“THE CLAIMS HANDLER IS REQUIRED TO FILL OUT A REPORT CARD THAT IS MADE UP OF A QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE OUTSIDE EXPERT.”


Due to the economic circumstances the number of files the claims handlers are dealing with each day has increased, so the time available per settlement is less. This means that they end up rubber-stamping claims which can result in less than the best settlement outcomes. Educating staff as to what tools are available to help them manage their time better therefore becomes an important part of strengthening their capabilities. And that is where we come in. Litigation or vendor management is really the space in which we sit, enabling your people to be more empowered in the work that they do. We help them to make the most effective use of their time when dealing with claims and highlight the tools available to them.


How can claims best practice be implemented within a captive?


With sizable international organisations it is essential to establish centralisation. One of the most effective drivers which deliver the best net results in claims outcomes is the centralisation of control over the selection of professional service providers: lawyers, expert witnesses and loss adjusters. Most firms allow their claims handlers to assign cases to any law firm they care to, and on a case-by-case basis. The vetting process from a vendor management and procurement process really isn’t coming into play. Centralisation brings that knowledge and the buying power of the company to the fore. Having an objectively measured panel of experts at the right rates, in the right places and with the right skill sets, requires centralising.


However, centralising can be sensitive and on the consulting side this is where we come in. Can the various teams prove that they are getting the best results and the best price from the experts they bring in? The answer to that, too often, is ‘no’. Centralisation of expert information helps to deliver the best results. Such an approach needs to be led by senior executives, with their support certainly helping to carry the day. Executive buy-in is key to bringing about this sort of behaviour modification.


What savings do such initiatives bring to a captive?


Hard cash savings arise from the process with the introduction of work practices such as the paperless office. Savings from using no paper are massive and also support your corporate social responsibility. Moving up the chain there are tangible savings associated with budget control. Nowadays, it is possible to track and format budget control systems and centralise systems and information. If the budgets are not met the


52 bermuda captive 2012


reserves are also going to be out of balance, and then the actuaries start getting all twitchy—and that’s not good either.


It’s all inextricably linked. Centralisation can also reduce the time spent in litigation and the associated costs, and enable you to deploy best in class experts to settle your claims and have a closer relationship with your experts, rather than simply dumping the case on outside service providers. These tools enable you to build up closer relationships with those pursuing your claims.


What part does education play in the litigation process?


We have clients that operate across 76 countries, so trying to have a consistent platform for litigation management across many jurisdictions can be very difficult. Again, I’ll bring it back to the centre. If there is an internal programme that has been established to apply consistency around the use of a single workflow that is being managed by everyone, it enables a level of transparency that helps you make decisions. It enables you to have the data and the conversations with outside experts that help the claims handlers be more effective in their role.


On the litigation side you are employing outside experts because they are the people you employ at the pointy, nasty end of your risk business— that’s what they are good at. How you manage them, however, is as important as the work they do for you. Centralising information on outside experts enables your entire global organisation to tap into information regarding the performance of our international litigation experts.


How do you assess the quality of outside experts?


At LSG we use report and score cards to assess the quality of the service provided by outside experts. In every case the claims handler is required to fill out a report card that is made up of a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the service provided by the outside expert. This then rolls up to a score card at the expert firm level, which can then be utilised by the senior management to assess the performance of the firm or its performance as an insurance carrier. At the end of the year you are able to compare competitor experts’ score cards and raise questions regarding how they have performed vis-à-vis the competition. Sharing best practice


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68