What was great about it? Does this site value post count, or are you posting to satisfy your ego?
I’ll help. There are lessons to be learned by carriers from the ranked list. The goal is to improve their customer service, especially in regard to claim settlement and administration. Further, cancellations are not always properly communicated to the prior insureds so as to help them find coverage elsewhere. These studies are almost always used by industry members to identify deficiencies in customer satisfaction and retain business. And the economic value of an existing portfolio and goodwill are well known.
Knowing the common areas where most carriers are found to be non-compliant with regulatory requirements will allow other carriers to focus on those areas to ensure they’re up to snuff.
If we know (for example) MCE’s find carriers stink at sending delay letters, well, maybe your carrier should take a moment to ensure they’re sending timely delay letters so they’re not fined for the same thing other carriers don’t handle properly.
Learn from other carrier mistakes so your company doesn’t make the same mistake and doesn’t get fined.
The reason is the over burdening regulations that have grown and continue to grow. The ridiculousness of the, to keep bureaucrats employed in what amounts to welfare for the middle class. Anyone who has handled claims in CA, FL, CT, Pa, etc… knows this to be true,
These problems have existed for 40 years that I know of, and the laws and regulations have been pretty much unchanged during that time. The laws and regulations represent basic, good claim handling as I and my contemporaries were taught in 70’s when claim persons were professionally trained instead of processors. The problem is that insurers have refused to incorporate legal requirements into their DNA, especially when it would be inconvenient to corporate profit goals. I have never seen legal requirements specifically incorporated as company requirements. I have not seen insurer internal controls make sure claims people are compliant. I have never seen personnel evaluations focus on meeting legal requirements. Some might blame differences among state time frames for specific actions, but the KISS principle would establish the most demanding requirements as the company standard.
Perhaps you’ve not heard about the robust insurer compliance and quality assurance departments and their functions that have been in place for many years now.
Great article. Thank you!
What was great about it? Does this site value post count, or are you posting to satisfy your ego?
I’ll help. There are lessons to be learned by carriers from the ranked list. The goal is to improve their customer service, especially in regard to claim settlement and administration. Further, cancellations are not always properly communicated to the prior insureds so as to help them find coverage elsewhere. These studies are almost always used by industry members to identify deficiencies in customer satisfaction and retain business. And the economic value of an existing portfolio and goodwill are well known.
What’s great about it?
Knowing the common areas where most carriers are found to be non-compliant with regulatory requirements will allow other carriers to focus on those areas to ensure they’re up to snuff.
If we know (for example) MCE’s find carriers stink at sending delay letters, well, maybe your carrier should take a moment to ensure they’re sending timely delay letters so they’re not fined for the same thing other carriers don’t handle properly.
Learn from other carrier mistakes so your company doesn’t make the same mistake and doesn’t get fined.
That’s what’s great about the article.
The reason is the over burdening regulations that have grown and continue to grow. The ridiculousness of the, to keep bureaucrats employed in what amounts to welfare for the middle class. Anyone who has handled claims in CA, FL, CT, Pa, etc… knows this to be true,
“Failure to meet deadlines for acknowledging, investigating, paying or denying claims was the No. 1 “criticism” by regulators, she said.”
As someone who has filed a claim before and had to chase companies for months to get resolution, this is a FAIR regulation.
“Failure to pay the correct amount or send complaint denial notices was No. 2”
As someone who got a denial letter 3 months after filing a claim with no specific reason listed, this is a FAIR regulation.
“failure to properly process total-loss claims was No. 4.”
As someone who received a t/l offer without being provided the comparable vehicles that were used to determine the ACV, this is a FAIR regulation too.
These problems have existed for 40 years that I know of, and the laws and regulations have been pretty much unchanged during that time. The laws and regulations represent basic, good claim handling as I and my contemporaries were taught in 70’s when claim persons were professionally trained instead of processors. The problem is that insurers have refused to incorporate legal requirements into their DNA, especially when it would be inconvenient to corporate profit goals. I have never seen legal requirements specifically incorporated as company requirements. I have not seen insurer internal controls make sure claims people are compliant. I have never seen personnel evaluations focus on meeting legal requirements. Some might blame differences among state time frames for specific actions, but the KISS principle would establish the most demanding requirements as the company standard.
Perhaps you’ve not heard about the robust insurer compliance and quality assurance departments and their functions that have been in place for many years now.