Predict for premises liability practices.
The harder PI case. Smaller cohorts, more variability by sub-type (retail, commercial, residential), and notice/duty issues that can move the band by an order of magnitude. Predict tunes the model on every one of those dimensions.
Vargas v. Stratford Plaza Retail
Top comparable verdicts
| Case | Court | Similarity | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ortiz v. Bayside Grocers Retail · slip · documented notice | Miami-Dade · 2024 | 0.94 | $84,500 |
| Singh v. Coconut Bay Markets Retail · slip · spill | Miami-Dade · 2024 | 0.89 | $71,200 |
| Reyes v. Palmetto Fresh Retail · slip · partial notice | Broward · 2023 | 0.84 | $58,000 |
| Cohen v. Ocean Plaza LLC Retail · slip · cervical strain | Miami-Dade · 2023 | 0.81 | $92,000 |
| Thompson v. Sunrise Mart Retail · slip · ankle fracture | Miami-Dade · 2022 | 0.78 | $67,500 |
Case facts
Quick actions
Export demand letter → Run sensitivity analysis → Flag for partner review →PL is where the gut is least reliable.
An MVA practice sees enough rear-end soft-tissue cases to develop a defensible instinct. A PL practice sees a slip in a grocery aisle, then a commercial landlord stair fall, then a residential pool drowning — three cohorts that share almost nothing. The default instinct is rarely calibrated to the case in front of you.
One cohort for every PL case
"Slip-and-falls go for $40–80K." That cohort exists, but the case in front of you — commercial premises, prior notice, lost-wages claim — sits inside a sub-distribution the gut average flattens away.
Sub-categorized comparables
Cohorts split by premise type (retail / commercial / residential), notice status, injury severity, and jurisdiction. The number is built on the slice that actually matches the case.
Notice issues hidden in the number
A PL case with documented prior notice is a different distribution from one without — sometimes 2–3x. The single-number gut estimate hides which side of that line the case is on.
Notice flagged in the band
Prior-notice / no-notice is a top-three feature in the PL model. The band reflects which side of the duty line the case sits on — and tells you when the answer depends on discovery you haven't done yet.
Trained on premises liability specifically — and honest about the harder cases.
Premises cases from the 2018–2025 verdict-and-settlement set, after deduplication and the 4-year rolling cut-off. Smaller than the MVA fold, in line with the underlying market.
MdAPE on cases the model never saw during training (test set 2024–2025). One point below MVA. See exactly how we test it →
Retail, commercial, residential, public sector, hospitality, parking. Each modeled separately before the cross-jurisdiction tune.
PL is where the confidence band earns its keep. When the matching cohort is thin or the notice status is ambiguous, the band widens, and that's the signal to slow down on case selection, not to ignore the model. Read the full methodology →
A wider band is still better than a wrong gut.
A PL case with 18 comparables instead of 312 gets a wider 90% confidence interval — the methodology forces honesty about uncertainty. That is the input to the case-selection decision. A $40K–$110K band tells you the case can pay if worked, and it tells you the upside isn't a guarantee.
The default tool — gut + a senior partner's recall — produces a single number with no uncertainty surface. The number feels more confident; it isn't.
How the confidence band works →Where Predict fits in a PL workflow.
Run one PL case through Predict.
The first prediction is free, no card, and runs in under a minute. The 14-day trial unlocks unlimited predictions, the demand-letter export, and the full sub-cohort behind every number. After the trial it is $499/month, single tier, cancel anytime in one click. We only bill if you keep the account. See full pricing.