In deposition, plaintiff counsel rarely tries to disprove your evidence head-on. It's easier to show the jury that two pieces of it don't quite agree. The dashcam clip shows the moment of impact. The telematics log shows speed, braking, following distance. Submitted as separate artifacts, each one can be examined in isolation, its timing questioned, and the pair framed as an incomplete account of what happened.
That gap is where settlement exposure grows. Corporate nuclear verdicts rose 52% in 2024, and in commercial auto the long-run trend is sharper still. The mechanism is rarely one damning fact. It's the cumulative doubt a skilled attorney builds when the defense record arrives in pieces that have to be stitched together in front of the jury.
What a claims leader is actually protecting against
The job is producing one account of the incident that holds up under adversarial scrutiny. Every seam between data sources is a place the other side can work. A defense built on a video file in one system and a CSV export from the telematics provider in another hands them those seams.
The data that exonerates a driver only does its job if it is captured intact and presentable as a coherent record. Fragmented data, even when it's all technically there, does not hold up the way a single reconciled record does.
One record, reconciled at the moment of impact
Xtract ingests dashcam footage and telematics into a single structured incident record: video aligned to speed, braking, steering and GPS, with severity classification and causation indicators attached. The sensor data is captured at the moment of impact, before anyone makes a call, so the record reflects what the vehicle measured rather than what anyone later recalled.
The practical difference is what the other side has to argue against. Instead of questioning whether the video and the log describe the same three seconds, they're facing a record where that reconciliation is already done and documented. The "selective fragments" line gets harder to run when there are no loose fragments to point at.
Where this changes the economics
The reason to reconcile evidence at the moment of impact is not that it saves time later. It is that it takes away the one thing plaintiff counsel relies on, which is room to argue that your own record contradicts itself. A claim that cannot be split does not drift toward a settlement that lands in their favor.
Talk to us about bringing your evidence into one record.
