The asymmetry problem.

Picture a construction-defect negotiation. The carrier's representative sits down with a number built from years of claims data — settlement ranges, venue patterns, the builder's own history. The plaintiff's attorney sits down with experience and instinct. Both sides are prepared. Only one has the market in front of them.

One side has the data

Insurance carriers and large defense firms are among the heaviest data users in the legal market. They run actuarial models — statistical tools that estimate risk from past outcomes — trained on millions of claims. They subscribe to verdict databases and analytics services. None of this is new. Defense-side analytics has been a mature, well-funded field for decades.

The plaintiff bar works differently. Attorneys build mental models from the cases they have personally handled. Fifty defect cases in one county gives you a feel for that market. It does not give you a systematic read on every major builder in the state over the past decade.

Why the gap persists

Three reasons. First, carriers repeat. One carrier handles thousands of similar claims a year — enough volume to find real patterns. A plaintiff attorney handles far fewer, with far more variance. Second, economics. A carrier can spread the cost of analytics across its whole book of business. A plaintiff practice cannot. Third, the raw material is scattered. Permit filings, licensing records, regulatory notices, and court dockets sit across dozens of agencies. Pulling them into one picture is an engineering problem, not a research problem.

What closing the gap looks like

The goal is not to replace attorney judgment. It is to put a data layer underneath it. Before a demand, know how this builder has responded to similar claims across the whole market. Before a bad-faith claim — one alleging an insurer wrongly denied or delayed coverage — know the carrier's aggregate track record in that line and that jurisdiction. Before settlement talks, know where the market-wide benchmarks sit.

That information already exists in public records. Statutory pre-suit notices document carrier conduct at scale. Licensing and permit records document builder activity. Court dockets hold the outcomes. Plaintiff-side analytics tools are starting to emerge, but the layer that reads builder and carrier behavior out of these records is still missing. That is the gap DAIS Analytics is built to close.

What this means for plaintiff attorneys

An attorney with a data-grounded read is playing the same game with a more complete hand. Whether to push and when to settle remain judgment calls. But judgment plus market context beats instinct alone. It matters most in demands: without benchmarks, a demand set too low signals weakness, and one set too high invites pushback and delay.

The clients on the plaintiff side are homeowners with cracked slabs and families whose claims were denied, facing companies that have priced their exposure from aggregated data for decades. They deserve attorneys as prepared as the other side. Closing the gap does not require carriers to share their models. It requires assembling the public record and making it decision-ready. That is what DAIS Analytics was built to do.