What happens when massive (or excessive in any manner per the insured) awards are by juries is always the same - and PI or any other kind of lawyer are always excused from sitting on juries (judges don't like to be critiqued in the jury room by any lawyer).

When a state court jury decides, with award, to the injured person, the one being sued (and insurance company, who normally defends) immediately appeals. Once the appeal is filed, the original decision (and award) is now on hold until the appeals court has ruled. This can take a couple years, depending on appellate docket. In the meantime, the injured party is no better off than the day day before the lower court decision. If the appellate court rules in favor of the injured party, the insured appeals to the next higher court (often, a state supreme court). That court too has a significant docket, so the clock keeps running. So, despite an original court decision, the injured person still doesn't have a dime all this time.

Enter the insured again - this time offering a deal: For an amount much lower than the original jury award), but paid immediately, the insured will drop all appeals. The injured party, with bills to pay, may haggle to some avail (usually not much) and take the deal. Insurers' negotiation range usually has a base (cost of future litigation, less a couple percent) and a ceiling (policy limit), with the goal to have the injured party take the former. All counsel (and the courts) know this, and it has been often insinuated that courts drag appeals to give the parties time to resolve the matter in pre-appellate settlement negotiations, as courts rarely want to place themselves in positions to reverse jury decisions.

So, payoffs of these jury awards which sound like a PowerBall winner, are rarer than hen's teeth. Thus, while the original jury award made great press, the actual cash exchanging hands is much less.