Solutions, By function, Legal & Litigation

Read it like defense counsel

A litigation file is a deposition, an MOL, a demand letter, a settlement brochure and eight hundred pages of medical. The exposure question is in there: under what jurisdiction, against what jury history. Owl reads it all, walks the case-law, and writes the exposure and reserve memo.

Where litigation costs hide, cohort n=84K filesIndustry baseline
Demand received
100%
Baseline
Read in 14 days
38% read in full within 14 days
Industry avg
Reserve, accurate
41% within ±20% of close
Industry avg
Settled pre-suit
22% settled pre-suit
Industry avg
Owl, settled pre-suit
48% settled pre-suit
cohort study

48%

Pre-suit settlement rate

±8%

Reserve accuracy at close

38%

Less defense-counsel spend per file

02The toolkit

Three AI agents on every demand and litigated file.

OwlVision

It reads what no one has the hours to read.

3.2B
Claim documents read
OwlSignal

It watches what the file alone cannot show.

9.2M
Eligibility insights delivered
OwlAssist

It has read every page. Ask it anything.

47.6M
Examiner questions answered
OwlEnrich

It pulls the context that's not in your file.

12.4M
Claimant records enriched
03Examples by line of business

Pick a line. See how Owl reads the demand and writes the exposure memo.

Each line has its own legal pattern: BI verdict graphs, comp WCAB venues, ERISA federal court, property bad-faith. Owl indexes them all.

OwlVision
What it read
Plaintiff demand letter
14 pp
● Read, Damages stacked
Medical record + bills
312 pp
● Read, Specials calculated
Deposition transcripts
480 pp
● Read, Chronology built
Policy + tower
84 pp
● Read, Coverage walked
Structured extraction
Claim AB-2025-44218, demand $750K, special damages $48K, general damages $702K, venue Cook County IL, plaintiff counsel: 14 prior verdicts in venue, insured at fault, policy limit $250K, excess available
OwlSignal
What it cross-referenced
● high
Venue, Cook County jury graph

Cook County jury verdicts for similar soft-tissue + lumbar present P50 $180K, P90 $640K, P95 $1.2M. Demand at $750K is at P92.

● mid
Plaintiff counsel, 14 prior verdicts

Plaintiff counsel’s 14 verdicts in venue: P50 $220K, range $0 to $4.2M; settlement rate 78% pre-trial. Will likely settle.

● low
Time-limited demand, §state

Demand is 30-day time-limited per state code; bad-faith risk if not responded to within window. Calendar today.

OwlAssist
What it answered
Examiner asked
What’s the realistic exposure and the settlement authority?
Owl answered in 1.0s

Realistic exposure is $185K (P50) to $310K (P75); demand at $750K is high relative to venue norms but plaintiff counsel’s history shows willingness to settle at P50. Recommended pre-suit authority: $220K, with $310K trial-readiness reserve. Respond in writing within the 30-day window with a counter at $145K, citing venue verdicts and the soft-tissue presentation. Cohort outcome on this profile settles at $192K mean. Response letter and exposure memo attached.

Cook County jury graphPlaintiff counsel historyState demand statuteCohort outcomes n=842

How Owl plugs into the legal workflow. Inside or outside counsel: same handoff.

01OWL

Demand or suit lands

Owl reads the demand, the medical, the depositions, the policy. Builds the structured liability + damages + coverage record.

02OWL

Exposure analysis

Venue jury graph, plaintiff-counsel history, judge dispositions, cohort outcomes. P50/P75/P95 exposure with reasoning.

03OWL

Strategy memo drafted

Settle / defend / develop, with reserve recommendation, response-to-demand draft and authority memo.

04CLAIM ATTY

Claim attorney owns

Loads the file with exposure analysis, draft response and authority memo. Validates and edits.

05CLAIM ATTY

Trial, settle, MSJ

Owl drafts deposition outlines, MSJ briefs, settlement memos. Counsel runs the case.

05What changes

Numbers from carriers running Owl in legal & litigation.

MetricWithout OwlWith Owl
Pre-suit settlement rate22%48%
Reserve accuracy at close (±)±32%±8%
Defense-counsel spend / file$18,400$11,400
Time-limited-demand misses4.2%0.2%
Avg. days to coverage opinion141
Bad-faith verdicts (per 1K)4.21.1
Source: rolling 12-month average across 5 carriers running Owl in legal, n = 28K demands and litigated files.

Built for the regulatory + ethical shape of insurance defense.

ABA Model RulesTripartite-relationship duties respected; counsel always signs.
Privilege & work productTenant-isolated; protected from cross-matter exposure.
Bad-faith statutesState-by-state bad-faith timing and content compliance.
Time-limited demandsCalendared, escalated and tracked per state-specific statute.
ERISA, §502Administrative-record discipline + standard-of-review analysis.
NAIC Model #672Unfair Claims Settlement Practices, documentation.
Reg AI / NYDFSBias testing + model lineage for exposure-prediction models.
SOC 2 Type IIAnnual audit, continuous control monitoring.
07Integrations

Lives where your legal team lives.

Claims platforms

Guidewire ClaimCenter, Duck Creek, FINEOS, Origami

Legal e-billing

Tymetrix, Passport, Legal Tracker, CounselLink

Court records

PACER, state e-filing, Westlaw, Lexis

Verdicts data

VerdictSearch, Jury Verdict Research, Westlaw verdicts

Communications

Outlook, Gmail, DocuSign, iManage, NetDocs

Identity & SSO

Okta, Azure AD, PingFederate, SAML, SCIM

08Get started

Bring us your active demands. We’ll send back the exposure memos a senior defense attorney would have written.

Two-week pilot. Your stream, your tenant, your defense-counsel panel. We measure exposure accuracy, reserve accuracy at close, response-time SLA and pre-suit settlement rate against your team’s ground truth.

Book a legal briefing