Independent guides to what claims are worth.

Why this site exists.

The people who most need straight answers about claim value get the worst version of the internet. They have just been injured. They are searching, often on a phone, in pain or under stress, for some sense of what their case might be worth before they meet anyone who would charge them money to talk about it. What returns is a layer of solicitor and attorney advertising built to capture leads, a layer of online calculators that guess at numbers without showing their working, and a forum layer where strangers contradict each other.

Practitioners themselves do not work like that. They work from published quantum tables and reported decisions. In England and Wales they reach for the Judicial College Guidelines. In Ireland they reach for the Personal Injuries Guidelines. In Canada they apply the Andrews trilogy cap, inflation-adjusted, against provincial precedent. In Australia they read the relevant state Civil Liability Act and the CTP impairment scale. In the United States they read state tort law, the relevant statutory cap, and the local jury verdict reporter.

These documents exist. They are public. They are written in dense legal prose that excludes most readers. Our job is to translate that body of authority into plain English without losing the citation, so the person at the other end of a recent accident can understand the same framework their lawyer will use the next morning.

This site is the result. It is editorial, not transactional. It does not run a calculator on this domain (our sister property, FairSettlement, runs a calculator for United States cases). It does not refer leads to firms for money. It does not pretend that any band on this site is a quote for any specific case. What it offers is the same ground truth a careful practitioner would consult, written for the person actually living through the case.

Who this is for.

The primary reader is someone who has been injured, in a road traffic collision, at work, on premises owned by someone else, through medical care, or in any other way that may give rise to a personal injury claim, and who wants to understand the valuation framework before they commit to representation. The reader is not a specialist. They want plain language. They want a real number range, not a marketing range. They want the citation so they can verify it.

Secondary readers include: paralegals and trainee solicitors looking for a comparative summary across jurisdictions, claims handlers who want a sanity check against their own training, journalists writing about the personal injury system, and students studying tort law. We write at a level that respects all of those readers, clear enough for the lay reader, precise enough that the specialist can verify each citation against the source.

We do not write for the search engine. We write for the reader. Pages that read well to a person tend to rank well in search and tend to be cited cleanly by AI answer engines, but that is a downstream effect of writing the editorial honestly, not the goal of any page.

What we cover.

Fifteen jurisdictions: the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The first five are mature common-law systems with substantial published authority on damages, and each has a long-running editorial market in legal writing, which means the source documents we work from are themselves readable, current, and treated as canonical by practitioners.

The United States.Coverage spans all fifty states plus the District of Columbia. Each state maintains its own tort law, statute of limitations, comparative-fault rule (pure comparative, modified-50%, modified-51%, or contributory), and statutory caps on non-economic and punitive damages. State pages name the rule that applies in that state and the case or statute that establishes it. Federal overlays (the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the Jones Act) are noted where they bear on a fact pattern.

The United Kingdom. General damages in England and Wales are assessed with the Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases, currently in their 18th edition (April 2026). For road traffic whiplash, the tariff set by the Civil Liability Act 2018 and the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 applies instead, and our tariff figures link to the regulations. The guides for each UK nation quote the brackets judges applied in reported decisions.

Ireland. Bands are taken from the Personal Injuries Guidelines published by the Judicial Council, which replaced the prior Book of Quantum, and link to them. The Ireland guides list High Court decisions that applied the Guidelines.

Canada. The non-pecuniary damages cap established in the 1978 Supreme Court trilogy (Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., Thornton v Prince George School District No. 57, and Arnold v Teno) is adjusted for inflation by the courts (about C$470,000 in a 2025 British Columbia judgment) and caps non-pecuniary awards. Province-by-province deductibles (Ontario being the most significant), Quebec's civil-code framework, and the relevant provincial insurance scheme (SABS in Ontario, ICBC in British Columbia) are noted on the relevant page.

Australia. Each state and territory has its own Civil Liability Act and Compulsory Third Party (CTP) insurance scheme. Coverage names each scheme, for example, the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 in New South Wales, the Transport Accident Commission framework in Victoria, the Motor Accident Insurance Commission framework in Queensland, and analogues in the other states and the two territories.

How we work editorially.

Every page starts with the sources: the statute, the court decision, the official guideline. The figures are gathered first and the page is written around them. Each cited authority is checked against the source before publication, and any phrasing that drifts from our writing guidelines is cut. Settlement ranges that no official table sets are labelled as MyClaimWorth estimates. MyClaimWorth Editorial and the founder and editor, Abd Shanti, are responsible for what is published, and for correcting any error.

The last-updated stamp at the top of every page reflects the most recent substantive review of that page, not a perfunctory bump. We do not increment the date to game search engines. If you see a stale date on a page that should have been updated for a guideline edition, write to us and we will update both the page and the stamp.

We follow the rule that drafts should be edited until the text reads as if the writer cared about the reader. Concrete and measured beats clever and broad. Where a sentence does not earn its place, it is cut. Where a number is uncertain, it is given as a range, with the source named or the range labelled as an estimate. Where the law has changed recently, the date of the change is on the page.

Our writing standards are documented at /editorial-standards and include a published list of phrases and patterns that do not ship in our copy.

What we don't do.

We don't give legal advice. Nothing on the site is, or should be relied on as, legal advice. The law is fact-sensitive. A page that explains how the modified-comparative-fault rule operates in Texas does not tell you what your case is worth in Texas, because the answer depends on facts the page cannot see, the medical evidence, the police report, the witness statements, the insurance limits, and a dozen other variables. For representation, consult a solicitor or attorney qualified in your jurisdiction.

We don't represent clients. MyClaimWorth is not a law firm. We do not take cases, sign retainer agreements, or accept fees from claimants. There is no attorney-client or solicitor-client relationship between the publication and any reader.

We don't rate or recommend specific lawyers.Editorial copy will not endorse a specific firm, name a specific attorney as “the best” in any market, or link to firms in a way that can be confused with editorial endorsement. Sponsored attorney directories, when they exist, will be clearly labelled, segregated from editorial bands, and unable to influence the figures shown on a page.

We don't republish copyrighted text verbatim.The Judicial College Guidelines, the Tabelle Milanesi, the Personal Injuries Guidelines and similar authorities are copyright works. We summarise them, attribute them, and link to the official source. We do not reproduce them.

We don't cherry-pick figures. Where a guideline band is wide, we say so. Where two authorities disagree, we name both. Where a recent reform has restructured an area (for example, the Whiplash Reform in England and Wales, or the recasting of the Personal Injuries Guidelines in Ireland), we say what changed and when, and we use the current authority, not whichever authority happens to give the largest number.

We don't pass off estimates as sourced figures.A band in our tables either names its source or is labelled as a MyClaimWorth estimate. If you find one that does neither, that is a bug. Email us and we will fix it.

Editorial standards.

We publish a full editorial standards document at /editorial-standards. The short version is on this page so you can see what governs every word here.

We do not invent quotes, fake citations, or fabricate case names. We do not publish marketing language disguised as editorial. We do not use stock phrases, because they are filler and they are recognisable as filler.

We do not write headlines that promise specific outcomes. We do not publish “maximum payout” or “guaranteed compensation” copy. We do not stack keywords. We use real tables for tabular data because answer engines extract them reliably and image-tables poorly. We use real numbered lists because answer engines reproduce them. None of those choices are about gaming search; they are about being readable to both humans and the systems that index for them.

Sources and citation.

The list of sources we routinely cite, with explanatory notes on each and the date of last consultation, sits at /sources. The methodology, including how estimates are made, sits at /methodology.

On each page we cite per claim, not per page footer. Citations are formatted plainly so that readers can reach the source with one click.

Funding and independence.

Editorial pages are independent of any commercial relationship. The publication is funded by display advertising served by Google AdSense. Google places those ads automatically; we do not choose the advertisers, and no advertiser sees or approves a page before it is published. Our privacy policy explains the advertising cookies and how to turn personalised ads off. We may later add an opt-in newsletter and clearly labelled sponsorship slots on country pages. Sponsorship inventory would be sold by us, not by an advertising network, so we would know who buys it. Sponsorship copy would be kept apart from editorial copy and labelled “Sponsored” or “Featured Attorney” with the meaning of the label disclosed on every page that contains one.

Sponsors do not see editorial copy before publication. Sponsors cannot move bands. Sponsors cannot add or remove FAQs. Sponsors cannot alter the cited sources. The only thing a sponsor buys is placement of a clearly labelled card linking to their firm, in the relevant geographic market, for a defined period. If a sponsor asks for any of the things the previous sentences exclude, we decline.

We do not accept paid links inside editorial copy. We do not accept guest posts that read as marketing. We do not accept hidden product placement. If a relationship cannot survive being published as a relationship, we don't enter it.

Corrections policy.

We make mistakes. The system here is to make corrections quickly, transparently, and with a record.

If you spot something wrong on the site, a band that looks off, a citation that has gone stale because a guideline edition has been replaced, a case name that looks fictional, anything, write to [email protected] with the page URL and the issue. We aim to reply within 24 hours and to update affected pages within five business days.

Our sister site.

MyClaimWorth has a sister property, FairSettlement, which runs a settlement calculator focused on United States cases. The two sites cover the same jurisdictions in the United States but serve different search intents: FairSettlement is the calculator (you give it your case details and it returns a personalised range), while MyClaimWorth is the editorial publication (it explains how the system works and where each band comes from, without quoting your case). The two sites link to each other rather than compete, and a reader is best served by using both.

Frequently asked, plain-English.

• Is MyClaimWorth a law firm?

  No. MyClaimWorth is an editorial publication. We do not represent clients, do not take cases, do not refer cases for fees, and do not have an attorney-client or solicitor-client relationship with anyone reading the site. We publish guides to what personal injury claims are worth, anchored to published authority documents in each jurisdiction we cover.

• Where do your settlement figures come from?

  Statutory caps, deadlines and fault rules come from the statute or the court decision that applied it, and the state and country guides list reported decisions with links to the court record. The UK whiplash figures come from the statutory tariff, and the Irish figures from the Personal Injuries Guidelines published by the Judicial Council. Where no official table sets a settlement range, which is the case for the United States as a whole and for most other countries, the band is a MyClaimWorth estimate and is labelled that way. The methodology page explains each country.

• Do you give legal advice?

  No. Nothing on the site is, or should be relied on as, legal advice. Every claim turns on its own facts, the medical paper trail, and the way the relevant guideline band is read in your jurisdiction. For representation, consult a solicitor or attorney qualified in your country. Our content is educational; it describes the system, not your case.

• How is MyClaimWorth funded?

  The site is funded by display advertising served by Google AdSense, which keeps every page free to read. We do not accept paid placements that change editorial bands, do not let advertisers approve copy before publication, and do not list sponsored attorneys inside editorial content. The funding section of this page describes the revenue model in detail.

• Who writes the articles?

  Pages are researched and written by MyClaimWorth Editorial, working from primary sources: statutes, court decisions and official guidelines. Every page names its reviewer, Abd Shanti, the founder and editor. Editorial standards are documented at /editorial-standards. We do not invent quotes, fake citations, or fabricate case names.

• How do I report an error?

  Email [email protected] with the page URL and the specific figure or claim you believe is incorrect. We aim to reply within 24 hours and to update affected pages within five business days.

• Can I cite MyClaimWorth in my own writing?

  Yes. We welcome citation. Please attribute MyClaimWorth by name and link to the specific page used, treat figures as illustrative bands rather than quotes for any specific case, and carry forward the legal-advice disclaimer.

• Why not cover every country?

  Personal-injury concepts (negligence, comparative fault, non-economic damages) translate cleanly only across mature common-law systems with published quantum guidelines or comparable statutes. We started with the five English-speaking jurisdictions where the editorial work transfers.

Contact.

Editorial corrections, source suggestions, partnership enquiries, and press requests all go to [email protected]. We aim to reply within 24 hours. The full contact form, with topic-specific routing, is at /contact.