procedural shift in civil litigation – one with meaningful implications for insureds and defendants. 

Pennsylvania is not the first jurisdiction to grapple with anchoring practices. In addressing a personal injury action in 2012, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that plaintiffs’ attorneys may propose to the jury a specific dollar amount a plaintiff should be awarded for each element of damages – including non-economic damages – so long as there is evidence to support the proposed amount. Following that decision, plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout Virginia began requesting substantially higher verdicts during closing arguments. Although this initially created challenges for the defense bar, Virginia defense attorneys ultimately adapted and developed effective counter strategies. 

Defense Strategies for Responding to Anchoring

While anchoring poses clear challenges for defendants, jury studies consistently show that its impact can be reduced when the defense offers a reasonable alternative damages figure rather than attacking or ignoring the plaintiff’s request. Mock trial research – including studies conducted by the Boston University School of Law – demonstrates that damages awards decrease when defense counsel provides a counter-anchor, compared to when the defense simply criticizes the plaintiff’s request or offers no figure at all. 

However, a counter-anchor is effective only if it is grounded in the evidence and supported with a clear rationale. Defense counsel should avoid proposing counter figures that appear arbitrary or not based on the evidence presented, as such numbers can cause the jury to question the defense’s credibility entirely. The most effective counter-anchors are paired with thoughtful, concrete explanations that help jurors understand what the proposed amount accomplishes for the plaintiff and why it reflects a fair and reasonable award. This approach can shift jurors away from the plaintiff’s high anchor and toward a more balanced, evidence-based assessment of damages.

Conclusion

House Bill No. 1913 represents a significant proposed change to Pennsylvania trial practice. Should it pass, plaintiffs will gain the ability to present anchoring arguments that research shows can substantially increase verdicts. Defendants, in turn, will need to adopt strategies that account for this dynamic, including the use of strategic counter-anchors. Post & Schell will continue to monitor developments related to this legislation and advise clients on practical steps to minimize exposure should the legislation pass.

For questions, please contact Charles W. Spitz, Principal in the firm's Casualty Litigation Department and Co-Chair of the firm's Hospitality & Retail Practice Group at 215-587-6629 or cspitz@postschell.com, Jaiden J. Moore, Associate in the firm's Casualty Litigation Department and Hospitality and Retail Practice Group at 215-587-1053 or jmoore@postchell.com, or the Post & Schell attorney with whom you normally consult.