Motorcycle accidents tend to produce more severe injuries than car accidents at comparable speeds, since riders lack the protection of a vehicle frame — a factor that typically pushes the pain-and-suffering multiplier toward the higher end. Bias against riders from insurers and juries is also a real, well-documented factor in these claims.
This tool uses the multiplier method: (medical bills + lost wages) × a pain-and-suffering multiplier based on injury severity (1.5x for minor, 3x for moderate, 5x for severe), minus any reduction for your percentage of fault. It's the same starting-point approach insurance adjusters commonly use in negotiations — not a guaranteed outcome.
If you select a state, this tool applies that state's actual comparative/contributory negligence rule and, where researched, its noneconomic-damages cap for this claim type — see the methodology page for exactly which states and rules are currently covered. If your state's rule bars recovery at your entered fault percentage, this tool shows an explanation instead of a dollar amount — that percentage is your own estimate, not a legal finding, and several of these rules have real exceptions.
Some insurers and juries hold unconscious bias against motorcyclists, assuming riders are more reckless — good documentation and, often, legal representation help counter this.
In some states, yes — 'helmet laws' or comparative negligence rules can reduce compensation for head injuries if you weren't wearing a helmet, even where helmets aren't legally required.
Medical bills, lost wages, motorcycle and gear repair/replacement, and pain and suffering — often weighted more heavily toward pain and suffering given injury severity.