How Independent Collision Review Strengthens PI Claims (By Zachary Marshall)
When personal injury attorneys bring me into a case, it’s usually because something in the collision doesn’t add up — the police narrative doesn’t match the physical damage, the insurer is minimizing liability, or the injury pattern seems inconsistent with the reported cause.
That’s exactly where an independent collision review becomes a powerful tool.
My work focuses on translating impact mechanics, timing, driver behavior, and crash sequence into a clear, defensible explanation that strengthens the value and credibility of a claim.
Here’s how it helps.
1. It Verifies the Actual Cause of the Collision
Insurance companies frequently anchor their decisions on the police report alone.
But crash reports often contain assumptions, not physics.
An independent review re-creates the actual movement:
• Speeds and energy transfer
• Lane position
• Timing between driver actions
• Point of contact
• Post-impact trajectory
When attorneys have a technical causation breakdown, they gain leverage the other side can’t easily dismiss.
2. It Separates “Cause” From “Fault”
In PI cases, this distinction matters more than almost anything else.
Causation answers what physically caused the crash.
Fault answers who is legally responsible.
A driver may be speeding but still not be the cause.
A driver may be injured but still partially at fault.
A lane-change error by another vehicle can trigger the entire sequence.
Independent analysis prevents the insurer from merging these concepts unfairly.
3. It Strengthens Soft-Tissue & Low-Visibility Injury Claims
Low-speed and moderate-speed collisions often produce injuries that adjusters try to minimize.
An independent review helps attorneys show:
• How acceleration forces actually move the body
• How even low-speed impacts can generate significant neck/back trauma
• Why the visible vehicle damage doesn’t always reflect the energy transfer
• How the client’s symptoms align with the crash dynamics
This is especially important in cases where the insurer claims, “It was just a tap.”
4. It Identifies Inconsistencies in the Police or Insurance Narrative
Sometimes, the official account simply doesn’t match the physics.
Common examples include:
• Wrong lane of travel
• Incorrect impact angle
• Misread skid/scuff marks
• Assuming impairment automatically caused the crash
• Overstating or understating speed
When the mechanics contradict the narrative, the attorney gains immediate negotiation strength.
5. It Clarifies Liability in Multi-Vehicle & Rear-End Crashes
Multi-vehicle collisions, chain reactions, and rear-end cases are often misassigned.
An independent review can show:
• Which vehicle initiated the sequence
• Whether a driver’s late braking influenced the crash
• How traffic flow affected timing
• Whether a vehicle was already stopped or slowing
• Whether a secondary impact was avoidable
For rear-end cases, the review can also show whether the struck driver had any opportunity to evade — a key point in liability discussions.
6. It Creates a Technical Foundation for Settlement Negotiations
A detailed, neutral, physics-based analysis gives attorneys something objective to point to during negotiations, mediation, and litigation.
Insurers may argue against opinions —
but they cannot argue against physics.
A clear collision reconstruction:
• Strengthens liability
• Supports injury mechanism
• Helps justify higher settlement demands
• Provides expert-level backing without needing a full reconstructionist on staff
This is often enough to shift adjusters off entrenched positions.
7. It Helps Attorneys Tell a Stronger Story
A PI case is ultimately a story — what happened, why it matters, and how it affected the client.
Independent analysis gives attorneys:
• Clean, simple explanations
• Visualizable impact sequences
• A timeline of events
• Defensible technical grounding
• A way to communicate the client’s experience clearly to adjusters or jurors
It turns a “he said/she said” case into a structured, evidence-supported narrative.
Why Attorneys Use Independent Reviews in High-Stakes DUI/PI Intersection Cases
When a DUI allegation overlaps with a PI claim — especially rear-end or multi-vehicle matters — having a clean independent analysis is critical.
It clarifies:
• Whether impairment contributed
• Whether the crash sequence aligns with BAC/tox data
• Whether another driver’s actions initiated the collision
• How the crash physically unfolded regardless of allegations
This often reshapes the entire posture of the case.
The Bottom Line
An independent collision review gives attorneys something the police report and insurer won’t:
a neutral, physics-centered explanation of what actually happened.
My goal is always the same — give attorneys a defensible, strategic advantage that improves the accuracy, clarity, and value of their case.
