An Insurance Claims Management Retrospective
April 2008
While technology has progressed in the claims
process over the past 50 years, some important aspects have been lost. Looking
back helps us see areas where training and the personal touch may well have
been more than a courtesy, but rather, integral to settling the claim.
by William Quinn Jr., CPCU, ARM, ALCM
Albert Risk Management
Consultants
As I look back over my long claims career, it's amazing to see how the process
of claims management has changed. A
comparison between the 1950s and 2000s
provides a summary of these changes. First, consider training. When I started, this is
what I experienced:
-
Eight weeks of training upon being hired, under the direction of a different
supervisor each week, covering all aspects of the claims process, from investigation
to policy interpretation.
-
Home office week-long seminars.
-
Attorneys assigned to a case would explain the issues and defense strategy.
-
Attendance at liability and workers compensation trials.
There have been so many dramatic changes in the claims process, the people
involved, and their attitudes. For instance:
-
The adjusters were all men. During World War II, women were known as
"adjusterettes," but relinquished their assignments at the end of the war.
-
A sports coat was not acceptable; everyone wore a suit, a tie, white
shirt, and was required to wear a hat, which I was directed to buy when
I received my first paycheck.
-
Postage stamps were $.03 each and it is hard to believe what a shudder
was caused when the price of a postage stamp increased from $.03 to $.04.
-
We were only permitted to appear in the office 1 day a week and were
expected to spend the rest of the week in the field.
-
Every workers compensation claim involving lost time, and any liability
claim involving bodily injury, required a personal call on the claimant
within 24 hours of assignment.
-
It was only under extraordinary circumstances that surveillance would
be hired from the outside. Every adjuster, when the need was apparent, was
expected to conduct surveillance on his own.
-
We had special units that handled the litigated workers compensation
claims in a jurisdiction where workers compensation claims were handled
before a compensation judge with little difference in the procedures of
the civil courts.
-
Claimants tended not to take a penny more than their out-of-pocket expenses
for bodily injury claims. They insisted the most that they would accept
in settlement would be reimbursement of lost wages and their doctor's bills—payment
for pain and suffering was seldom in the mix. Today, it is hard to believe
that such a situation existed, but believe me, it was true.
And, of course, the most obvious change has been in technology:
-
We dictated on wax cylinders which were sent to a central stenographic
unit for typing. This central stenographic unit would make as many as five
carbon copies of a memorandum so typists had to be extremely talented; a
mistake meant separating carbon paper from five sheets of paper to make
corrections with an eraser.
-
There were no recorded statements; they were all handwritten (commonly
2–5 pages) on lined paper using indelible pencils.
-
The use of the copy machine was severely limited and required permission
from one's supervisor before you could use it. The copies were incredibly
primitive and cost the company about $.50 per sheet.
Other Insights
During my early days, we investigated cases with an incredible dedication
to either confirming or disproving the allegations of the claimant; sometimes
I thought we carried the extent of the investigation beyond any reasonable benefit.
It was not until much later in my claims career that I recognized that during
this early period, there was very little sharing of loss by policyholders. Almost
without exception, even with very large policyholders, the coverage was written
on a guaranteed cost as opposed to retrospective rating plans, large deductibles,
or paid loss plans. Captives were unknown. Once a policyholder paid the premium,
the risk was assumed by the insurer, and the policyholder had purchased peace
of mind. As insurance plans changed dramatically with the introduction of the
aforementioned rating plans, the policyholder became an active partner for sharing
losses with the insurer.
Over time, it became more prevalent for even insurance companies to have
their claims processed by third-party administrators who engaged in extremely
competitive pricing. When comparing the claims responsibility during my early
days with the practice of having claims handled by third-party administrators,
one has to realize that third-party administrators have no risk of loss, and
their only risk is the loss of business. It has been my experience when claims
are handled by a third-party administrator, claims work either ceases or is
severely limited when a claim goes into suit and the attorney representing the
client takes over negotiations, trial preparation, and the actual conduct of
the trial itself. It needs to be noted, while the underlying cost of the third-party
administrators claim handling may be a bargain, the piling on of legal costs
substantially increases the final expense factor and has a major influence on
the final cost. When purchasing from a third-party administrator, the Latin
expression caveat emptor ("let the buyer
beware") should be a major consideration and should not be entered into without
comparing the services of several third-party administrators and measuring their
ability and performance.
Where Are We Today?
Rarely do we see personal contact on liability claims between a claims adjuster
and a claimant. The enjoyment of creating a sense of a trust with a claimant
suffers as a result of the nonpersonal contact and contributes to an increase
in litigation.
Claims offices for many insurers numbered in the hundreds during my early
years in the claims business; however, today we regularly find claims offices
that have been combined, resulting in their handling large territories involving
multiple states. This causes adjusters to depend on defense counsel to provide
information on the law, the abilities of plaintiff's counsel, the identity of
doctors who cooperate with attorneys, and the attitude taken by judges in civil
trials in a given jurisdiction. This may work in some instances, but in my mind
it will never replace the personal experience which comes from handling claims
on a local basis with exposure to the same judges, doctors, and plaintiff's
attorneys. It can never be a substitute for the personal experience of dealing
with adversaries and the knowledge one accumulates relative to their specific
skills.
Working as a consultant, I have found that it is not uncommon to have five
or six different adjusters handling the same claim. This is caused by the turnover
of adjusters and exacerbated by the consolidation of claims offices and the
unwillingness of some adjusters to be reassigned to another area. More and more
claims are being shifted to places like Arkansas, North Carolina, and Alabama
where adjusters can survive very nicely on substantially less money.
With the era of electronic claims handling, I must admit that you can handle
claims from any place, including your own home, but the quality of claim service
and the controlling of loss has to suffer. Technology also permits adjusters
to use wireless systems in the field to send notices of loss estimates and provide
information on a timely basis. Customers can track their claims in real time
and it allows claims managers to use more accurate and timely assignments for
adjusters based on up-to-date information.
Electronic files are much more efficient than paper ones. I have been impressed
by the fact that the file is always "in" as compared to my early days when policyholders
complained because every time they called the office to get information on a
specific claim they were told it was out of the file department. I spent hundreds
of hours trying to convince policyholders that, despite their frustration, the
very best thing that could happen was for their claim files not to be available.
If the file was not in the file department, it meant that someone was working
on it.
I am encouraged by technology improvements which include Web portals through
which customers can alert insurers about losses as they happen which shortens
the claims process and insures accurate information received by the insurer
or third-party administrator. Having said that, it is imperative to complete
the transaction by having adjusters respond to electronic notices of loss with
the same alacrity and competence.
Many large risk management departments now employ seasoned claims people
on their staff; those who don't should consider outsourcing this discipline
to those who are competent to perform periodic audits of their claims service
provider. Claims audits should be performed on a positive basis—not to find
fault, but to improve claims results.
*The Albert Risk Management
Consultants claims management team (Glenn
Brown, Lisa Hartman,
William Quinn, Jr., and
David A. Tweedy)
contributes articles on claims topics. You can reach William Quinn at
bquinn@albertrisk.com.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author’s employer or IRMI. This article does not purport
to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice
is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.