| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2003 : 17:16:54
|
I would like discuss a subject which got my attention on the bulletin page. The survey conducted of adjusters submitting claims with lump sums. I really don't have enough smarts to contribute much but I am all ears for learning.
It seems we can profit from this survey if taken as a subject for improving our skills.
Lets face it our product is our only thing we have to sell, I want mine to be the best. Most important I wouldn't want my work to reflect on someone else. |
Edited by - Newt on 01/02/2003 17:21:11 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 18:18:05
|
| Newt, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What post are you refering too, I just looked through the recent posts on the Bulletin Board and I can't find anything mentioning lump sums and I'm not even sure in what context that term is used. Do you mean paying an insured in one lump sum, as in not holding back depreciation or tear off? |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 01/02/2003 18:18:45 |
 |
|
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 19:51:59
|
| The link no longer works but I think I remember reading that. Whenever I pay off of a contractor's estimate I always include a comparative estimate in the file to show that the contractor's estimate was in line with company pricing. The hard part is paying for debris removal. Many times it is simply a guestimate from prior experience. Sometimes you're high, sometimes you're low and it re-opens when the debris removal bill comes in, that's why it's called an estimate. The really hard part is when tree debris removal is invloved and tree services think they've struck gold and want to charge $1200 to remove a 20 ft tall tree. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 22:33:52
|
The noted link works fine.
I urge you Newt to revise / edit the thread title to "Electronic Modification of Adjuster behavior".
What you read in that link, in a way is no different than what Exactimate can do for 'its bosses'.
This is a fairly common type of performance management audit, but relatively new to the estimating portion of the overall claims function.
However, I strongly suggest you study the contents of the link with the MS/B 'message'. This is where someone with an 'agenda' can take a 'number' and extend it and twist it with words - 17 ways to Sunday.
The 'lump sum' "translation" by MS/B is just that - putting something into another language.
This client of MS/B's, let MS/B study 23,000 of their claim files. They likely did that from an office arm chair, not the front seat of a Chevy at a loss site or the kitchen chair at the claim.
They come out with a harmless example, ".... an adjuster writes a lump sum estimate $10,500 and describes it as repair costs as per contractors estimate."
Now, since MS/B did not say otherwise, I suggest we can conclude the contractors estimate was in file, and that the file was documented why in sufficient degree for the dumb ass client to issue the check. Anything less than that, and the client needs more than MS/B to help them.
But now the "translation" starts - MS/B then says this type of lump sum occurs 8.8% of the time - they then say, ".... this TRANSLATES to ... (and here it goes) 16.1% of blah, or over $14M worth of yatta in 23,000 claims .... without detail or explanation".
So now MS/B are claim file auditors!
The twist continues, as they characterize an adjuster decision in assessing / estimating quantum as a "behavior trend".
It goes on and on - a software vendor using the 'language' of a performance management guru;
> "cient was challenged with poor data integrity"
> "... attempt to improve adjuster compliance through human based management ..."
> "... verifying the need to add electronic control ..."
People, obviously I have little regard for an estimating software outfit getting into claims auditing and human based performance management. However, when this first appeared in CADO it did not get the attention I thought it would with others seeing what was happening.
I suppose its not MS/B that is the devil, they are just making money filling a niche a client has been told they have a need for. I've told you what that niche / itch is that the carrier needs / wants in a bad way - CONTROL.
I suggest you read the link regarding modifying adjuster behavior. It is coming to a store near you soon. Remember all the chat about Exactimate and their ability to 'read' the human based performance of adjusters utilizing that software?
The recommendations put forth by MS/B to whatever client it was - is really MS/B's message to the insurance world. Those recommendations, if implemented by carriers will remove; flexibility, judgement, and the human based principals of claims adjustment from your tool box.
If your reaction is - not me - all my estimates are done properly, then you only loose your future flexibility, judgement, and human based principals of claims adjustment; because the software you will get someday will not allow you to do those things.
If your reaction is - that's the way I do it, that's how I burn and turn (or whatever the expression is) - then you better give up now and find something else to do; because you caused this; and a control will be put in place preventing you from continuing in that manner
The carriers need control, I detailed why on another topic in CADO, this is another example. If you won't do it the way you are told or expected to do it professionally and properly; they will institute the controls and take all flexibility away from everyone.
Some people have shot themselves in the foot and caused this to happen, and the rest will dance to the new fiddle because of it. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 09:11:54
|
I feel better :) and appreciate all the input. I had a different view of what was happening and it was driving me up the wall. I re-read the article and everything I had and could get a clear picure of what this was about, thank you one and all.
I did get the impression there was a commercial in the last part of the article, and what you folks brought up things got clearer. The way carriers pay off contractors is not going away, in a CAT situation. The bills are going to be higher, or you wont get the work done nor will you even get a contractor out to give an estimate. Its the same old story of supply and demand.
As far as the debris, the adjuster are the eyes that see how much debris there is, no one has the ability to figure that from a distance in the future. Debris may not come from the premisis and I can not see this claim as being factual. Size of waste products is another factor, big items fill up a dumpster quickly.
The bigger message I got out of this was the commercial in the last half of the article and the way software would give more control. The only problem is, estimating will be hard to replace in every instance, thats the problem for carriers. They are spending bucks for these studies and come up with answers that convince them the are right. A delima for them and headache for us.
I am not suggesting software is bad, in fact it takes 90% of the figuring out of the estimate for the adjuster, however there is always about ten percent that will be a judgement call, maybe more. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
LUMP SUMS
Forum Locked
