Yep, though it pays to know that big companies that fund politicians want to take your right to sue away, but that's very dangerous, and the "frivilous" cases they used to typify things tend to be very different to how the privately owned mass media (who get advertising dollars from said corporations) portray them.
One example was a guy making a call in a phone box who successfully sued the phone company for being hit by a drunk driver, instead of suing the driver. It was held up by Ronald Reagan as a "silly" case that justified taking away people's right to sue. However, the real story was that the phone box was built on a dangerous corner, it had been hit by cars repeatedly before, and the company had skimped on repairing it. So the guy had seen the drunk driver coming, had tried to get out of the phone box, but the door had jammed due to the faulty repair work. The politicians and mainstream media omitted all of this context. The company had lost the lawsuit not because a drunk driver hit someone, but because they knew the phone box was in a dangerous location and they did sloppy repair work to keep it safe.
If a jury is awarding $2 million in damages for a "silly" claim then you can bet there's another side to that story. Silly claims will get payouts on the smaller end, if they get a payout at all. If the judge or jury is making a company payout on the higher side you can bet that they company dun fucked up, and doesn't deserve a free "out" from being sued.