The idea that similar injuries lead to broadly comparable claims outcomes across markets is becoming harder to sustain. New data suggests the opposite: where a claim is brought can matter as much as what the injury is.
The latest International Bodily Injury Index from the Lloyd’s Market Association shows that compensation for identical injuries varies significantly by jurisdiction.
For Chris Mather (pictured), senior executive, technical underwriting at the LMA, the conclusion is direct. “The key takeaway is the international bodily injury risk is fundamentally a jurisdictional risk and it requires a need for more granular country level differentiation when it comes to pricing limits and attachment points,” he said.
The index applies a consistent claimant profile across jurisdictions, allowing insurers to compare like-for-like scenarios. The result is not a single global trend.
“Identical injuries are actually attracting dramatically different compensation outcomes across the jurisdictions,” Mather said.
That divergence is not confined to cross-border comparisons. Differences within individual countries are also material, particularly in large, multi-jurisdictional markets.
“Insurers need to treat international bodily injury, personal injury, as a portfolio of local risks, not as a homogenized class,” he said.
The findings underline a long-standing structural issue. Despite the global nature of liability portfolios, comparative international data has been limited, leaving underwriting decisions heavily reliant on localised insight.
Variation becomes more pronounced at the catastrophic end of claims. Lower-value injuries are often constrained by tariff systems or established judicial norms. Severe injuries introduce wider cost components.
“These types of injury that we've been measuring, such as paralysis or brain injury,” Mather said, describing the index scenarios. “They unlock discretionary heads of loss. So we're talking about things like future care, lifetime earnings and assistive technologies.”
Medical inflation and advances in treatment are pushing those costs higher. “Things like advanced medical technologies, prosthetics, they've all improved in terms of technology, but also got much more expensive,” he said.
At the same time, longer survival rates are increasing lifetime care costs. “Survivability is a good thing, but obviously the cost of care and the complexity of that care is increasing exponentially compared to general inflationary trends,” he said.
The absence of a single global trend is not a weakness of the data, but a reflection of how the market operates. Instead of pointing to a uniform trajectory, the index highlights where risk behaves differently.
“Members can use divergence as a sort of diagnostic tool, not just as a pricing input,” Mather said.
That extends beyond underwriting into reserving and claims strategy, particularly in jurisdictions where claims development risk is structurally higher.
The index also draws attention to factors that may be underappreciated in modelling. Interest, in particular, can materially alter outcomes in certain markets.
“Underwriters also are tending to sort of anchor on the headline awards, not the time value of money,” he said.
The findings also push back against comparisons with the United States, where social inflation has driven sustained increases in liability costs.
“What we're seeing in the international market is in general the opposite,” Mather said, with most jurisdictions showing relatively modest and stable movements.
There are exceptions. Some jurisdictions show sharp movements, particularly in severe injury categories, often linked to local legal or economic changes rather than systemic trends.
What emerges is a market defined less by global escalation and more by local variation. A small number of jurisdictions, and a small number of severe claims, can disproportionately shape portfolio performance.
