# Assess Settlement Value Range > Pre-mediation settlement valuation requires synthesizing liability exposure, damages quantification, expert opinions on both sides, comparable outcomes, insurance coverage limits, and litigation cost considerations into a defensible valuation range with an opening offer strategy. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/assess-settlement-value-range` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/assess-settlement-value-range` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/assess-settlement-value-range/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/assess-settlement-value-range --- # Skill: Assess Settlement Value Range for Product Liability Crush Injury Case — Litigation Settlement Memorandum ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat this as a pre-mediation valuation exercise, not a merits brief. - Identify the governing jurisdiction, causes of action, injury mechanism, claimed losses, insurance stack, and any settlement constraints before pricing the case. - If the file includes more than one plaintiff, defendant, policy layer, injury episode, or valuation scenario, enumerate them explicitly and assess each separately before synthesizing a range. - If only one claimant and one primary liability event are in scope, state that affirmatively and avoid blending distinct exposures into one average case. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Anchoring to a single damages figure from one expert without reconciling competing methodologies or the reasons the opinions diverge. - Ignoring how liability strength changes the weight assigned to plaintiff-side damages, defense-side damages, and verdict risk. - Omitting the insurance and indemnity structure, which can cap practical settlement value and alter opening and reserve posture. - Treating comparable verdicts or settlements as directly portable without adjusting for venue, injury severity, causation disputes, time, and litigation posture. - Presenting one number instead of a bounded range with a defensible floor, target, and ceiling tied to identified risk assumptions. - Failing to connect valuation judgments to controlling legal standards for product liability, damages, admissibility, and recoverability. - Offering conclusions without a strategy for the first demand or offer, the negotiation path, and the next decision point. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Product liability theories commonly require separate analysis of design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure-to-warn, because each theory changes proof burdens and settlement leverage. - Personal-injury damages generally separate economic losses from non-economic harm; if punitive damages are legally available, assess them only under the governing substantive standard and any applicable cap. - Causation and comparative fault doctrines materially affect valuation because they can reduce both liability probability and damages recoverability. - Expert admissibility governs how much settlement weight to assign to competing damages opinions; under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, methodology weaknesses are valuation leverage. - Comparable outcomes are market evidence, not mechanical precedent; they require adjustment for venue, timing, severity, liability posture, and insurance context. - Insurance coverage analysis should include primary and excess layers, any reservation of rights, and any coverage disputes that may affect net recovery. - Settlement communications may be protected by applicable mediation confidentiality rules or agreement-based protections; reflect the governing rule without over-disclosing negotiation positions. - The memo should be framed as an advisory valuation product: a reasoned estimate, not a final adjudication. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Start with the pleadings, demand materials, and key factual chronology to isolate the injury mechanism, product condition, alleged defect theory, and claimed loss categories. - Build a liability matrix: - identify each asserted theory; - evaluate proof on defect, notice, warning adequacy, causation, and defense themes; - note any comparative-fault or misuse arguments; - translate liability strength into settlement weight. - Build a damages matrix: - separate past and future economic loss; - separate pain and suffering, disfigurement, impairment, and loss of enjoyment where supported; - consider punitive exposure only if the governing law and facts plausibly support it. - Reconcile expert opinions: - identify what each expert measured; - note the data inputs, assumptions, and methodological disputes; - explain which assumptions are more settlement-relevant and why. - Review comparable outcomes: - use verdicts and settlements as calibration points; - adjust for venue, procedural posture, case age, severity, and liability strength; - avoid using a raw headline figure without contextual adjustment. - Assess insurance and collectability: - identify available limits and layers; - note exclusions, defenses, reservations, and any likely coverage friction; - distinguish gross exposure from practical settlement ceiling. - Convert the analysis into scenario bands: - low-end outcome if liability weakens and damages proof compresses; - central range if both sides retain meaningful risk; - high-end outcome if liability and damages proof strengthen and policy limits permit. - Derive an opening offer or demand strategy that is intentionally distant from target value but still credible, and explain the concession path that should follow mediation feedback. - Tie every valuation conclusion to a stated assumption set so the reader can see what would move the range up or down. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Liability findings should drive damages weighting; weaker causation or defect proof lowers the share of the range assigned to plaintiff expert figures. - Coverage limits set a practical ceiling unless there is a documented basis for personal exposure or additional collectible assets. - Older comparable outcomes should be time-adjusted and interpreted for shifts in jury behavior, venue trends, and inflation. - Future medical or wage components should be discounted or probability-weighted where the source materials support that treatment. - The opening offer strategy should track the same liability and damages assumptions used to build the settlement range, so the negotiation posture is internally consistent. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Write a conventional legal memorandum with clear headings for issue, brief answer, liability assessment, damages assessment, expert reconciliation, comparable outcomes, insurance/collectability, recommended range, and negotiation strategy. - Present the valuation as a bounded range with a low, target, and high anchor, each linked to a specific factual or legal assumption set. - State the principal assumptions and valuation drivers up front so the recipient can see what the range depends on. - Include a separate opening offer strategy section that identifies the first move, the intended signaling effect, and the next concession checkpoint. - End with a concise Recommended Actions block that assigns next steps to the responsible lawyer or team role and ties each step to the mediation timeline. - Keep the memo defensible and operational: no narrative excess, no standalone conclusion unsupported by the cited facts and governing law, and no unsupported legal assertion without naming the controlling authority.