Michael Stevens of the Kentucky Law Review has digested the Reece v. Nationwide case offering his own perspective on its impact. Michael immediately notes the true impact, ironclad jury decisions, which will be practically irreversible on appeal. He likens the impact to the line of Miller v. Swift cases on pain and suffering verdicts. He anticipates a stronger approach when questioning experts regarding evidence of impairment, since the claim will now be considered by the jury. Both points are very well taken and insightful. I recommend reading his post.