How to Build a Defensible Texas Injury Settlement Valuation Model

A valuation is a working model. It isn’t a prediction that a jury will return a certain number. Its job is to help the lawyer explain why an offer does or doesn’t fit the evidence, spot the proof that’s missing, and tell the client what new information could change the advice.

For the bigger picture, start with the Texas injury claim value and litigation hub or our longer guide to how Texas injury claims are valued and litigated.

Build the verdict before estimating settlement value

Start with damages that admissible evidence supports. Sort them by category. Past medical bills get their own line, and so do future care, lost earnings, impairment, pain and any other claimed loss. For each one, write down the proof and the legal limits. Past bills have proof rules of their own; here’s how to prove past medical expenses in Texas.

And never pick the settlement number first, then work backward to damages that justify it.

Then test liability. Even a good case can end at zero. The jury might reject responsibility outright. Or it might find the claimant more than 50% responsible in a case governed by Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. At 50% or less, the judgment drops by the claimant’s percentage. Chapter 33 has its own scope and exceptions, so check that it covers the claim before you put it in the numbers. We walk through it in how comparative responsibility changes a Texas injury recovery.

Put at least three trials on paper. One ends in a defense verdict. One leaves the claimant with a big share of the responsibility. In one, the liability proof holds. Each needs evidence behind it.

Then change one thing at a time. The disputed video is one. The treating physician’s causation opinion is another. So is the missing witness, and so is any proof against a third party who may be responsible.

Separate verdict value from collectible value

A judgment and collected money are different things. List the policies you know about, their limits, and who they insure. Then look for excess layers, other claimants and coverage disputes.

Don’t fill gaps in the insurance picture with hope. Unknown coverage is unknown, and so are unknown assets. If a coverage investigation might turn something up, it can have its own scenario, but write next to it what evidence would make it real.

Do the percentage math once, where the client can see it. A responsibility finding is not a policy limit.

Say a hypothetical jury awards $750,000 and finds the claimant 30% responsible. That leaves $525,000 before limits, offsets, costs or collection. It’s an illustration, not a forecast or a promise of recovery.

Use probabilities as judgments, not facts

Any percentage you put on a scenario is your judgment, not a fact, and the evidence behind it should be written right there. Zero has to be one of the possibilities. A range is fine when that’s all the record gives you, and so is a rough read of the odds. An exact figure invented to fill a spreadsheet cell isn’t.

Scenarios shouldn’t overlap, and together they should cover the outcomes you’re modeling. Probabilities need to add to 100%. Be careful with risks that are linked. A weak causation opinion can hurt the odds of winning and lower the damages range at once, but that is one problem. Counting it twice needs an explanation.

Compare the client’s likely net and future choices

The client’s net comes after fees, case expenses, liens or reimbursement claims and other known deductions, so find those first. Mark which amounts are confirmed. A gross verdict or settlement is not what the client takes home.

Count only the litigation expenses still ahead. Experts, depositions, trial prep and an appeal may all hinge on decisions nobody has made yet. Money already spent is spent. It doesn’t make the claim worth more. Then compare the likely net from a reasonable settlement with the range of net results after more expense and more delay.

It helps to keep a one-page worksheet, one row per scenario.

Each row shows the evidence and, if supportable, a probability. Then damages and responsibility. Then the expected judgment and what’s collectible. Open coverage questions go at the end, along with the added cost and time and the client’s net.

Show what could change the recommendation

Then there’s the question of what would change your mind.

A new medical opinion might. A key video might. Confirming another policy layer, clearing a lien or finding new evidence on responsibility could too.

Be candid about which assumptions are solid and which are shaky. Say how much more investigation makes sense. Then the client can choose: accept, counter, mediate, or keep heading toward trial.

This is general information about Texas law, not advice for a particular case. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case value and available recovery depend on the evidence, applicable law, insurance and other facts.