Research Backing "Up To 3.5X More Compensation" Than Insurance

Summary

Multiple Insurance Research Council (IRC) studies—most notably the Paying for Auto Injuries consumer-panel survey (first published 1994, updates 1999-2004) and the follow-up Attorney Involvement in Auto Injury Claims closed-claim study (2014)—find that auto-accident claimants who retain counsel recover markedly higher gross settlements than those who negotiate alone: the headline difference is about 3.5 times larger on average. At the same time, the IRC also reports longer claim-resolution times and, after deducting medical expenses and fees, smaller net payouts in certain no-fault states. What follows is an objective, source-based synopsis drafted for a stand-alone “Research Report” page on accident-group.com. All numbers, strengths, and caveats are presented so readers (and regulators) can see precisely what the data do—and do not—show.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome; every case is unique.

View the full Insurance Research Council report on auto injury settlements

About the Insurance Research Council

The IRC is a non-profit research arm of The Institutes, funded by property-casualty insurers but operated separately from carrier claims departments. It publishes empirical studies of auto-injury trends, claim costs, and claimant behavior; its reports are frequently cited by legislatures, courts, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Purpose and Scope of the Two Core Studies

Methodology in Plain English

1. Closed-claim review: Insurers supplied redacted claim files; researchers captured paid-loss amounts, expenses, and whether an attorney signed the release.
2. Consumer panel survey: Random digit–dialed auto-injury victims answered structured questionnaires about losses, bills, insurer offers, and any legal help.
3. Controls: Analyses adjusted for injury severity, state tort vs. no-fault system, and claimant demographics.
4. Statistical output: Mean, median, and percentile payouts; standard deviations; multivariate regressions isolating attorney status as an explanatory variable.

Because raw datasets are proprietary, public commentary relies on IRC news releases and secondary digests that quote the numeric deltas.

Principal Findings Relevant to the "3.5×" Claim

According to the IRC report Paying for Auto Injuries, accident victims represented by an attorney received approximately 3.5 times more in gross settlement dollars, on average, compared to those who dealt directly with insurance companies. It's important to note this statistic specifically applies to gross settlement figures, including initial insurance offers and bodily injury (BI) or personal injury protection (PIP) payments; it does not extend to jury verdict outcomes. Additionally, represented claimants were significantly more likely to receive some form of payout (85–91%) compared to unrepresented claimants (about 51%). This discrepancy partially results from the fact that victims with more serious injuries typically both hire attorneys and are more likely to obtain payouts.

However, the IRC's subsequent 2014 study, Attorney Involvement in Auto Injury Claims, pointed out that represented claimants, particularly in no-fault states, sometimes experienced lower net compensation after deducting attorney fees and higher medical treatment costs. Additionally, represented cases often took longer to resolve, with delays varying significantly by state and type of claim.

Thus, while the studies provide strong evidence of significantly higher gross settlements when attorneys are involved, it's essential to consider the broader context, including possible increased costs and longer resolution times.

How the IRC Interprets the Data

• Value of counsel: Even after adjusting for injury severity, lawyered cases start with higher medical bills and claim-file complexity—factors insurers concede raise settlement values. That accounts for much of the 3.5× gap.
• Cost concerns: The 2014 study highlights higher MRI usage and pain-clinic treatment in represented claims, which insurers say inflate total loss costs.
• Consumer perspective: Claimants with attorneys reported higher satisfaction with final dollar amounts, even after fees.

Limitations and Potential Biases

• Insurance-funded research: Although IRC data come from insurer files, the organization is insurer-funded; critics argue that could skew how findings are framed.
• Self-selection: People hire lawyers when more money is at stake, so correlation ≠ causation.
• Vintage of data: The gross-settlement multiplier originates in 1994-2004 consumer studies; medical-cost and net-payment patterns may differ today.
• Closed-claim restrictions: The 2014 dataset covers only claims that settled; litigated jury verdicts are excluded.

Conclusion

• According to multiple Insurance Research Council studies of more than 40,000 auto-injury claims, accident victims who hired an attorney received, on average, settlements about 3.5 times larger than those who negotiated directly with insurers. Individual results vary, and no attorney can guarantee a similar outcome.
• Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome; every case is unique.
• This page summarizes publicly available portions of IRC's Paying for Auto Injuries and Attorney Involvement in Auto Injury Claims reports. Figures reflect historical nationwide averages and should not be construed as a promise, prediction, or guarantee. For methodology details, refer to IRC publications available at insurance-research.org. © 2025 Westwise Group.