What Claimants Read Before They Call You
Some claimants report an accident long before they think about what their injury claim is worth. By the time the first settlement conversation happens, though, many have come across something: a settlement article, an online calculator, an attorney ad promising a larger recovery. The number a claimant brings to that conversation may have been formed before the adjuster explained anything about the file.
Claims Pages has examined how social inflation affects claims management, including the changing attitudes toward litigation and payouts behind rising claim costs. Claimant research is a narrower issue, and it doesn't necessarily push costs in either direction. It does shape negotiations, which is why adjusters benefit from knowing what claimants may have read and what those sources can and can't tell them.
Where expectations can come from
Consumer information about auto injury claims varies widely in quality and method. Some of it is careful and well sourced. Some of it is marketing. Either way, a general source can only describe claims in the aggregate. It can't evaluate a specific file.
Common sources and their limits
Source | What a claimant may take from it | What it can't establish about their claim | How an adjuster can respond |
Settlement guides and articles | A typical range and the factors that affect value | How those factors apply to their liability, treatment, limits and venue | Connect each factor to the evidence in their own file |
Online calculators | A figure based on the inputs the tool uses, sometimes a multiplier on medical bills | Whether the treatment, causation and records support those inputs | Explain which inputs the file supports and which are still unverified |
Attorney advertising | That representation brings a larger payout | The costs, timing and circumstances behind any comparison | Stay neutral on representation and focus on explaining the offer |
Verdict news | That very large awards happen | How rare those outcomes are relative to negotiated settlements | Separate trial outcomes from the settlement process most claims follow |
Friends, forums and social media | Someone else's result for a "similar" accident | The details that made that claim different | Ask what they've heard, then explain the differences |
Published ranges and how claimants use them
Consumer guides often lead with a headline figure. One consumer guide, for example, states that most car accident settlements range from $15,000 to $38,000, then breaks the figures down by injury type. It also lists the factors that affect value, including injury severity, economic losses, policy limits and shared fault.
It's worth being precise about what a figure like that is. It's a published range drawn from reported averages, and it's the number a claimant may have encountered. It isn't a benchmark for where any individual settlement should fall, and adjusters don't need to validate it or dispute it. What matters is that a claimant who has read it arrives with an anchor, and often with a fairly accurate list of the factors that drive value.
Anchors work in both directions
Some claimants expect more than their file supports. Others expect less and may be inclined to accept early before they understand what their treatment will cost. Both carry risk. High expectations can stall negotiations and push a claim toward litigation. Low expectations can lead to complaints or disputes later, even when a completed settlement generally can't simply be reopened because the claimant is disappointed.
A claimant's research can also point to something the file is missing. Questions prompted by an article may surface wage losses that were never documented, treatment the adjuster misunderstood, or a future procedure that hasn't been accounted for. When that happens, the evaluation should be reassessed rather than defended.
What fair claims rules expect
Most state unfair claims settlement practices laws draw on the NAIC Model Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, though the model itself isn't binding law, and state versions differ. Among the practices the model lists as unfair are failing to promptly provide a reasonable and accurate explanation of the basis for a denial or compromise offer, and not attempting in good faith to reach prompt, fair and equitable settlements once liability has become reasonably clear.
Those provisions concern explaining the insurer's own position. They don't create a duty to rebut every calculator a claimant has used. How they apply also depends on the state and on whether the claim is first-party or third-party.
The representation question
Attorney advertising often tells claimants that hiring a lawyer multiplies their recovery. Adjusters don't need to argue the point, and anything that looks like discouraging representation creates its own problems.
The research is more complicated than advertising suggests. A 2014 Insurance Research Council study, based on 2012 claims data, found that represented claimants received lower net payments on average. The study defined net as total payments adjusted for claimed economic expenses and applicable legal fees. It also found represented claimants waited longer for payment. The research is historical and comes from an organization supported by property-casualty insurers, and the comparison doesn't show that hiring counsel caused lower recoveries. It does show that a single multiplier from an ad leaves out a good deal.
A practical approach to the first settlement conversation
A consistent sequence helps when a claimant arrives with an outside number. First, ask where the figure came from and what it assumed, whether that was an injury type, a medical bill total or a friend's case. Then explain the evidence behind the current evaluation: liability, the treatment records reviewed and the economic losses documented. Next, name what's still outstanding, such as missing records, wage verification or a pending medical opinion. Finally, say plainly what would change the assessment, so the claimant knows what to send and why.
Document each step in the file: the source the claimant cited, what was explained, what's still outstanding and the agreed next action. That record supports an accurate evaluation, keeps the communication understandable, and gives whoever picks up the file next a clear starting point.