The best states to sue a company Thorney Lieberman / Getty Images file The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. By Alexander E.M. Hess, Michael B. Sauter & Samuel Weigley, 24/7 Wall St. According to the in-house lawyers of America's biggest companies, the court system is making things easier for them. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), a lobbying group that represents the legal interests of businesses, asked attorneys working for major corporations to describe how fair the corporate legal systems are in each of the 50 states. Nearly 50 percent responded that court systems were favorable and reasonable, up from 44 percent in 2010. The survey asked the general counsels of companies with revenues of $100 million or more to grade each state on 10 key areas of legal fairness in the court system. This included how the state treated class-action suits, damages that were awarded to plaintiffs and judges" fairness or competence. Respondents were only allowed to grade states with which they were at least somewhat familiar. The overall scores nationwide have improved substantially in the past 10 years, but businesses still perceive many states as being extremely unfair and unreasonable toward corporations. These are the 10 states that companies rated as the least fair. While the survey attempts to rank the overall fairness of the legal climate in each state, some believe the survey only identifies the states" with legal systems that benefit corporations the most. "This is purely from the perspective of big business," says J. G. Preston, spokesman for the Consumer Attorneys for California, whose members represent plaintiffs in civil cases against companies. We don't think it's any way to evaluate the civil justice system. I say it's like asking the players what they think of the referees. A review of the rankings shows that states with legal climates that are perceived as unreasonable for businesses tend to do poorly in everything they are evaluated in. The three worst states scored among the worst 10 in each of the categories the group measured. Respondents were asked to rate the five districts nationwide they viewed as the worst for overall fairness. The places most commonly referenced were located in states that also scored poorly overall. Chicago/Cook County, Ill., was mentioned a survey-high 17 percent of the time, followed by Los Angeles, at 16 percent. Michael Lepage, spokesman for the Institute for Legal Reform -- the group that conducted the study -- said while all of the areas evaluated for fairness are important, some are bigger issues for American corporations than others. In particular, the practice of "venue shopping," or "forum shopping" by plaintiffs looking for the best jurisdiction to file suits was a problem in these 10 states. In many cases, the group states, people will choose locations where they believe they are most likely to win trials and be awarded the most damages. In Philadelphia, for example, 47 percent of all the asbestos cases tried in the area were from out-of-state, and more than 80 percent of all pharmaceutical cases were from out of state. Other states with similarly high proportions of out-of-state suits include Texas and Illinois. In addition to making class-action lawsuits easier to bring, Lepage indicated that jurisdictions in some states, like California and Florida, award much larger jury awards than others. In West Virginia, the state rated by respondents as the least fair for awarding damages to plaintiffs, the debate was reignited last year after a judge awarded more than $90 million to a resident whose mother died of dehydration in a nursing home. Not surprisingly, the states that are often viewed as exceptionally favorable to business were rated very well in some of these key areas. Delaware, for example, which has ranked No. 1 every year the study was conducted, received the best scores of any state for venue requirements, strict requirements on the admissibility of scientific evidence and impartial judges. Treatment of class action suits: 5th worst Damages: the worst Admissibility of evidence: the worst Judges" impartiality: the worst A whopping 29 percent of respondents gave the state an F for how it assesses damages, while another 22 percent gave it a D, making West Virginia the worst state in that category. While the state has a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages in cases where a plaintiff suffers serious medical harm, it is unclear whether it only applies to medical doctors and hospitals or if it can be defined more broadly. This debate was reopened after a family was awarded $91.5 million after an 87-year old woman living at a nursing home died from dehydration. The verdict included $11.5 million in compensatory damages. Respondents to the ILR also had deep misgivings about judge and jury fairness. The state ranked at the bottom in terms of judge impartiality, and second from the bottom in judge competence and jury fairness. Treatment of class action suits: 2nd worst Damages: 3rd-worst Admissibility of evidence: 2nd-worst Judges" impartiality: 3rd-worst "Despite recent positive developments, Louisiana is still notorious for excessive verdicts, loose class-certification standards and an unfair judiciary," says Lisa A Rickard, president of the Institute for Legal Reform. These assertions correspond to how corporate lawyers feel about the state, which ranked third-worst among all states for how it assessed damages, second-worst to California for how it accepted and handled class action lawsuits, and third-worst for both judicial impartiality and competence. Further, for each of the 10 measures the ILR used to assess states" legal systems, Louisiana was rated among the worst five states. Treatment of class action suits: 3rd worst Damages: 6th-worst Admissibility of evidence: 3rd-worst Judges" impartiality: 2nd-worst Only 3 percent of the survey respondents gave the state an A for its handling of tort and contract litigation, while 35 percent of respondents gave the state a D or F. Respondents also showed concerns about the fairness of judges and juries in the state. The state was rated the worst in judge competence and jury fairness, with 14 percent and 17 percent of respondents giving it an F in both measures. The state was ranked the sixth-worst in terms of how it assesses damages, with 33 percent of respondents grading it a D or an F. Currently, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is determining whether the a state law limiting noneconomic damages in civil cases to $1 million is constitutional. Treatment of class-action suits: the worst Damages: 2nd-worst Admissibility of evidence: 12th-worst Judges" impartiality: 11th-worst Regarding jurisdictions with legal environments that are the "least fair and reasonable," 16 percent of corporate lawyers mentioned Los Angeles, 9 percent mentioned San Francisco, and another 9 percent mentioned California but did not specify a jurisdiction. In a video statement, U.S. Chamber president and CEO Tom Donohue contends that "Los Angeles is the worst city in America, from a legal perspective, to have a business ... and San Francisco is not far behind." Respondents especially disapproved of how the state treated class-action lawsuits, giving it the worst rating nationwide. Additionally, respondents criticized how the state assessed damages, giving it the second-worst rating nationwide. In one particular case, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, Philip Morris was ordered in 2009 to pay $13.8 million in punitive damages for causing the addiction and death of a 45 year-old smoker. The second court of appeals in Los Angeles upheld the ruling in 2011. Illinois Treatment of class-action suits: 4th worst Damages: 4th worst Admissibility of evidence: 15th worst Judges" impartiality: 6th worst Compared to other states, Illinois scored the worst for having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements, which can limit forum shopping, ranking second lowest in that category behind West Virginia. The American Tort Reform Association consistently labels both Madison County and St. Clair County as one of a handful of "judicial hellholes" because they host litigation that originates outside of the state. The group notes that the counties are magnets for both asbestos and pharmaceutical litigation. According to the ILR, Chicago/Cook County was considered the jurisdiction with the "least fair and reasonable litigation environment," while Madison County was considered the sixth-worst jurisdiction. Click here to read all of 24/7 Wall St.'s Best states to sue a company