4

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
THE Autumn of 2010 saw the publication of Insurance 360s rst ever Loss Adjusters Insight Report, based on frank, informed input from those at the front-line of claims handling. This, our second annual report, uses a more sophisticated methodology (see pages 8-9); crucially, it makes a clear distinction between performance on commodity claims (those of less than 100,000) and performance on major losses (100,000-plus). This year, we therefore have two parallel league tables, 11 performance proles and a much sharper focus on the true nature of rms strengths and weaknesses. So how, overall, have Britains leading adjusters been performing during the past year? Certos management team and adjusters showed real commitment to their clients and their business. Care taken at the FNOL stage, well-rounded professionalism and robust, modern information management fed through into economic settlements, even on Woodgate & Clark ranked rst for commodity-type risks and third for for major loss with a 91% score. Client comment on Certo was uniformly positive. Certo gave superlative performance across the board. Its adjusters were seasoned, technically skilled professionals who dealt with every stage of a large loss situation efciently and with a sensible outcome in mind. Likeable, capable, good communicators, they inspired condence in policyholders and insurer claims staff alike. Although a small rm, Certo had made a serious investment in up-to-date information technology and its management information was among the best in the business. Second in both tables was McLarens Young International (MYI). Client comment was a striking 51:0 positive. Whether handling commodity work or major losses, MYIs service on FNOL was quick and competent. Staff were welltrained, knowledgeable and committed. Armed with skilled adjusters and sound processes, MYI soaked up surge events without drama. Management information was succinct and t for purpose and claims leakage was kept rmly in check. Where service is concerned, MYI seems to have a winning formula: good resourcing, keen and able adjusters, active communication, rst rate systems and robust procedures. A well-ordered business that clients can rely on. complex and potentially thorny claims. A class act.

Top of the Class

Certo didnt feature in our commodity rankings, but it took the gold medal

Woodgate & Clark came out top for commodity-type claims

% 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average Score

Woodgate & Clark

McLarens Young

VRS Vericlaim

Questgates

GAB Robins

Agrical

Cunningham Lindsey

Davies

Crawford & Co

Merlin

82%

81%

80%

74%

71%

70%

69%

65%

59%

52%

LOSS ADJUSTERS INSIGHT REPORT 2011

Executive Summary

major losses. Respondents reported a reliable, professional performance right across the board. Comment totalled 32:2 positive. The rm was quick on its feet with FNOL and showed a sure grip, even during surge situations. Woodgates staff were skilled, seasoned practitioners who inspired condence and while not the most advanced in the industry, its management information was ideal for most insurers purposes. Proactive management by experienced people meant minimal leakage. One claims manager cited a recent 100,000 BI claim. Other rms had struggled to nd a reason to reduce settlement, he said yet Woodgates adjuster had got settlement agreed at 7,000. For its insurer clients, Woodgate & Clark was a well-organised, properly-resourced rm with a clear professional service focus. No fuss, no contractor network, no delay. It is all about the loss adjusting, said a claims manager, which they deliver so well.

Vericlaim has made a creditable start in the UK market, but some insurers see the rm as too much focused on the policyholder. Questgates came in fourth on commodity work and sixth for major losses. Comment totalled 22:5 positive. On commodity claims, Questgates gave a rst class service on FNOL and surge and elded one of the best teams in the market savvy, energetic folk who got to work quickly and kept insurers upto-speed on progress. On major losses, however, respondents were more critical of Questgates. It had delivered an admirable FNOL service for some clients, but others reported rushed work. Despite some glowing feedback on Questgates major loss adjusters, they had been noticeably overstretched at times and hadnt impressed everyone. Management information left a bit to be desired, on commodity claims and major losses alike, while on leakage, Questgates performance was broadly average. All in all, Questgates emerged as one of the better rms for commodity work, with a strong, well-organised and well-motivated team of professionals. On major losses, it couldnt quite hit the high notes, though sixth place was no disgrace. Questgates has some rst rate adjusters on the major loss side. It could use a few more of them. Cunningham Lindsey? Seventh for commodity-type claims, fourth for major loss. Despite some patchiness on FNOL and surge management on the commodity side, this was a capable, well-organised rm that showed

heavyweight expertise and a real commitment to professional service. Comment totalled 84:19 positive, plus 15 mixed. On commodity work, Cunningham Lindsey delivered broadly average performance on FNOL sound, on the whole, but often slow. Staff calibre varied, but was generally decent. Cunninghams winter surge performance had been a little disappointing, however, service evidently having taken some time to regain normal levels. The rms MI was impressive and its supply chain management gave no cause for concern, though some Cunninghams clients did have issues with leakage. On major losses, Cunningham Lindsey seldom failed to give a quick, vigorous, professional and communicative response at FNOL and barring the occasional duffer, its adjusters were seasoned experts with strong technical knowledge and all-round savoir faire. MI on major losses was detailed, accessible and insurer-friendly and despite the odd stumble, the rm did a reasonable job on avoidance of leakage too. Cunningham Lindsey had a lot going for it: nationwide coverage; robust, modern-minded MI; a culture of active relationship management; numerous well-trained and highly-motivated staff; a broad and widening range of specialist expertise; a commitment to professional standards. The rm was not immune from the problems of a volume business, as client comment made clear, particularly on surge management and leakage. But for a big business, overall service was not bad at all.
LOSS ADJUSTERS INSIGHT REPORT 2011

A Passable Performance
Third on commodity-type claims and fth for major losses was VRS Vericlaim. Comment totalled 24:4 positive, plus one mixed. VRS Vericlaim gave a generally procient service. It was fast out of the blocks fast at FNOL and its adjusters were expert and reliable. Surge management was efcient, MI was sound enough and leakage seemed minimal. Yet broker and insurer claims staff had somewhat divergent views of the rm. Broker people a small minority among our overall respondent group gave glowing feedback. Insurer folk were sometimes less convinced, though their criticisms focused less on VRS competence than its priorities. VRS

Executive Summary

GAB Robins ranked fth for commodity-type claims. For major losses it ranked seventh. Comment totalled 81:14 positive, plus ten mixed. For the most part, GAB Robins gave a capable service. Despite the odd fumble, service on FNOL was generally quick and efcient. GAB Robins adjusters tended to be well-rounded professionals, who kept all parties up-to-speed, maintained a rm grip on costs and took real pride in their work though less experienced ones did occasionally let the side down. Surge management had been tolerably good, while management information was clear, user-friendly, easy to access and bang up-to-date. Judging by insurer feedback, GAB Robins kept contractors well under control and bore down hard on leakage, though handling of Property Owners and subsidence claims did prompt some criticism. GAB Robins was by no means perfect.

Respondents cited specic points for improvement in almost every area. Service was moving in the right direction, however, driven by a real and ongoing effort to listen to clients, improve processes, add value, build partnerships and deliver the goods. Sixth for commodity work and eighth for major loss was Agrical. The rm gave a competent service on FNOL and its people were of good professional quality. Insurers claims staff liked working with them. Performance on surges and avoidance of leakage had been ne. Agricals only real shortcoming was on management information, which sometimes seemed lacking in depth, particularly where large claims were concerned. In its niche specialisms rural and high net worth claims Agrical has won a loyal clientele. Now that it is looking to broaden its commercial offering,

increased investment in MI may be in order.

Could Do Better
Davies ranked eighth for commoditytype claims and tenth for major losses. Comment totalled 16:25 negative, plus seven mixed. Davies gave a spluttering service on FNOL. Too often, its staff seemed dozy, inefcient and indifferent to the insured. Lack of communication was a routine problem. Save for West Country agricultural claims, reported service in surge situations had not been impressive. Davies supply chain had caused complaints from policyholders and overall performance on leakage was nowhere near good enough. One claims director blamed, in effect, the pressures of private equity. Davies have tried to move a high-performing traditional adjuster into a new model, he said, and have damaged their proposition in the process.

Certo topped the table for overall service on major losses

% 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average Score

Certo

MYI

Woodgate & Clark

Cunningham Lindsey

VRS Vericlaim

Questgates

GAB Robins

Agrical

Crawford & Co

Davies

91%

89%

82%

78%

77%

76%

75%

75%

69%

65%

LOSS ADJUSTERS INSIGHT REPORT 2011

Executive Summary

Davies MI wasnt too bad and the firm did have some real professionals, particularly on the agricultural and HNW side. But in the round, it delivered a sub-standard service and showed little inclination to do much about it unless and until clients held its feet to the fire, as two mid-sized insurers recently had done. With the latest finance deal now done, Davies managers need to start focusing on the fundamentals of service. Ninth on commodity-type claims and on major loss was Crawford & Co. Comment totalled 50:64 negative, plus four mixed. On commodity work, some clients reported efficient service on FNOL, but just as many complained of a stumbling performance from overstretched staff. Policyholders did not always get the communication and consideration they deserved. Crawfords specialist ARIEL team showed impressive professionalism, but its other adjusters often came across as raw, overworked and disorganised. Failings in Crawfords processes didnt help. For most insurers, Crawfords surge performance had been inadequate, causing knock-on effects well into 2011. MI was alright, on the whole, but Crawfords control and management of the supply chain showed considerable scope for improvement. There were some issues with leakage too. When it came to major losses, reports of fast, professional service on FNOL were again balanced by tales of slow responses and undermanning and many clients found Crawfords adjusters unresponsive and hard to locate. With too high a workload, they seemed reluctant to communicate

or to treat any loss as particularly urgent. Often enough, this resulted in unnecessary leakage later in the claim. MI on major losses needed improvements in both quality and quantity. Feedback wasnt all bad, however. Several claims managers said service had improved, reporting a real effort by Crawfords to work in partnership, apply fresh thinking and meet their needs in inventive ways. For some insurers, it seemed, the firm was willing to ring-fence key resources. For many others, however, Crawfords is still synonymous with blurred processes, clumsy management, overstretch and delay. Crawfords new UK & Ireland CEO Greg Gladwell has plenty to work on. Some key priorities? Sharpen up operational management, take a hard look at resourcing and try to build a culture of communication. Merlin Professional Claims Services didnt feature in our major loss table, but ranked tenth and last commoditytype claims. Service, on FNOL and more generally, seemed plagued by communication problems. Perceptions of Merlins surge management ability varied, some clients reporting stretched resources others, capable teams that had taken the strain without drama. MI was fine when it arrived, but it often arrived late. Clients had little faith in Merlins supply chain management. They feared the companys preference for its own supply chain increased overall claim costs and doubted it was in policyholders best interests. The firm could be distinctly over-zealous in declining claims, it seemed, and was doing little to minimise leakage.

Corporate nance difculties during 2008 and 2009 no doubt impacted heavily on Merlins resources, stafng and management time. In the 18 months since its renance and stabilisation, however, Merlin had made some useful hires and taken steps to improve its business model, diversify and innovate. Comment on Merlins performance had improved a little since last year, even if its scores hadnt. Indeed, a few clients had been pleasantly surprised by Merlins winter surge performance. Modest signs of progress, then. Still, management have a lot of work to do to get service up to scratch. As one claims director put it: Merlin just make too many basic mistakes. We hope you nd this years Loss Adjusters Insight Report interesting and useful. If you have any queries about the content, or critical feedback, please feel free to contact me directly. Peter Joy Principal, Insurance 360 December 2011 E: peter.joy@incisivemedia.com W: 020 7316 9814 M: 07711 897930

LOSS ADJUSTERS INSIGHT REPORT 2011