Conducting the Claims Orchestra

March 20, 2008

  • March 21, 2008 at 10:42 am
    Carrier Adjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It almost sounds like a PA with the insured’s best interest in mind. Of course, he failed to mention one of the biggest delays in moving forward with claims… the PA…

  • March 21, 2008 at 12:51 pm
    Aceadjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While the industry has progressed from “the old days”, the picture is not as bleak as painted by Mr. Greenspan. The adjuster (whether company, independent or public) has always had to control the loss. Use of expert consultants may or may not be appropriate, depending on numerous factors. To imply that ‘todays’ losses are overwhelmed by experts is misleading.
    Mr. Greenspan states “With the submission of a claim today, the insured usually receives a letter from the insurance company’s accountant, rather quickly, requesting 15 to 20 pieces of financial information to start the process. As the claim progresses, so do the requests for information. The internet allows insurance companies to view statistics until they become overwhelmed, bringing in experts from everywhere to bolster their position and cut down claims.”
    This ridiculous statement reveals your true colors. You are a Public Adjuster seeking to maximize recovery. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t blame the carrier for doing their job.
    First: If the accountants are sending ‘chain’ letters, each demanding additional information, they are in violation of Fair Claim Practices Acts in many jurisdictions. That is NOT to say that one piece of documentation may open a question, which in turn requires further documentation. My comments address only ‘chain’ letters designed to slow down the process and frustrate the insured.

    SECOND: Mr. Greenspan goes on to say that “The expert has usurped the adjuster’s role in claims handling.” If that is the case the adjuster is not “conducting” the claim but has been reduced to moving the chairs around on stage.

    THIRD: In “The adjustment process” paragraph, Mr. Greenspan brings up the “pride of authorship” issue (specious nonsense if I ever heard it) – when an expert contradicts another and neither wants to budge.” That happens ALL THE TIME. Each ‘expert’ is appointed by his respective side based (in part) on his point of view. As an independent adjuster, I am not going to retain an ‘expert’ whose primary source of employment has been the Public Adjuster, or plaintiff’s bar.
    The adjusters job is to settle the loss within the terms and conditions of the policy. No adjuster can be led by the nose by his ‘experts’. ‘Experts’ are there to advise. Any adjuster who lets them do more than that has given up being and ‘adjuster’ and has relegated themselves to being a furniture re-arranger.
    In summary, the art of adjusting has not changed since ‘the old days’. There are more assets available to the adjuster. If the adjuster allows the adjustment process to devolve into the nightmare described by Mr. Greenspan, the adjuster has failed in his duty, and should probably turn the loss over to someone who knows what he/she is doing!

  • March 21, 2008 at 1:59 am
    Calif Ex Pat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ace – you are a real pro – told it like it is ( or should be)
    I knew author’s dad – Sid – most notorious PA in So/Cal in my day and a real impediment to the adjustment process – at least until he had stalled matters long enopugh to run up the Bis Interupt claim to max out his fee



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*