I am not sure if some of the calls we have been receiving here at simsol in the past several weeks have anything to do with the suit pending in Louisiana but some rather large carriers and IA firms are considering having "back up" estimating platforms or at least allowing non-staff adjusters to use one of the "approved" adjusting software platforms for cat claims and possibly daily work.   This would be similar to working their claims for one of their "approved" cat adjusting firms.  Interesting to say the least...

All the companies that have contacted us are in the "exploratory" stage but it does make one wonder if there is finally a change blowin' in the wind and adjusters might actually get to use programs they want to use (like in the old days of computer estimating) rather than being told (like an employee) what specific program to use. 

I, for one, commend all the companies exploring this option and "thinking outside the box" in the best interest of the industry, the adjusters and, in the end, the policyholder.

Comments are encouraged...

If companies are indeed looking at this, the main thing I would demand is commonality of construction terms, pricing based on county or regional locale and fianlly commonality of systems so the learning curve is slim. Some of the systems can change pricing because one city limit ends and another begins and this is in the same county. We all know that contractors converse a county and more often than not, they do not change labor or materials pricing because of the job being in one little burg vs. the big city. That alone can make a problem with getting a loss settled.

There are too many variables today in the various estimating systems that make for effective reviewing of a loss by a desk reviewer if they have to review losses based on two or three systems. As we all know, some systems have R&R as one feature and others do not allow you that feature so there is duplicate effort on some of the systems. This also confuses some desk reviewers see this as double entry for the first few estimates (yes, that has happened to me when I had to use a system that mandated separation of the actions and I was accused of double entry).

Get the systems mated up similar to motors, mitchells, adp, and the others and the idea would be a good one.

I can

imagine what some of the adjusters who use certain software have told the policy holders about the infalibility of the program they use. We all know its not the program, but the inputer.

I have heard many restoration contractors for many many years make the statement to me that the program they use is the ONLY program approved by ALL the insurance carriers. The statements were outlandish. This program has the APPROVED unit price for cleaning ever atricle in a house for light, medium and heavy smoke, or exposure to mold particles in the air etc. This program has been approved by both our National Association of Water Suckers and ALL the major insurance carriers. This is pure bunk.

I can

imagine what some of the adjusters who use certain software have told the policy holders about the infalibility of the program they use. We all know its not the program, but the inputer.

I have heard many restoration contractors for many many years make the statement to me that the program they use is the ONLY program approved by ALL the insurance carriers. The statements were outlandish. This program has the APPROVED unit price for cleaning ever atricle in a house for light, medium and heavy smoke, or exposure to mold particles in the air etc. This program has been approved by both our National Association of Water Suckers and ALL the major insurance carriers. This is pure bunk.

Ray,

Although it appears that some contractors as well as some of the larger carriers want the software settling their claims all of our clients want their ADJUSTERS to settle their claims and are doing so on a daily basis.  Software doesn's settle claims, people settle claims.

"Although it appears that some contractors as well as some of the larger carriers want the software settling their claims all of our clients want their ADJUSTERS to settle their claims and are doing so on a daily basis.  Software doesn's settle claims, people settle claims."

Very well said John! 

And the basic principles of customer service can be, and should be, applied in the process of settling those claims. People do not like to be treated like a number and are tired of being told that a computer program has decided what the value of their loss is. Obviously as adjusters we can only help them with the physical damages to property covered by the policy but we can't forget that they may have suffered other, unseen, damages and we should show some empathy while doing our job to the best of our ability.  

Mark

This is an interesting thought but I am not sure this interest is due to any lawsuit. For the past 10 years in Jan-Feb-Mar and this year has been no different we see new accounts coming on board. I think a lot of IA vendors and carriers just look at their options after the holidays so they make new decisions about technology in the process. I do not think we can count on ISO rolling over and playing dead.

  At this juncture, it seems that those firms that are thinking "outside the box" are indeed considering the fallout of the pending litigation in MS and LA.

Is it not possible that a decision is rendered in favor of the claimants? Just as it is possible that the carriers and softwear manufacturers may ultimately win.

It seems strange that John has received more than the usual amout of calls, does it not?

Each of us has a preferred system to use, and while changing horses in midstream can be frustrating, it also may be a sure way to CYA.

We each must decide how to react to the possibilities, but to be pro-active, at least to me, would be the safest way to procede.

"Caveat Emptor"................................

John, well put and spoken. We are working some blow ups already in Arkansas. Adjusters using automated systems and not using their brains. Very sad.