More than 21 million U.S. policyholders participate in usage-based insurance (UBI) programs as of 2026, a figure that has grown at a compound annual rate exceeding 25 percent since 2018. Every one of those drivers is generating a continuous record of speed, hard-braking events, rapid acceleration, GPS coordinates, time of day, and, in many programs, smartphone distraction scores. For plaintiff counsel in auto-accident cases, that data stream is a discovery opportunity that most defense teams would prefer you overlook.
What Telematics Data Actually Captures
Carrier programs vary, but the core data set is remarkably consistent. Plug-in OBD-II dongles and smartphone apps used by Progressive Snapshot, State Farm Drive Safe & Save, Allstate Drivewise, and similar programs capture vehicle speed sampled multiple times per second, g-force readings during braking and cornering, GPS track logs, and mileage. Newer programs layer in phone-use detection, identifying when the driver was actively handling a handset. The insurer retains this data in its own systems, separate from any on-board EDR or infotainment data the vehicle stores.
The critical distinction for litigation: EDR data covers the roughly five seconds before impact. Telematics data covers the entire trip and can show that the at-fault driver was traveling 15 mph over the posted limit for the three miles before the collision, or that the driver applied the brakes hard repeatedly on the same stretch of road in conditions that should have prompted deceleration. That pre-crash behavioral record is powerful context that a police report will never contain.
Identifying Whether Telematics Data Exists
The existence of a UBI policy is not apparent from the declarations page alone. Enroll through a program like Snapshot and the insurer issues a standard auto policy; only the billing adjustment notation may hint at telematics participation. Plaintiff counsel should include a specific interrogatory in every auto case asking whether the at-fault party participates or participated in any telematics, usage-based, or pay-per-mile insurance program at the time of the collision, and whether any device, app, or service was collecting driving data. Follow that with a document request for all telematics data, driving-behavior reports, and program communications for the 90-day period including and preceding the collision date.
Third-party data collectors also hold telematics records. Insurers frequently contract with vendors such as Arity (an Allstate subsidiary), Verisk, and others that aggregate and analyze driving data for underwriting purposes. A subpoena to the carrier is necessary but may not be sufficient; a supplemental subpoena to any identified telematics vendor should follow immediately. Confirm retention schedules early: some carriers delete or aggregate raw data after 90 days, and others purge it upon policy renewal or cancellation.
The Spoliation Letter
As soon as you identify a UBI-participating defendant, send a preservation demand addressed specifically to the telematics data before you file suit. Name the carrier, any identified telematics service provider, and any connected vehicle platform. Specify GPS track logs, event-triggered data files, trip summaries, distraction scores, and all metadata. Many insurers auto-delete raw data on rolling windows unless a litigation hold is triggered. A well-timed preservation letter, documented in writing with confirmation of receipt, sets up a spoliation argument if the insurer or its vendor destroys data after notice.
Obtaining the Data Through Discovery
Once a suit is filed, production requests and a Notice to Appear/deposition notice directed at the telematics program's designated custodian of records will typically surface the data. Expect initial pushback on relevance and proportionality arguments. Counter with the same reasoning courts have applied to EDR subpoenas: pre-crash vehicle behavior is directly relevant to liability, speed, and comparative fault, and the data already exists in machine-readable form at minimal cost to produce.
Some carriers will produce summarized driving reports rather than raw data files. Insist on raw output. Summary reports are generated by proprietary algorithms that may smooth or aggregate events in ways that obscure the most probative spikes. An expert in telematics data analysis can read raw GPS and accelerometer files, but cannot reconstruct what the carrier's algorithm averaged away.
Authentication and Expert Foundation
Telematics data is a business record generated in the ordinary course of the insurer's operations. Authentication via a custodian declaration under FRE 902(11) or equivalent state analog is straightforward for the raw data itself. The interpretive layer, correlating GPS coordinates to road segments, speed readings to posted limits, and braking events to the crash timeline, requires a qualified expert. Accident reconstructionists with telematics data training are increasingly available; the more specialized certifications from organizations like the National Association of Professional Accident Reconstruction Specialists now include telematics modules.
At deposition, lock the defendant driver into their recollection of speed, lane position, and pre-crash awareness before the data is produced. When the telematics record contradicts the deposition testimony, that impeachment is far more difficult for defense counsel to rehabilitate than a general credibility attack.
The Defense Will Use It Too
Plaintiff counsel must also account for telematics data collected from their own client. If the plaintiff participates in a UBI program, the defense will subpoena it. Review the data before litigation, identify any hard-braking events or speed excursions in the seconds before impact, and prepare your client and your theory of the case accordingly. In states with pure comparative fault, adverse telematics data reduces rather than eliminates recovery. In modified comparative fault states, data showing your client was over a threshold creates additional exposure.
Smartphone distraction data is a separate but related concern. Location services, app usage logs, and carrier records can establish whether either driver was handling a phone. The same preservation and discovery playbook applies, though the legal standard for compelling cell phone records varies by jurisdiction.
Settlement Leverage
Telematics data that objectively confirms the defendant's pre-crash speed or distraction is often the single most effective tool for accelerating settlement. Unlike biomechanical expert opinions, which defense carriers have learned to counter with their own experts, a GPS track showing the defendant traveling 22 mph over the speed limit for two miles before impact is difficult to reframe. Present the data visually in your demand package, mapped against the posted speed limit and the collision location. Most adjusters evaluating UBI data alongside medical records will move to settlement faster than they would on a contested-speed narrative alone. For more on leveraging technical evidence in auto cases, see recent case law developments shaping admissibility standards across jurisdictions.
Practical Takeaways
- Include a UBI/telematics interrogatory in every auto-accident case as a matter of routine.
- Send a preservation letter to the carrier and any identified telematics vendor immediately upon learning of program participation.
- Subpoena raw data files, not summary reports, and retain a qualified telematics expert for interpretation.
- Depose the defendant on speed and pre-crash awareness before producing the telematics record.
- Audit your own client's telematics data before the defense does.
As UBI enrollment continues to grow, telematics discovery will become a standard component of auto-accident practice rather than a specialty tactic. Counsel who build the workflow now will hold a structural advantage in liability disputes.