Why personal injury firms turn down cases

A personal injury firm can reject a strong claim. The decision is usually made fast, early in the first call, and it is a business decision as much as a legal one.

This is the full list of reasons firms decline cases, and what each one does and does not mean. For how the screening call itself works — who answers, what they ask, how fast they decide — start with will a lawyer take my case?.

The filing deadline has passed, or is close

Most California injury claims must be filed within two years. Medical negligence has its own deadline. Claims against a government entity are on a much shorter track: you must present a written claim within six months, and once the entity rejects it in writing, you have six months from the date that rejection is mailed to file suit. That post-rejection deadline — Government Code section 945.6 — is the shortest deadline in a California injury case and the one people miss most, because they assume the two-year rule still applies.

A firm approached with days or weeks left has almost no time to investigate, and a missed deadline usually ends the claim, so many firms will not take that risk on a case they did not build.

Sources: Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1 (two years); Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5 (medical negligence); Gov. Code, § 911.2 (six months to present the claim); Gov. Code, § 945.4 (claim required before suit); Gov. Code, § 945.6 (six months to sue after rejection).

More: statute of limitations.

Fault is disputed or shared

California uses pure comparative fault. If you were partly at fault, your recovery drops by your percentage share, but the claim is not barred. The problem for a firm is prediction: it has to estimate how a jury would divide the fault, and when that range is wide, the case is harder to plan and cost out.

Sources: Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804; CACI No. 405 (Comparative Fault of Plaintiff), Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2026 edition).

More: how firms assess whether fault is clear · comparative fault in California.

There is little or no insurance

Most claims are paid by an insurer, not by the person who caused the harm. If the at-fault party had no policy, or a small one, there may be nothing to collect even with fault admitted. Your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage can sometimes fill the gap. No coverage on any side is the most common quiet reason for a no.

Sources: Ins. Code, § 11580.2 (uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage).

More: why insurance coverage limits decide cases.

Proposition 213 caps the damages

Proposition 213, now Civil Code section 3333.4, takes non-economic damages — pain, suffering, physical impairment, disfigurement — off the table for two groups: a person convicted of DUI for the crash, and the owner of a vehicle involved in the crash that was not insured. Economic losses, such as medical costs and lost earnings, are not affected.

The bar is narrower than it sounds. It does not reach:

• a passenger in an uninsured vehicle;
• a driver who was not the owner of the uninsured vehicle — for example an employee driving an employer-owned vehicle the employer failed to insure (Montes v. Gibbens (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 982). A driver who can show financial responsibility another way, such as a personal policy covering a different car, is outside the bar on the face of the statute (Civ. Code, § 3333.4(a)(3));
• a products liability claim against a vehicle or parts manufacturer, which the bar does not apply to at all (Hodges v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 109);
• the heirs in a wrongful death claim — they are not barred by the decedent's own uninsured status (Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272).

It does apply, though, to a claim for a dangerous condition of public property against a government entity (Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268), and it is not limited to crashes on a public road — it has been applied where the uninsured owner was standing outside her own car in a parking lot (Harris v. Lammers (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1072).

Two more points a firm checks. Subdivision (b) of the same section closes the insurance route as well: no insurer may indemnify for the non-economic losses of someone the bar covers, under either a liability policy or an uninsured motorist policy. So an uninsured owner cannot recover those damages from the other driver's insurer or through their own uninsured motorist coverage. And punitive damages are not barred at all — an uninsured owner hit by a drunk driver can still pursue them (Nakamura v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 825).

Firms ask about insurance and DUI early, because if this section applies it changes what the claim can be worth.

Sources: Civ. Code, § 3333.4 (Proposition 213); Montes v. Gibbens (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 982; Hodges v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 109; Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272; Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268; Harris v. Lammers (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1072; Nakamura v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 825.

More: uninsured motorist claims · DUI accident victims.

The medical record does not connect the injury to the event

Firms and insurers look for a clean line from the incident to the injury to the treatment. A delay before the first visit, or a gap in the middle of treatment, gives the insurer an argument that something else is responsible. That argument does not defeat a claim, but it lowers what a firm expects the claim to be worth.

More: how gaps in medical treatment affect a claim.

A pre-existing condition overlaps the injury

California law lets you recover for making a prior condition worse. But it takes medical evidence to separate the new harm from the old one, and without that evidence a firm cannot tell how much of the claim is new. That uncertainty is a common reason for a pass.

Sources: CACI No. 3927 (Aggravation of Preexisting Condition or Disability).

More: pre-existing conditions and your claim.

Another lawyer had the case first

A prior lawyer who did real work on the case can hold a lien for the value of that work, paid out of any later recovery. A second firm has to account for that lien before it takes over. It is workable, but it is a cost the new firm has to price in.

Sources: Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784 (discharged contingency-fee lawyer recovers in quantum meruit, and only if the client recovers).

More: switching personal injury lawyers · what it costs to change lawyers mid-case.

The economics do not work for that firm

Firms advance the costs of a case — records, experts, filing, depositions — and are paid only if they recover.

We work on a contingency fee, meaning no attorney's fee unless we recover for you. Clients remain responsible for case costs advanced, including if there is no recovery.

A firm with high overhead needs a claim to clear a certain expected value before the case pays for itself. A leaner practice has a lower threshold. The same case can be below the line at one firm and above it at another.

More: when your case is "too small" for a big firm.

The firm has a conflict of interest

If the firm already represents someone on the other side of your case — another party, a driver's employer — it cannot represent you. A lawyer cannot bring one client's claim against another client in the same case, and that conflict cannot be waived. Most other conflicts can be waived if every affected client gives informed written consent, but firms often decline rather than ask. A lesser connection — the firm knows a witness, or has a relationship with one — is not a bar at all; it calls for written disclosure. Either way this is a rule, not a judgment about your claim, and the firm usually cannot tell you why.

Sources: Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients — subd. (d)(3) is the conflict that cannot be consented to; subd. (c)(1) is the witness-relationship disclosure); rule 1.18 (duties to a prospective client).

The firm is full

Solo and small firms cap how many active cases they carry so each one gets attention. If you call when the list is full, the answer is no, and it has nothing to do with the merits.

What a rejection means, and what it doesn't

A no from one firm is one firm's screen, on one day, run against that firm's cost model and caseload. It is not a ruling on your claim. Another firm may weigh the same facts and reach a different answer.

What a rejection does not change is the deadline. Confirm your filing date with a lawyer, then get a second opinion while there is still time to act on it.

More: a firm rejected your case — now what · getting a second opinion on your case · when your case is "too small" for a big firm.

Find the page for your situation

• car accident claims in California
• truck and commercial vehicle claims
• Uber and Lyft accident claims
• motorcycle accident claims
• pedestrian injury claims
• bicycle accident claims
• premises liability claims
• dog bite claims
• wrongful death claims

Common questions

Why would a firm turn down a strong case?

The decision is part legal and part business. A firm weighs how close the filing deadline is, whether fault is disputed, whether there is insurance to pay the claim, whether Proposition 213 limits the damages, whether the medical record ties the injury to the event, whether a prior lawyer holds a lien, its own cost model, conflicts of interest, and how full its caseload is.

Does shared fault stop my claim in California?

No. California uses pure comparative fault (Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804). Your share of the fault reduces what you can recover; it does not bar the claim.

I was in an uninsured car. Does Proposition 213 apply to me?

It depends on your role. Civil Code section 3333.4 bars the owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in the crash, and a driver convicted of DUI for the crash, from recovering non-economic damages. It does not bar a passenger, a non-owner driver such as an employee in an employer's uninsured vehicle, a products liability claim against a manufacturer, or the heirs in a wrongful death claim. It does apply to a dangerous-condition claim against a government entity. Economic losses and punitive damages are not barred at all.

How long do I have to sue a city or county?

After the entity rejects your claim in writing, Government Code section 945.6 gives you six months from the date the rejection is mailed to file suit. That is the shortest deadline in a California injury case and the one people miss most, because they assume the two-year rule still applies.