The Information Asymmetry in Plaintiff-Side Insurance Litigation

You are in a mediation. Across the table, defense counsel is working from a document you will never see in discovery. It shows how this carrier has resolved claims like yours — in this jurisdiction, over years. You have the claim file, the policy, and your expert's report. That gap has nothing to do with how well you prepared.

A structural imbalance, not a preparation gap

No amount of prep closes this gap, because it is built into the litigation itself. Carriers have held portfolio-level claims data — the aggregate picture of every claim they handle — for decades. They use it to set reserves and settlement authority long before mediation. The data that could give the plaintiff side the same view has always sat in the public record. Nobody organized it. Until now.

What carriers have

A large carrier's systems sort every claim by type, jurisdiction, coverage line, and how it resolved. Actuaries model that data. Litigation managers use it to set authority by category and venue. None of this is improper. It is what operating at scale produces. The asymmetry is not bad faith — it is scale.

What plaintiff attorneys have had

The claim file. The policy. The expert report. And the pattern sense built over years of practice. That experience wins cases, but it is slow to build and limited to one lawyer's caseload. It cannot show you how hundreds of similar claims resolved in other venues before you filed. The file gives you the facts. It does not give you the market context defense already holds.

Why the gap has persisted

The data has been in plain view all along — regulatory filings, complaint records, dockets, licensing records. It never reached the plaintiff bar because nobody aggregated it, normalized it across states, and built it for our side. Defense firms never had to. Their clients carried it internally.

What aggregate market intelligence changes

Aggregate intelligence does not predict how your case comes out. It shows where your case sits against the historical pattern: how carriers of this type have handled this kind of claim, in this jurisdiction, over time. That context sharpens how you value the case, set the demand, and run the mediation.

DAIS Analytics assembles that record — aggregate, anonymized, drawn from public and regulatory sources across more than a dozen states — into carrier intelligence profiles built for plaintiff attorneys. It shows patterns, not predictions. See Litigation Intelligence.

DAIS Analytics, LLC is a data-analytics company and is not a law firm. David M. Greene, its principal, is a member of The Florida Bar. His Florida Bar membership does not create an attorney-client relationship between DAIS and any user or subscriber. Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice. DAIS services are nonlegal services as defined under Rule 4-5.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Data is delivered in aggregate, anonymized form and does not predict, guarantee, or valuate any individual claim or case.