Holy cow, talk about being late to the party. Does anyone actually still use Colossus? Certainly a ton of companies did in the mid to late 1990s and early 2000s but I haven’t seen it for years. And as someone who did use it, it wasn’t inherently bad, it was a matter of “tuning” and interpretation. For those companies that used it as a guide, and allowed discretion by highly trained and experienced adjusters, no problem. (St. Paul, in my experience). For those that used it as a bible and had a complex system that even managers couldn’t override, it was a real problem. (Metlife Auto and Home, in my experience). But either way this thing is about 10 years late. Ten years from now they’ll put out a notice about Mitchell Medical and CPT code reviews.
but go ahead and spread his gospel…one of his yearly release of carbon into the air…where are the global warming folks when Hunter speaks?
Let’s imply all we can…no proof necessary…
Some insurers…
adjusters can…
may lowball…
if if if…may may may…could could could…can can can…
I hope when JBob goes grocery shopping, they stop him at checkout and force him to admit the most he is willing to pay for those banana’s…what if he won’t tell…perhaps waterboarding is in order…
Just doin’ his job to scare those who don’t know…
Just wondering, but did an insurer deny a bodily injury claim to Hunter’s dog or something?
Should we next expect an article on the use of ouiga boards by adjusters followed by a prediction that Bob Barker has developed software called “come on down”.
“Back in the day” when I was an adjuster for Fireman’s Fund, we were strictly forbidden from using “formulas.” We went to school at the home office to learn to evaluate the value of a claim. It didnt matter that the plaintiff attorneys were still using the 3 times the medicals, plus lost wages, plus some other number for permanent disability. We got the cases settled or went to court and got hammered by a jury of entitlement recepients and government employees, usually the only people on jury duty. I wonder who supports Mr. Hunter and his organization? Could it be the plaintiff’s bar????
I, too, am a “back in the day” guy. I even remember direct negotiations with plaintiff attorneys in their office. Now, we have to hire a mediator to do the negotiating and the negotiation is usually with the mediator. Adjusters weren’t suppose to be behind a desk but out doing face to face meetings without a laptop, software, or scripts to guide them to a settlement. Rather, they were required to use their wits, experience, and personal communication skills AND the companies (Economy Fire and Preferred Risk) valued that approach. I would be interested in just who fared better, adjusters or software developers. My guess is that inflationary adjusted average claim settlements were lower in the “good old days”.
Most claims adjustors are trained by the company on how to settle a claim. They make an offer, the other party counters and then they reach a settlement at some point. Plaintiff attorneys are good at alleging anything and everything on a BI claim including loss of consortium even on the most minor fender benders. The thing that makes my blood boil is the adjustors who roll over on a defendable claim and pay to make it go away since they don’t want to pay the defense costs. It sure kills the agents loss ratio with the company.
What a one-sided view. Colossus is merely a tool to help evaluate claims that Plaintiff attorneys have already artificially inflated. I have used it and don’t care for it personally, but it hardly low-balls claims. In fact, I found that it could actually recommend overpayment in some cases.
This so-called consumers group must be made up of personal injury lawyers — the kind who advertise on late night TV and on the sides of busses in urban areas.
Insurance companies are some of the most highly regulated businesses out there. States impose all sorts of regulations that make adjusting claims fairly more difficult, plus companies are subject to profit caps, rate mandates, “take all comers” rules, etc. Yet there are no such caps on how much plaintiff attorneys can steal from the system.
Change the system to “loser pays” and watch most of these bogus injury claims evaporate.
Over the last several years, we have seen many cases where the at fault carrier has drug their feet settling legitimate claims for BI & PD. After a while, they have to be reported to the Dept of Insurance for unfair claims practices to get them to pay or it ends up in a messy subrogation claim or lawsuit. I really don’t think the quality of help in claims is very good and independent adjustors don’t do a very good job of investigation either.
have seen both Colossus and COA used; have more experience with COA; it over evaluated some and under-evaluates others, but the reason we know that is simple: we use it as a tool for comparison, but we do not blindly follow a recommendation; we review and comment on what we agree with and disagree with, sometimes adding, sometimes subtracting.
It says allot that Allstate is the carrier that has been singled out to require sharing of the report if used.
Personally, I don’t like COA or Colossus, but I have never witnessed either tool to be used as a way to undercut a valuation at 2 different companies who use one of the applications.
Actually, the reason each tool is used it to create consistency; each tool takes in data for claims paid with similar injuries and circumstances. No tool is perfect, and I agree carriers are wasting too many dollars on tools to prevent adjusters from thinking, but there has been no misuse on my watch with either tool.
The program is only as good as the data input. Typically a carrier will research it’s own claim database to average the settlements for a particular injury. If they run a ‘low-balling’ claims operation, obviously, the suggested settlements ranges will always be low. If they run a fair operation, again – the quality of the data they input themselves affects the settlement range. Personally, I think it’s BS – and because the data is provided by the carrier – is biased beyond reasonable claims handling practices.
Where is the insurance organization’s reply? Why doesn’t the Journal at least have some editor’s note about the referenced system and it being obsolete?
“Clearance Auto Insurance” rates are very low and now I am saving a lot on my car insurance. Dont be fooled by 5 mins can save 500$
Holy cow, talk about being late to the party. Does anyone actually still use Colossus? Certainly a ton of companies did in the mid to late 1990s and early 2000s but I haven’t seen it for years. And as someone who did use it, it wasn’t inherently bad, it was a matter of “tuning” and interpretation. For those companies that used it as a guide, and allowed discretion by highly trained and experienced adjusters, no problem. (St. Paul, in my experience). For those that used it as a bible and had a complex system that even managers couldn’t override, it was a real problem. (Metlife Auto and Home, in my experience). But either way this thing is about 10 years late. Ten years from now they’ll put out a notice about Mitchell Medical and CPT code reviews.
but go ahead and spread his gospel…one of his yearly release of carbon into the air…where are the global warming folks when Hunter speaks?
Let’s imply all we can…no proof necessary…
Some insurers…
adjusters can…
may lowball…
if if if…may may may…could could could…can can can…
I hope when JBob goes grocery shopping, they stop him at checkout and force him to admit the most he is willing to pay for those banana’s…what if he won’t tell…perhaps waterboarding is in order…
Just doin’ his job to scare those who don’t know…
Just wondering, but did an insurer deny a bodily injury claim to Hunter’s dog or something?
Should we next expect an article on the use of ouiga boards by adjusters followed by a prediction that Bob Barker has developed software called “come on down”.
“Back in the day” when I was an adjuster for Fireman’s Fund, we were strictly forbidden from using “formulas.” We went to school at the home office to learn to evaluate the value of a claim. It didnt matter that the plaintiff attorneys were still using the 3 times the medicals, plus lost wages, plus some other number for permanent disability. We got the cases settled or went to court and got hammered by a jury of entitlement recepients and government employees, usually the only people on jury duty. I wonder who supports Mr. Hunter and his organization? Could it be the plaintiff’s bar????
I, too, am a “back in the day” guy. I even remember direct negotiations with plaintiff attorneys in their office. Now, we have to hire a mediator to do the negotiating and the negotiation is usually with the mediator. Adjusters weren’t suppose to be behind a desk but out doing face to face meetings without a laptop, software, or scripts to guide them to a settlement. Rather, they were required to use their wits, experience, and personal communication skills AND the companies (Economy Fire and Preferred Risk) valued that approach. I would be interested in just who fared better, adjusters or software developers. My guess is that inflationary adjusted average claim settlements were lower in the “good old days”.
Most claims adjustors are trained by the company on how to settle a claim. They make an offer, the other party counters and then they reach a settlement at some point. Plaintiff attorneys are good at alleging anything and everything on a BI claim including loss of consortium even on the most minor fender benders. The thing that makes my blood boil is the adjustors who roll over on a defendable claim and pay to make it go away since they don’t want to pay the defense costs. It sure kills the agents loss ratio with the company.
What a one-sided view. Colossus is merely a tool to help evaluate claims that Plaintiff attorneys have already artificially inflated. I have used it and don’t care for it personally, but it hardly low-balls claims. In fact, I found that it could actually recommend overpayment in some cases.
This so-called consumers group must be made up of personal injury lawyers — the kind who advertise on late night TV and on the sides of busses in urban areas.
Insurance companies are some of the most highly regulated businesses out there. States impose all sorts of regulations that make adjusting claims fairly more difficult, plus companies are subject to profit caps, rate mandates, “take all comers” rules, etc. Yet there are no such caps on how much plaintiff attorneys can steal from the system.
Change the system to “loser pays” and watch most of these bogus injury claims evaporate.
Could not agree more Scott
Over the last several years, we have seen many cases where the at fault carrier has drug their feet settling legitimate claims for BI & PD. After a while, they have to be reported to the Dept of Insurance for unfair claims practices to get them to pay or it ends up in a messy subrogation claim or lawsuit. I really don’t think the quality of help in claims is very good and independent adjustors don’t do a very good job of investigation either.
agree with point taken Scott/Scoot…
have seen both Colossus and COA used; have more experience with COA; it over evaluated some and under-evaluates others, but the reason we know that is simple: we use it as a tool for comparison, but we do not blindly follow a recommendation; we review and comment on what we agree with and disagree with, sometimes adding, sometimes subtracting.
It says allot that Allstate is the carrier that has been singled out to require sharing of the report if used.
Personally, I don’t like COA or Colossus, but I have never witnessed either tool to be used as a way to undercut a valuation at 2 different companies who use one of the applications.
Actually, the reason each tool is used it to create consistency; each tool takes in data for claims paid with similar injuries and circumstances. No tool is perfect, and I agree carriers are wasting too many dollars on tools to prevent adjusters from thinking, but there has been no misuse on my watch with either tool.
The program is only as good as the data input. Typically a carrier will research it’s own claim database to average the settlements for a particular injury. If they run a ‘low-balling’ claims operation, obviously, the suggested settlements ranges will always be low. If they run a fair operation, again – the quality of the data they input themselves affects the settlement range. Personally, I think it’s BS – and because the data is provided by the carrier – is biased beyond reasonable claims handling practices.
Where is the insurance organization’s reply? Why doesn’t the Journal at least have some editor’s note about the referenced system and it being obsolete?