It’s proven that having a physical inspection is the best method to settle a claim hands down.The issue the bean counters have is what’s in front of their face and unfortunately this thought process WILL come back to bite them in the back side.
With fuel prices as high as they are and insurance companies utilizing self insuring their own property they can show the cost of utilizing physical inspection as not cost effective. This is a recipe for disaster!
They are now reviewing estimates provided by insured’s and claimants alike (in house) and issueing payment from those estimates while making an attempt to negotiate a/m and LKQ.This is also done with no photo’s which is agianst the law in many states.Many if not all states require a physical inspection of their insured’s property and this is being phased out and replaced with in house reviewing and making an attempt to convince the lossee to utilize an affiliated repair facility.
This is not only costing the industry a fortune it is encouraging fraud in the way of covering deductibles again.
The NABA has been fighting this for years and because the insurance companies have an open check book and attorney’s at their disposal it always seems to come out dead in the water.
The resolution to this is each states insurance department mandates that all losses be physically inpsected and settled.This will never happen because it would cost the insurance department in each state a lot of money.The other part of this is although these ways of settling losses has changed the person doing the reviewing is ultimately responsible for what the outcome is.Their license is on the line not and they stand to loose more than anyone.The insurance company may be fined by the insurance department for operating in such a manner but all that is doing is upping the coffers for the insurance department.
Check with any reinspection services of any insurance company and you will see that their work peroves that it is more cost effective to utilize experienced staff rather than the method currently in place.It is almost as if they want the average payout for a claim to rise and this wouldn’t surprise me!
Sometime around the ’70s many major insurers did away with their field adjusting staffs on the principle that they were not cost-effective, chosing instead to heavily rely upon adjusting via telephone or by independent adjusters. Admittedly, I have never seen an objective study to see if this was the case, but having started as a multi-line claim adjuster nearly 50 years ago, I can anecdotedly cite many instances where an actual “look see” made all the difference as to the validity or the valuation of a claim. I firmly believe that a good, honest and objective staff field claim adjuster can save its expense many times over, and equally importantly, provide a serious competitive differential in service to its employer’s policyholders. Perhaps it is analogous to the thought of accountants getting the upper hand over underwriting by emphasizing written premium at the expense of prudent risk selection and pricing. I suppose I may be old-fashioned.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It’s proven that having a physical inspection is the best method to settle a claim hands down.The issue the bean counters have is what’s in front of their face and unfortunately this thought process WILL come back to bite them in the back side.
With fuel prices as high as they are and insurance companies utilizing self insuring their own property they can show the cost of utilizing physical inspection as not cost effective. This is a recipe for disaster!
They are now reviewing estimates provided by insured’s and claimants alike (in house) and issueing payment from those estimates while making an attempt to negotiate a/m and LKQ.This is also done with no photo’s which is agianst the law in many states.Many if not all states require a physical inspection of their insured’s property and this is being phased out and replaced with in house reviewing and making an attempt to convince the lossee to utilize an affiliated repair facility.
This is not only costing the industry a fortune it is encouraging fraud in the way of covering deductibles again.
The NABA has been fighting this for years and because the insurance companies have an open check book and attorney’s at their disposal it always seems to come out dead in the water.
The resolution to this is each states insurance department mandates that all losses be physically inpsected and settled.This will never happen because it would cost the insurance department in each state a lot of money.The other part of this is although these ways of settling losses has changed the person doing the reviewing is ultimately responsible for what the outcome is.Their license is on the line not and they stand to loose more than anyone.The insurance company may be fined by the insurance department for operating in such a manner but all that is doing is upping the coffers for the insurance department.
Check with any reinspection services of any insurance company and you will see that their work peroves that it is more cost effective to utilize experienced staff rather than the method currently in place.It is almost as if they want the average payout for a claim to rise and this wouldn’t surprise me!
Sometime around the ’70s many major insurers did away with their field adjusting staffs on the principle that they were not cost-effective, chosing instead to heavily rely upon adjusting via telephone or by independent adjusters. Admittedly, I have never seen an objective study to see if this was the case, but having started as a multi-line claim adjuster nearly 50 years ago, I can anecdotedly cite many instances where an actual “look see” made all the difference as to the validity or the valuation of a claim. I firmly believe that a good, honest and objective staff field claim adjuster can save its expense many times over, and equally importantly, provide a serious competitive differential in service to its employer’s policyholders. Perhaps it is analogous to the thought of accountants getting the upper hand over underwriting by emphasizing written premium at the expense of prudent risk selection and pricing. I suppose I may be old-fashioned.