Last month, Steno Senior Director of AI Products Dan Ivtsan wrote an article for Insurance Thought Leadership about the algorithmic case valuation that insurance carriers have been running for decades, and how the leap from rules-based tools to LLMs is compressing the information asymmetry that has long defined litigation leverage. His new piece in Law.com develops that argument for a practicing litigator audience, with more detail on who's building what and what the regulatory exposure looks like.

Dan’s core questions:

A plaintiff firm's AI evaluates a case at $850,000 based on recent jury trends and crowdsourced settlement data. The carrier's proprietary AI, trained on forty years of internal claims data, pegs the value at $320,000. Does a shared analytical baseline accelerate resolution by stripping away the posturing? Or does it entrench positions because each side treats their own model as objective truth?

Dan gets specific about the claims platforms and the specialized vendors assembling on the carrier side, and he maps the plaintiff bar's counter-moves in more detail. His take on nuisance value economics is worth reading carefully, including an acknowledgment that the disruption hypothesis, while plausible, doesn't yet have published empirical support behind it.

Dan also expands on the regulatory picture, which is moving faster than most litigators realize and has direct implications for how you challenge what's happening on the other side of the table.

The article closes with the question underlying all of it:

The question for litigators isn't whether AI will change how cases are valued. It already is. The question is whether you understand what's in the black box on the other side of the table—and whether you have your own.

Read the full piece on Law.com.