CaseGlide

You’re approving millions in defense spend every quarter, but can you show which firms are actually reducing exposure? Most legal and risk teams can report total spend and list matters by venue, but they can't answer questions like these: Which cases are trending toward outsized outcomes? Which firms consistently move exposure down relative to cost? Where have negotiations stalled and no one is escalating it? If you want answers and insights quickly, take a look at CaseGlide. CaseGlide connects performance and spend across your litigation portfolio so you can see ROI, not just invoices. Closed matters become data you can use. You see outcome, cycle time, and cost together, by venue and matter type, so panel decisions are grounded in results. Open matters become visible in real time. You can spot aging cases, inconsistent valuations, and missed negotiation windows before they turn into surprises. When you need to brief senior leadership, you can get oriented on a matter in minutes instead of rereading long memo chains. CaseGlide gives you greater control over litigation exposure, not just more reporting or another system to maintain. Think about what your team could do with actual visibility into what's working and what's not. We’re running a limited number of structured trials this quarter using client portfolio data. If you want to evaluate CaseGlide, request info here: https://lnkd.in/epuUcse3

When juries conclude an incident was foreseeable and governance failed, damages escalate fast. What stands out in both situations from Wes's post (below) is the missing paper trail: prior incidents, gaps between policy and execution, delays in documentation, and fragmented accountability between owners, managers, and vendors. That’s where Litigation Intelligence plays an outsized role. A CaseGlide customer would approach this exposure with structure, not scattered updates. Closed matters feed directly into Precedent, where outcomes, cycle time, and spend-to-outcome are indexed by venue and matter type (and much more). When a new high exposure case appears, counsel assignment is informed by actual performance history in similar environments. Open matters are monitored through Docket. Leadership can see which cases are aging without meaningful negotiation movement, where valuation gaps are widening, and where patterns resemble prior high severity outcomes. That visibility creates decision points while strategy is still flexible. Chronicle and Chambers reduce the distance between activity and understanding. Executives don’t have to wait for the next memo to understand posture. They can review the authoritative timeline of a matter, ask direct questions about liability shifts or strategy changes, and see what changed in minutes. Risk signals are harder to miss when the full record is structured and searchable. And while none of that can guarantee a different verdict, all of it changes an organization’s ability to demonstrate disciplined oversight. When prior incidents are consistently captured, when negotiation cadence is visible, and when outside counsel performance is measurable, the enterprise can show a governed approach to exposure rather than a reactive one. As negligent security claims continue to be valued like catastrophic loss litigation, the standard is shifting toward whether leadership can show control before and after an incident. Litigation Intelligence makes that control measurable. If that sounds interesting, reach out to our Founder and CEO Wesley Todd, or schedule a chat with our team here: https://lnkd.in/epuUcse3

Two verdicts. Same theme. Real signal. In Miami-Dade, a jury returned a $100 million wrongful-death verdict against a condominium association, property manager, and security contractor after concluding a fatal shooting was foreseeable and basic security controls failed. In Pinellas County, a jury hit a beach bar with a $12.475 million negligent-security verdict after an assault left a patron with catastrophic injuries. Different facts. Different venues. Same takeaway. Negligent security is no longer a “slip-and-fall cousin.” It is being tried, argued, and valued like catastrophic loss litigation. What juries are responding to: • Prior incidents that create foreseeability • Gaps between written policies and what actually happened • Fragmented responsibility across owners, managers, and vendors • Silence or delay in incident documentation This is where verdicts quietly go nuclear. If you are a property owner, operator, or GC overseeing litigation risk, the question is no longer whether security exposure exists. It’s whether your organization can prove what it knew, when it knew it, and what it actually did before an incident occurred. That evidentiary gap is where eight-figure verdicts are being born.

Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation has issued its 2025 Property Claims Lifecycle Reporting data call, requiring authorized property insurers to submit closed-claim data for calendar year 2025 through IRFS, in accordance with the fields and definitions set out in the OIR notice. Submissions are currently due by March 2, 2026, per OIR’s published timeline. OIR has also issued a voluntary pre-submission readiness request, which, while optional, is widely viewed as a compliance signal ahead of Market Regulation review.

2025 Class Actions Executive Review: The class-action litigation environment in 2025 remained structurally favorable to plaintiffs, according to the Duane Morris Class Action Review 2026. Key verified takeaways: -Class certification —Plaintiffs succeeded on certification motions in roughly two-thirds of cases, on average, across major class-action categories. —Certification rates varied by subject area, but defendants did not regain structural ground in 2025. -Settlement magnitude —The 10 largest class settlements exceeded $70B in aggregate value. —Total class-action settlement dollars again surpassed $40B, marking the fourth consecutive year at or above that level. -Strategic implication —High certification success plus sustained mega-settlements continue to compress defendants’ leverage post-certification. —Plaintiffs remain incentivized to file larger, more complex cases with early certification pressure as the fulcrum. Bottom line: This is not a spike year. It is confirmation of a new equilibrium where certification is attainable and settlement gravity is extreme once certification risk materializes.

Three appellate decisions quietly reshaping expert strategy. 1️⃣ Ninth Circuit shuts down a glyphosate case at the gate. In Engilis v. Monsanto (Aug. 12, 2025), the Ninth Circuit affirmed exclusion of the plaintiff’s only specific-causation expert under Rule 702. With the expert’s differential etiology deemed unreliable, summary judgment followed. The message is blunt: in toxic torts, causation lives or dies with expert rigor. 2️⃣ No expert, no class. In Team Schierl Cos. v. Aspirus (W.D. Wis., Dec. 19, 2025), the court excluded plaintiffs’ class and damages expert, rejecting yardstick and extrapolation models. Without expert proof tying injury and damages across the class, Rule 23 failed. Class certification remains an expert battle first, merits battle second. 3️⃣ Federal Circuit draws the line between gatekeeping and jury weight. In Barry v. DePuy Synthes (Jan. 20, 2026), the Federal Circuit reversed exclusion of technically grounded expert testimony and the resulting JMOL, holding the trial court crossed from reliability screening into credibility weighing. Daubert remains strict, but close calls still belong to juries. The throughline: Expert admissibility is no longer a side issue. It is the case. Defense wins are coming earlier. Plaintiffs’ cases are being decided before juries ever hear them. And appellate courts are enforcing the distinction between excluding junk science and short-circuiting factual disputes. This is where modern litigation is being won or lost.

Sometimes I think I’m living in a simulation, or maybe just on a hidden camera TV show. Corporations and insurers spend tens of billions of dollars on litigation discovery each year. And now they’re spending billions on AI … but no, most of them are not spending it on litigation. It inspired me to invent the “Potato Principle” - focus on the 80% of your effort that can get you 20% of the results. As all of you know by now, with the right context, most off the shelf AI models can do big chunks of litigation discovery in 30 seconds. AI can replace 30 page legal memos with smart forms, or just read them and enter them into your system for you. AI can also read an entire case file, summarize it, and answer any question about it. The basic AI models have been able to do valuable things like this for a while now. CaseGlide provides a secure Litigation Intelligence layer to harness the power of AI on most of those functions. And yet, corporations and insurers work diligently to implement the most expensive versions of AI tools … on their least expensive yet most human tasks - front facing functions like marketing support and customer service. Somehow these folks have managed to overcomplicate and oversimplify at the same time - the Potato Principle. As CEO at CaseGlide, we internally implement efficient AI for many things, but we prioritize. AI has enabled us to move months faster on initiatives. We’re using AI to speed us up on important tasks. But we’d never put AI between us and our clients on our core functions like account management and support- (1) its unnecearily hard to do it well; and (2) requiring a human in the loop makes it much less valuable than many other functions. Of course, there is a group of hands-on corporate and insurance litigation leaders who get it. I’ve seen some of these thoughtful folks significantly reduce outside legal spend and drastically improve quality/speed by prioritizing AI here. The rest of the corporation and insurers should practice more of the Pareto Principle, and less of thr Potato Principle.

This is an excellent perspective. A long time ago many insurers learned what corporations are learning now: You must own the claims function or the plaintiffs bar will own you.

CaseGlide gives carriers a portfolio level view of Commercial Auto litigation. Spend and outcomes by venue, defense firm, cycle time. You can see which firms actually cut severity, which cases are drifting, and where early action changes results. All part of our Litigation Intelligence platform. #LitigationIntelligence #InsuranceDefense #CommercialAutoInsurance