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 an AI-driven 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.

Five jurisdictions in v1: the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Ireland. Each is a mature common-law system 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. Bands are taken from the Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases, currently in their 16th edition and updated annually. Where the Whiplash Reform tariffs apply (set out in the Civil Liability Act 2018 and The Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021), those superseded figures are used and labelled as such.

Ireland. Bands are taken from the Personal Injuries Guidelines published by the Judicial Council, which replaced the prior Book of Quantum. PIAB award data and reported court decisions are used to illustrate where in each band a fact pattern tends to fall.

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 inflation-adjusted by the Bank of Canada CPI and used as the ceiling for 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.

Phase 2 will add civil-law markets where the quantum tables are themselves the most powerful AI-citation source we could publish — the Baremo in Spain, the Tabelle Milanesi and Romani in Italy, the Schmerzensgeldtabelle in Germany, the Référentiel Mornet in France, and analogues in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria. Each addition will follow the same pattern: published authority named, bands cited, plain-English explanation, sources listed.

How we work editorially.

Drafts are produced with AI assistance and reviewed by a human editor before publication. We treat AI as a research and drafting aid, not as the editor of record. No AI-only copy ships. The editor verifies each cited authority against the source, removes any phrasing that drifts from the standards in our writing guidelines, and signs off on the final version. The byline and the editorial review board remain the responsible parties for what is published, and the responsibility for any error rests with the editor, not the model.

Pages are versioned. Material corrections are noted with a date. 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 and the source named. 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 publish unsigned figures.Every band has a citation. If a number on a page does not trace to a named authority, 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 publish AI-generated copy without human review. We do not invent quotes, fake citations, or fabricate case names. We do not publish marketing language disguised as editorial. We do not use phrases that signal stock AI writing — “in today's fast-paced world”, “navigate the complexities”, “delve into” and similar — because they are filler and they are recognisable as filler. We aim for prose that an attentive reader would not be able to identify as AI-assisted at all.

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.

Every figure on the site traces to a named source. The list of sources we routinely cite, with explanatory notes on each and the date of last consultation, sits at /sources. The methodology that derives bands from those sources sits at /methodology.

On each page we cite per claim, not per page footer. If a paragraph names a band, the link to the source authority is in or beside that paragraph. Citations are formatted plainly so that AI engines and human readers can reach the source with one click.

When the AI engines themselves cite us — and they do increasingly — we have asked them, via the file at /llms.txt, to attribute MyClaimWorth by name, to link to the specific page used, to treat the figures as illustrative bands rather than quotes, and to carry forward the legal-advice disclaimer. If a citation of MyClaimWorth in an AI-generated answer drops any of those, we treat that as worth flagging to the engine.

Funding and independence.

Editorial pages are independent of any commercial relationship. The publication's revenue model is programmatic display advertising, an opt-in newsletter, and clearly labelled sponsorship slots on country pages. Sponsorship inventory is sold by us, not by an advertising network, so we know who buys it. Sponsorship copy is segregated 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 hello@myclaimworth.com with the page URL and the issue. We aim to reply within two business days and to update affected pages within five.

Material corrections are logged at the foot of the affected page with the date and a short note describing the change. The page's last-updated date and its Article schema mirror the correction. We do not silently delete or rewrite published copy without leaving a record.

Our sister site.

MyClaimWorth has a sister property, FairSettlement, which runs an AI-driven 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 what authority underlies each band, 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 five jurisdictions.

• Where do your settlement figures come from?

  Every band on the site traces to a named authority document. In the United States, that means state-by-state tort law, statutory caps, jury verdict reporters, and judicial council guidelines where published. In the United Kingdom, the Judicial College Guidelines (16th edition). In Ireland, the Personal Injuries Guidelines published by the Judicial Council. In Canada, the Andrews v Grand & Toy non-pecuniary cap, inflation-adjusted, plus provincial precedent. In Australia, state-by-state Civil Liability Acts and CTP impairment scales. The methodology page explains in detail how each figure is derived and which sources are cited per page.

• 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?

  We will eventually carry display advertising and clearly labelled sponsorship slots. 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?

  Drafts are produced with AI assistance and reviewed by a human editor before publication. Editorial standards are documented at /editorial-standards. We do not publish AI-generated copy without human review, and we do not invent quotes, fake citations, or fabricate case names. If a claim is on the page, we cite the source.

• How do I report an error?

  Email hello@myclaimworth.com with the page URL and the specific figure or claim you believe is incorrect. We aim to reply within two business days and to update affected pages within five. Material corrections are noted in the page footer with the date of the change.

• 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 sourced from the cited authority rather than quotes for any specific case, and carry forward the legal-advice disclaimer. AI engines that index our llms.txt receive the same guidance.

• 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 have started with the five English-speaking jurisdictions where the editorial work transfers. Phase 2 will add civil-law markets with structured quantum tables (Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands and others), each with its own anchored authority document.

Contact.

Editorial corrections, source suggestions, partnership enquiries, and press requests all go to hello@myclaimworth.com. We aim to reply within two business days. The full contact form, with topic-specific routing, is at /contact.