A 2026 research guide to using jury verdict data in personal injury settlement valuation, with formulas, state-law variables, and public-source citations.
This site is operated by Mustafa Bilgic, an individual based in Adiyaman, Turkiye. The operator is NOT a licensed attorney, NOT a law firm, and does NOT provide legal advice. This page is an informational legal research reference compiled from public statutes, agency guidance, and legal-education sources. Always verify current law with the official state publisher and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant state.
Address: Malazgirt No: 225, 02000 Adiyaman, Turkiye
Email: [email protected]
This page does not publish fake verdicts, invented claim averages, or testimonials. Dollar examples are labeled as hypothetical worksheets. Public sources are linked in the cited sources section.
Jury verdict research is one input in a personal injury valuation, not a price list. A verdict database can show how juries describe injuries, how damages categories are argued, and how venue affects risk. It cannot tell you what a specific insurer will pay, whether a particular witness will be believed, or whether a cap, lien, coverage limit, or comparative-fault rule will reduce the result after the verdict.
The most responsible use of verdict research is pattern recognition. Researchers compare injury mechanism, treatment course, permanency, age, occupation, liability facts, venue, defendant type, and insurance posture. A cervical fusion case with clean liability is not comparable to a soft-tissue neck case with a delayed treatment gap. A premises case with video showing a spill for thirty minutes is not comparable to a fall where nobody knows when the hazard appeared.
This page intentionally avoids publishing fabricated verdicts or unverifiable settlement averages. Paid reporters and legal publishers maintain verdict products, but public pages often repeat numbers without the pleadings, jury instructions, post-trial motions, reductions, or collection history. A clean public methodology is more valuable than a fake average.
Start with economic damages. Past medical expenses, future medical care, wage loss, reduced earning capacity, property loss, and out-of-pocket expenses are the base. Then add non-economic damages using a reasoned method. The multiplier method estimates non-economic damages as medical specials multiplied by a severity factor. The per diem method assigns a daily value to pain or disability and multiplies it by the number of affected days. NOLO and AllLaw both describe these as common negotiating frameworks, not binding law.
A basic formula is: gross trial value equals economic damages plus non-economic damages plus any recoverable statutory or punitive damages. Expected settlement value equals gross trial value multiplied by liability probability and collectability, then reduced for comparative fault, damages caps, lien exposure, defense costs, and trial delay. If a policy limit is lower than the expected verdict, the policy limit often becomes the practical ceiling unless bad-faith exposure or additional coverage exists.
Example, hypothetical only: documented medical and wage losses are $120,000. A severity multiplier of 2.5 gives $300,000 in non-economic damages, for a $420,000 gross trial value. If liability risk is 75 percent, the expected value is $315,000 before liens and coverage. If the plaintiff is 20 percent at fault, the comparative-fault adjusted figure is $252,000. If available insurance is $100,000, the practical settlement target may be the policy limit, not the larger verdict model.
A verdict from one state can mislead in another state. California uses pure comparative fault and a two-year personal injury deadline. North Carolina still applies contributory negligence in ordinary negligence cases. Texas has a two-year limitations statute and a modified comparative-fault bar. Florida changed its negligence deadline for many actions to two years. Medical-malpractice caps, wrongful-death beneficiary rules, government-claim notice periods, and evidentiary rules can all change the final value.
State caps matter most when a case has large non-economic damages. Kansas is a useful example of why current case law matters: in Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd., 442 P.3d 509 (Kan. 2019), the Kansas Supreme Court struck down a statutory cap on non-economic damages under the state constitutional right to jury trial. Florida med-mal caps were also struck down in Estate of McCall and Kalitan. A table copied from an old tort-reform article can be wrong if it ignores later constitutional decisions.
These selected jurisdictions show why verdict research must be adjusted by local law before being used in a settlement worksheet.
| State | Core deadline / rule | Verdict-research adjustment |
|---|---|---|
| California | 2-year injury/death deadline; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 335.1 | Pure comparative fault; check MICRA non-economic cap under Cal. Civ. Code section 3333.2 for medical malpractice. |
| Texas | 2-year personal injury deadline; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 16.003 | 51 percent comparative-fault bar; medical liability caps and expert rules can dominate health care cases. |
| Florida | 2-year negligence and wrongful-death periods in Fla. Stat. section 95.11 | Modified comparative fault after 2023 reform; premises and med-mal have special statutes. |
| New York | 3-year personal injury period under CPLR 214(5) | Pure comparative fault; wrongful-death damages historically focus on pecuniary injury under EPTL 5-4.3. |
| Pennsylvania | 2-year injury/death period under 42 Pa.C.S. section 5524 | Modified comparative fault; UM/UIM stacking can change collection after auto verdicts. |
| Illinois | 2-year personal injury period under 735 ILCS 5/13-202 | Modified comparative fault; med-mal caps were struck down in LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital. |
| Ohio | 2-year bodily injury period under Ohio Rev. Code section 2305.10 | Non-economic damages caps may apply under Ohio Rev. Code section 2315.18. |
| Georgia | 2-year personal injury period under O.C.G.A. section 9-3-33 | Modified comparative fault; med-mal non-economic cap invalidated in Atlanta Oculoplastic v. Nestlehutt. |
| North Carolina | 3-year negligence period under N.C. Gen. Stat. section 1-52 | Contributory negligence can bar ordinary negligence recovery; med-mal cap has separate statute. |
| New Jersey | 2-year injury/death period under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2 | Modified comparative fault; no general personal injury non-economic cap. |
| Michigan | 3-year injury period under MCL section 600.5805 | Modified comparative fault; med-mal non-economic caps are inflation adjusted under MCL section 600.1483. |
| Washington | 3-year injury period under RCW 4.16.080 | Pure comparative fault; med-mal cap struck under state constitutional law in Sofie v. Fibreboard. |
| Massachusetts | 3-year tort period under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, section 2A | Modified comparative fault; medical malpractice cap has serious-injury exceptions. |
| Arizona | 2-year injury period under A.R.S. section 12-542 | Pure comparative fault; Arizona Constitution restricts damages caps. |
| Tennessee | 1-year injury period under Tenn. Code section 28-3-104 | Modified comparative fault and statutory non-economic damages caps under Tenn. Code section 29-39-102. |
This page is designed for issue spotting. It helps a claimant, adjuster, researcher, or content reviewer ask better questions about jury verdict research for personal injury, but it does not replace jurisdiction-specific advice. The same facts can move in different directions because one state treats a deadline as a hard statute of repose, another state tolls for discovery, and another state applies a cap only after the jury verdict. A clean worksheet keeps those steps separate instead of blending them into one rough settlement number.
The safest workflow is to write the gross damages first, then apply liability probability, then apply state law limits, then apply collection constraints. If the defendant has no collectible insurance, a large theoretical verdict may not produce a large settlement. If a hospital, Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA plan, workers compensation carrier, or state victim compensation fund asserts reimbursement, the gross settlement can also be very different from the client net.
For verdict research, the practical question is not simply what a statute says. It is what proof would be admissible, how a court would instruct the jury, whether a cap or offset applies after verdict, and whether the policy language changes the result. That is why each table below is a quick-reference starting point, not a final opinion letter.
High-value legal research starts with records, not adjectives. Medical chronology, imaging, operative reports, diagnostic codes, photographs, incident reports, wage records, tax returns, benefit ledgers, policy declarations, lien notices, and expert opinions are the records that move a settlement worksheet. A severe injury with missing causation proof can value lower than a moderate injury with clean liability and excellent records.
The most common error is treating medical bills as the same thing as medical damages. In many states the recoverable medical expense evidence may be limited by amounts paid, amounts incurred, collateral-source statutes, letters of protection, or post-verdict reductions. The second common error is ignoring comparative fault. A case with $300,000 in damages and 40 percent plaintiff fault does not net the same as a case with the same damages and no plaintiff fault.
The third common error is confusing a deadline with a negotiation target. A statute of limitations is a filing deadline. It does not tell you what the claim is worth, but missing it usually destroys bargaining power. A notice deadline against a public entity can be even shorter than the lawsuit deadline.
A disciplined worksheet uses this sequence: (1) past medical expenses supported by records, (2) future medical expenses supported by treating physician or expert opinion, (3) past wage loss, (4) future earning capacity loss, (5) non-economic damages by multiplier, per diem, or comparable-case reasoning, (6) state-law caps and comparative fault, (7) insurance limits and collectability, (8) liens, subrogation, fees, costs, and tax treatment.
For non-economic damages, two common methods are the multiplier method and the per diem method. A multiplier worksheet starts with economic medical damages and applies a factor that rises with severity, duration, permanency, scarring, surgery, impairment, or credible daily-life impact. A per diem worksheet assigns a daily value to pain, disability, or loss of normal life and multiplies that rate by the expected duration. Neither method is binding on a jury, but both are common negotiation frameworks discussed by consumer legal sources such as NOLO and AllLaw.
A practical settlement range can be written as: expected settlement value equals gross trial value multiplied by liability probability, multiplied by collectability, minus expected lien and transaction friction. If a state cap applies, substitute the cap-adjusted trial value before applying settlement probability. If policy limits are lower than the adjusted trial value, the policy limit becomes a ceiling unless additional defendants, umbrella coverage, bad-faith exposure, or personal collectability exist.
Collect the accident date, injury date, date of discovery, date of death if applicable, defendant identity, insurance declarations, hospital itemized bills, health-plan payment ledgers, photographs, inspection logs, police reports, animal-control reports, alcohol-service evidence, expert reports, and all lien letters. If a government defendant, public hospital, school district, transit authority, or federal agency is involved, collect claim-presentation forms immediately because notice periods can be much shorter than ordinary lawsuit periods.
For tax and lien questions, keep the settlement agreement, complaint, demand letter, allocation schedule, closing statement, attorney fee contract, Form 1099, lien compromise letters, and proof of any prior medical-expense deduction. Those records matter because federal tax treatment often turns on what the payment was for, and lien reductions often turn on what charges were related, reasonable, and recoverable.
Do not take the average of a handful of large plaintiff verdicts and call it settlement value. Verdict reports overrepresent tried cases, and tried cases are not a random sample of all claims. Small cases often settle quietly. Defense verdicts can be omitted from marketing articles. Large verdicts may be reduced by caps, remittitur, comparative fault, settlement credits, high-low agreements, or bankruptcy and collection limits.
A better approach is to build a comparable-case matrix. Use columns for injury, treatment, permanency, venue, liability clarity, plaintiff age, lost income, medical proof, preexisting conditions, policy limits, and post-verdict reductions. Then use the comparable cases to test whether your formula is plausible. If your formula produces a value ten times higher than comparable post-reduction outcomes, the worksheet needs an explanation.
It is the review of prior verdicts, settlements when available, pleadings, jury instructions, and damages outcomes to understand how similar injury claims have been valued in a venue.
A national average is usually too blunt. Venue, state law, caps, liability facts, insurance, and medical proof matter more than a national number.
It is a negotiation shortcut, not a legal rule. It can be useful when supported by treatment duration, impairment, scarring, surgery, and daily-life evidence.
It assigns a daily value to pain, disability, or loss of normal life and multiplies that value by the affected time period. Courts vary on how it may be argued.
Tried cases are selected disputes. They often involve high risk, hard positions, disputed liability, or serious injuries. Settlements discount trial uncertainty and collection risk.
Only if state law and facts support them. Many claims have no punitive exposure, and some states cap or restrict punitive damages.
No. SettlementCalculator.xyz is operated by Mustafa Bilgic, a non-attorney individual operator. The page is educational research only and is not legal, tax, or financial advice.
No. Statutes, court rules, administrative forms, and appellate interpretations change. Verify the current text with the official state publisher and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant state.
Venue, comparative fault, damages caps, insurance limits, local jury behavior, lien rules, evidentiary rules, and filing deadlines can all change the net settlement value.
No. Formulas are only screening tools. The final number depends on proof, liability risk, collectability, coverage, medical support, venue, and negotiation timing.
No. Any dollar examples are hypothetical math examples, not real verdicts, testimonials, or predictions.
Contact a licensed attorney promptly if a deadline may be near, fault is disputed, injuries are serious, liens are asserted, government entities are involved, or a release has been offered.