AI tools generally work from generic inputs—age, relationship, medical expenses, and a rough category of harm. That approach fails when your case turns on details that only an attorney can evaluate, such as:
- Causation disputes in fatal crashes (speed, braking, visibility, lane control, and whether multiple vehicles contributed)
- Comparative fault arguments (where the defense may claim the deceased or a third party contributed)
- Timeline complexity (injuries that worsen after the incident, or complications that arise later)
- Insurance posture (policy limits, coverage defenses, and how quickly liability is conceded)
In other words, an AI “range” can’t account for the specific way fault is likely to be argued—nor the way Texas claims are negotiated in real life.


