“3.Encouraging the use of comparative negligence to reduce settlement payments.” That’s not manipulation. That’s good claim handling. Why should an adjuster ignore a claimant’s own negligence when negotiating a settlement? Does Mr. Hunter think claimants should be paid 100% of the pure value of their claim even when a hypothetical jury is likely to reduce any award for comparative fault or render a defense verdict outright due to the claimant’s own negligence?
Lisa, I do not disagree with good claim handling practices. The questions I have for you is the software can be “tweaked” to meet a goal. Although we want to believe all insurance managers, executives and actuaries are ethical, we know this is not true. If a department head is given a goal of “reducing average indemnity by appropriate claim handling (wink, wink)” There are too many manipulative variables built into the system reducing its fairness. The whole nature of comparative negligence is subjective. The questions I would have the adjuster do is look at the police report, if witnesses are noted, then talk to them and create a range of comparative negligence, which can be negotiated. Unrepresented injured parties who may have comparative negligence are generally not insurance savvy. Treat them like people and not a claim number, maximize technological resources and handle claims in good faith. I know adjusters are asked to do more with less resources and most are great people whom I have sympathy for as they spend too much time handling too many claims. As for your hypothetical jury statement, how many claims are litigated and actually go to a jury? Not many as it is expensive to litigate, I would say based upon personal experience less than 3%. I don’t want to pontificate, I’ve just seen too many badly handled claims, where when in the litigation process both settlement values and litigation expenses escalate. KK CPCU, CLU, ChFC
It’s not manipulation applying comparative negligence the way it is supposed to be applied legally. However, I have dealt with insurers over the past 20+ years who order adjusters to apply 10-20% on ANY claim, regardless of circumstances. I remember one involving my casualty supervisor at the time. She was waiting to make a left turn at an intersection when she was struck from behind. Clear negligence. Company adjuster told her she was 20% at fault for “being there”. Of course, she had an attorney handle it from there and was paid 100% and then some. Most of the time however, the company likely go away with it.
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.
“3.Encouraging the use of comparative negligence to reduce settlement payments.” That’s not manipulation. That’s good claim handling. Why should an adjuster ignore a claimant’s own negligence when negotiating a settlement? Does Mr. Hunter think claimants should be paid 100% of the pure value of their claim even when a hypothetical jury is likely to reduce any award for comparative fault or render a defense verdict outright due to the claimant’s own negligence?
Lisa, I do not disagree with good claim handling practices. The questions I have for you is the software can be “tweaked” to meet a goal. Although we want to believe all insurance managers, executives and actuaries are ethical, we know this is not true. If a department head is given a goal of “reducing average indemnity by appropriate claim handling (wink, wink)” There are too many manipulative variables built into the system reducing its fairness. The whole nature of comparative negligence is subjective. The questions I would have the adjuster do is look at the police report, if witnesses are noted, then talk to them and create a range of comparative negligence, which can be negotiated. Unrepresented injured parties who may have comparative negligence are generally not insurance savvy. Treat them like people and not a claim number, maximize technological resources and handle claims in good faith. I know adjusters are asked to do more with less resources and most are great people whom I have sympathy for as they spend too much time handling too many claims. As for your hypothetical jury statement, how many claims are litigated and actually go to a jury? Not many as it is expensive to litigate, I would say based upon personal experience less than 3%. I don’t want to pontificate, I’ve just seen too many badly handled claims, where when in the litigation process both settlement values and litigation expenses escalate. KK CPCU, CLU, ChFC
It’s not manipulation applying comparative negligence the way it is supposed to be applied legally. However, I have dealt with insurers over the past 20+ years who order adjusters to apply 10-20% on ANY claim, regardless of circumstances. I remember one involving my casualty supervisor at the time. She was waiting to make a left turn at an intersection when she was struck from behind. Clear negligence. Company adjuster told her she was 20% at fault for “being there”. Of course, she had an attorney handle it from there and was paid 100% and then some. Most of the time however, the company likely go away with it.