Not a law firm. No legal advice, no attorney-client relationship — the published math, with its source.
LBTN

Topic guide · updated 2026-08-02

How injury settlements are valued on paper

Two published methods put a figure on an injury claim, and neither is law. This explains the multiplier and per-diem conventions, then the state rules that actually are law: your share of fault, statutory damage caps, and the deadline that ends a claim regardless of its worth.

Search for what an injury claim is worth and you will find hundreds of calculators, most of which are a form in front of a law firm's intake queue. The arithmetic underneath them is not secret and is not complicated.

What is genuinely complicated — and what those pages usually skip — is the state law layered on top. Your own share of fault can reduce a recovery, cap it, or in five jurisdictions eliminate it entirely. A statutory ceiling may limit part of an award. A filing deadline ends the claim whatever it was worth.

This explains both halves: the conventions used to price harm, and the published rules that then apply to the result.

The multiplier and per-diem conventions

The multiplier method totals economic damages — medical bills, projected treatment, lost wages — and multiplies them by a factor reflecting how serious the injury was, commonly described as between one and a half and five. The per-diem method assigns a daily amount across the recovery period instead. Neither has any statutory basis anywhere in the United States. They are conventions, repeated widely enough in published consumer-legal writing to function as reference points in a negotiation. The multiplier choice is where the output is really decided, which is why offering a bare dropdown from one and a half to five hands over the hardest judgment in the calculation with no guidance. Describing what each band actually looks like is the least a calculator can do.

Your share of fault is state law, and the differences are severe

Under a pure comparative rule, recovery is reduced by your share of fault however large it is. Someone ninety percent responsible still recovers a tenth. Modified rules add a bar, and the wording decides cases: some states cut off at fifty percent or more, others only above fifty percent. A claimant found exactly half at fault recovers in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio, and recovers nothing in Georgia. Michigan takes a third path, barring non-economic damages above the threshold while leaving medical bills and lost wages recoverable — a rule frequently mis-stated as a complete bar. And in Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia, contributory negligence still applies: any fault of your own bars recovery entirely.

Caps limit part of an award, and some of them are not real

Statutory caps usually limit non-economic damages, often only in medical malpractice. They vary in what they cover, whether they are a flat figure or a formula, and whether they escalate. Two traps recur often enough to be worth naming. A cap can be struck down and still be printed: Florida's medical malpractice cap remains on the legislature's own website with no annotation, years after the state supreme court held it unconstitutional. Anything that scrapes that page and applies what it finds tells a claimant their recovery is limited when it is not. And a cap everybody describes as limiting non-economic damages may limit total damages. Virginia's medical malpractice ceiling is on the total amount recoverable, which is a materially different thing.

The deadline outranks the arithmetic

Limitation periods for personal injury are commonly two or three years, but the period, its starting point and its exceptions all vary by state. A period may run from the date of injury or from the date it was discovered. Medical malpractice usually runs on its own clock. Claims against a government body often carry a far shorter notice requirement — the District of Columbia requires written notice within six months before suing the District. A change to a limitation period may apply only to claims arising after the change, so which version governs can depend on when you were hurt. Missing the deadline ends a claim regardless of how strong it was, which makes it the first thing to establish rather than the last.

Why the result is a range

Because the methods produce a band rather than a point. A severity band spans a multiplier range, no source publishes a precise value for non-economic harm, and a single figure would imply a precision the method does not have. Insurers also value claims using internal software weighing factors no public formula can see. A published-method estimate and an adjuster's number are different objects, and treating the first as a forecast of the second is the mistake these pages usually invite.

Tools in this topic

Every calculator and explainer in this cluster, each built on verified figures with its official source linked.

Guides

Key terms

Frequently asked questions

Published averages exist but are close to useless for an individual claim, because they mix jurisdictions with incompatible fault rules, cases with wildly different economic damages, and outcomes shaped by evidence and policy limits. An average across those is a number without a meaning. The method arithmetic at least tells you what the published conventions produce from your own figures.

Official sources for this topic

Every figure and rule referenced above is published by one of these agencies, and each of them — not this site — determines what is actually paid.

← All topics

Rule-change alerts — when a guideline, cap or statute we publish is re-verified

One email when the numbers change. Double opt-in, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.