POST CLAIMS CLUB
REPORT 2011/12
3
Contents
5 Introduction
6
Loss Adjusters
10
Commercial Lines Insurers
16
Financial & Professional Lines
18
Marine & Transport Risks
20
HNW Personal Lines
Peter Joy Principal, Insurance 360020 7316 9814
Chris Wade Research Associate
020 7316 9106
Production Chris Morrish
Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Ltd 32-34 Broadwick Street
London W1A 2HG
5
SINCE 2009, Insurance 360 – the insurance sector primary research unit of Incisive Media, publisher of Post and
Insurance Age – has been conducting
regular surveys of the service provided to brokers by insurers and to insurers and other interested parties by loss adjusters. Our annual Loss Adjusters Insight Report and Business Insurers Insight Report and occasional line-specific Reports each cover five or six main aspects of service. This mini-report is, in effect, a compendium of the claims-related material from all seven Insurance 360 reports published since the start of 2011.
Firstly (pages 6-9) we offer a brief summary of the Loss Adjusters Insight Report (LAIR) 2011 (58pp, 37 charts), which was based on detailed feedback from 90 claims professionals, predominantly at insurance companies. We provide overall service rankings for the ten most-used firms of adjusters in commodity-type claims and equivalent for the ten most-used in major losses, with thumbnail sketches – based on verbatim client feedback – of each firm’s performance. To read each firm’s full two or four-page performance profile and find out its scores on each aspect of the six points of service we assessed, please see the full LAIR 2011.
Next (pages 10-15) we provide the claims handling results from the Insurance 360 Business Insurers Insight Report 2011/12 (106pp, 93 charts). Researched in the late summer and early autumn of 2011, based on input from 360 commercial brokers across the British Isles and published in February 2012, the BIIR 2011/12 covered the performance of 40 insurers and MGAs across six aspects of service – of which claims handling was but one – and also gathered feedback on their quote-and-bind systems and broker development support efforts. In addition to the 2011/12 claims handling rankings and brief summaries of claims-related feedback for each insurer, we also include the comparative claims handling rankings for the BIIR 2010/11 (which covered 50 insurers and MGAs).
Finally, pages 16-21 cover insurers’ and MGAs’ handling of claims in three specific sectors or lines of business, based on Insurance 360 reports published during 2011: the Financial & Professional Lines Insight Report (60pp, 49 charts); the Marine & Transport Insurers Insight Report (56pp, 43 charts); and the High Net Worth Personal Lines Insurers Report (52pp, 38 charts). These reports give rankings for 16, 13 and ten insurers or MGAs respectively, not only on claims
handling but also on four other core aspects of service, plus service overall.
In all, 64 different insurers, MGAs and loss adjusters appear in this mini-report – some just once, some up to five times. Perhaps your firm is one of them. If you’ve any queries on the content of this report, or would like any further information, please feel free to contact me.
Later in 2012, we may well embark on a dedicated study of insurers’ claims handling performance, focusing squarely – and in much greater detail – on that area of service. If you have a view on the detailed points such a study could most usefully cover, I’d be very glad to hear from you. Peter Joy Principal – Insurance 360 June 2012 E: [email protected] W: 020 7316 9814 M: 07711 897930
Introduction
Introduction
6
THE research for our second annual Insurance 360 Loss Adjusters Insight Report was conducted during the summer and autumn of 2011. Ninety claims professionals – predominantly from the claims departments of insurers, but also including some claims specialists working in broking firms, reinsurers and major corporates – contributed their feedback on the service they had experienced from different firms of loss adjusters during the previous 12 months.
For commodity claims, we gathered grades and comment for performance in six distinct aspects of service: First Notification of Loss; Professional Calibre of Staff; Surge Management; Provision of Management Information; Supply Chain Management; and Avoidance of Claims Leakage. For major losses, we listed four aspects of service, omitting Surge Management
and Supply Chain. The following overall rankings are based on firms’ combined scores across all the relevant aspects of service. For further detail, please refer to the full report.
Top of the Class
Certo didn’t feature in our commodity rankings, but it took the gold medal 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 efficiently and with a sensible outcome in mind. Likeable, capable, good communicators, they inspired confidence in policyholders and insurer claims staff alike. Although a small firm, Certo had made a serious investment in up-to-date information technology and its management
information was among the best in the business.
Certo’s 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 complex and potentially thorny claims. A class act.
Second in both tables was McLarens Young International (MYI). Client comment was a striking 51:0 positive. Whether handling commodity work or major losses, MYI’s service on FNOL was quick and competent. Staff were well-trained, knowledgeable and committed. Armed with skilled adjusters and sound processes, MYI soaked up surge events without drama. Management information was succinct and fit for purpose and
Loss Adjusters
Loss Adjusters
% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Merlin Crawford & Co Davies Cunningham Lindsey Agrical GAB Robins Questgates VRS Vericlaim McLarens Young Woodgate & Clark Average ScoreWoodgate & Clark came out top for commodity-type claims
7
claims leakage was kept firmly in check. Where service is concerned, MYI seems to have a winning formula: good resourcing, keen and able adjusters, active communication, first rate systems and robust procedures. A well-ordered business that clients can rely on.
Woodgate & Clark ranked first for commodity-type risks and third for major losses. Respondents reported a reliable, professional performance right across the board. Comment totalled 32:2 positive. The firm was quick on its feet with FNOL and showed a sure grip, even during surge situations. Woodgates’ staff were skilled, seasoned practitioners who inspired confidence 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 firms had ‘struggled to find 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 firm 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.’
A Passable Performance
Third on commodity-type claims and fifth for major losses was VRS Vericlaim. Comment totalled 24:4 positive, plus one mixed. VRS Vericlaim gave a generally proficient service. It was fast out of the blocks fast at FNOL and its adjusters were expert and reliable. Surge managementwas efficient, MI was sound enough and leakage seemed minimal. Yet broker and insurer claims staff had somewhat divergent views of the firm. 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 Vericlaim has made a creditable start in the UK market, but some insurers see the firm 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 first class service on FNOL and surge and fielded one of the best teams in the market – savvy, energetic folk who got to work quickly and kept insurers up-to-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 hadn’t 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 firms for commodity work, with a strong, well-organised and well-motivated team of professionals. On major losses, it couldn’t quite hit the high notes, though sixth place was no
disgrace. Questgates has some first 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 firm 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 firm’s 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 firm 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
8
well-trained and highly-motivated staff; a broad and widening range of specialist expertise; a commitment to professional standards. The firm 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.
GAB Robins ranked fifth 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 efficient. GAB Robins adjusters tended to be well-rounded professionals, who kept all parties up-to-speed, maintained a firm 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 specific 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 firm 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 fine. Agrical’s 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 commodity-type 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, inefficient and indifferent to the insured. Lack of communication was a routine problem. Save for West
Loss Adjusters
% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Davies Crawford & Co Agrical GAB Robins Questgates VRS Vericlaim Cunningham Lindsey Woodgate & Clark MYI Certo Average ScoreCerto topped the table for overall service on major losses
9
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.’ Davies’ MI wasn’t 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 didn’t 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 wasn’t 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
didn’t feature in our major loss table, but ranked tenth and last commodity-type claims. Service, on FNOL and more generally, seemed plagued by communication problems. Perceptions of Merlin’s 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 Merlin’s supply chain management. They feared the company’s 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 finance difficulties during 2008 and 2009 no doubt impacted heavily on Merlin’s resources, staffing and management time. In the 18 months since its refinance and stabilisation, however, Merlin had made some useful hires and taken steps to improve its business model, diversify and innovate. Comment on Merlin’s performance had improved a little since last year, even if its scores hadn’t. Indeed, a few clients had been pleasantly surprised by Merlin’s 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.’
10
Commercial Lines Insurers
Commercial Lines Insurers
OUR Business Insurers InsightReport (BIIR) 2011/12 was researched during the summer and autumn of 2011 and covered the performance of 40 insurers across the full range of commercial lines. It was based on grades and comment from 360 individual commercial insurance brokers. The research questionnaire addressed six distinct aspects of service: Efficiency in Quoting for New Business; Underwriters’ Professional Capabilities; Speed & Usability of Documentation; Quality of Cover; Efficiency and Fairness in Renewals; Fairness and Efficiency in Claims Handling.
From insurers’ results in each area of service, we calculated an overall service ranking, with appropriate weightings – based on brokers’ own stated priorities
– applied to each of these six aspects. Full detailed results and performance profiles are available in the BIIR 2011/12 (106pp). Here, we provide a simple summary of the results for claims handling.
Chubb topped the claims handling table with a score of 83%, 15 points better than the market average. Comment from Chubb brokers was 11:0 positive, reporting consistent high standards: ‘swift and efficient’; ‘always extremely fair’; ‘very quick to settle’; ‘claims paid with few problems’. Chubb never tried to hide behind small print. ‘Chubb stands out way above the crowd in this regard,’ said a claims specialist at a City firm. ‘They have a ‘can do’ attitude to claims and look at the intention of the policy as well as the
specific wording. If a policy exclusion that could be applied would not be fair and equitable, they will look at the bigger picture.’
Second was Hiscox, with 81%. Comment was 9:2 positive. A manager at a Midlands firm fumed that Hiscox did not investigate claims properly, resulting – he suspected – in overpayments. ‘That impacts on loss ratio performance, for which the broker is held accountable.’ For most, however, Hiscox’s fast, ‘no quibble’ approach to claims was a big positive: ‘the fairest’; ‘exemplary’; ‘claims paid with few problems’; ‘you can rely on them to pay’.
Ecclesiastical ranked third, with 80%. Broker comment split 15:1
In our current Business Insurers Insight Report 2011/12, Chubb was claims Chubb was claims handling champion, with Hiscox, Ecclesiastical and Ansvar the runners-up
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20th 19th 18th 17th 16th 15th 14th 13th 12th 11th 10th 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st % Average Score 1 Chubb 83% 2 Hiscox 81% 3 Ecclesiastical 80% 4 Ansvar 79% 5 Fusion 77% 6 ACE 76% 7 Markel 74% 8 Catlin 73% 9 Ageas 73% 10 Novae 73% 11 Liberty International 72% 12 Sterling 72% 13 Travelers 71% 14 MMA 71% 15 CNA Europe 71% 16 QBE 69% 17 Chartis 68% 18 Allianz 68% 19 WR Berkley 68% 20 AXA 68%
11
Commercial Lines Insurers
positive, plus one mixed. Typical reports: ‘prompt and fair’; ‘most helpful’; ‘work with us and the client to resolve problems quickly’; ‘excellent turnaround on settlement’; ‘the claims area really works’. An account exec noted occasional inflexibilities, while a manager at a small independent firm said Ecclesiastical – ‘surprisingly’ – had been let down by its claims management company. But slip-ups were a rarity. ‘Ecclesiastical offer a very comprehensive claims service,’ said a Yorkshire-based account exec, ‘and they are open to negotiations. Electrical and office equipment is replaced very quickly via their suppliers.’
In fourth place was Ansvar, with 79%. Comment was 6:0 positive, brokers reporting fast and fair-minded
service. ‘Ansvar stand out as the best without a doubt,’ said a manager at a small firm in Scotland, ‘both in speed of response and fairness.’ Ansvar showed a concrete ‘commitment to fair and quick settlement’, said the owner of a Midlands firm, adding that its claims service had ‘improved greatly over the last two years’. Comment on
Fusion, fifth with 77%, was 2:1 positive. Although one broker accused Fusion of taking an unreasonably literalist interpretation of its wordings, two other brokers had found the company remarkably efficient. ‘We submitted the claim form,’ said one, an account exec in the South West, ‘and they turned around a cheque within a week.’
ACE ranked sixth with 76%, though broker comment was patchy. Two
brokers said ACE sought to pay legitimate claims promptly and fairly, but a third accused it of looking for reasons not to. A Scots-based account manager, at a consolidator, criticised ACE’s lines of communication on claims and complained of being kept ‘in the dark’.
Seventh was Markel, with 74%. Markel fielded an impressive claims team, it seemed. ‘Markel are excellent,’ said a manager at a North Western firm, ‘and very proactive’. Catlin scored 73%, to rank eighth. Catlin’s claims team were pragmatic, said the owner of a small City firm, ‘fairly flexible’ and ‘always willing to think outside the box’.
Ageas was ninth, broker comment describing a service that was ‘generally
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 40th 39th 38th 37th 36th 35th 34th 33rd 32nd 31st 30th 29th 28th 27th 26th 25th 24th 23rd 22nd 21st % Average Score
In our current Business Insurers Insight Report 2011/12, Chubb was claims Chubb was claims handling champion, with Hiscox, Ecclesiastical and Ansvar the runners-up
21 Beazley 67% 22 Chaucer 67% 23 Zurich 66% 24 Angel 66% 25 Brit 66% 26 RSA 65% 27 HCC International 65% 28 Amlin 65% 29 LV 65% 30 NIG 64% 31 UK General 63% 32 HSB EIL 63% 33 Aviva 63% 34 Groupama 63%
35 Equity Red Star 62%
36 Arista 62%
37 This 62%
38 Towergate 61%
39 APC Underwriting 57%
12
Commercial Lines Insurers
efficient across the board’. For Novae
– tenth – comment was 2:0 positive, the owner of one small firm reporting ‘excellent’ speed and responsiveness ‘from start to finish’. In 11th place was Liberty International, with 72% – though a claims specialist did complain that Liberty could put unduly literal interpretations on its policy terms.
Sterling ranked 12th, also with 72%. Comment split 3:2 positive. A manager at an Eastern Counties firm had found Sterling ‘very inefficient and unreasonable’ in refusal of a claim. That was a shame, he said: ‘In general I hold them in high esteem, but it severely damaged their reputation with us this year.’ Another manager, at a South Eastern firm, also reported ‘issues with Sterling over policy interpretations’. But others had found Sterling efficient, taking control of decision-making from its adjusters at an early stage. ‘Sterling have consistently offered the best service,’ said one broker, ‘with direct lines to their claims handlers.’
Travelers scored 71% to rank 13th. Comment split 4:2 positive. The four had found Travelers efficient on claims and ‘pretty pragmatic’, dealing with grey areas in a reasonable manner. ‘Travelers’ response is fantastic,’ said a manager at a small City-based firm. ‘Seasoned professionals who are quick and easy to deal with.’ But two claims specialists reported ‘problems and difficulties’ with Travelers. ‘It appears they will use any means possible to decline or reduce claims against the policies they have issued,’ said one, at a national firm. The other, at an independent firm, also accused Travelers of searching for exclusions: ‘Travelers take literal policy
interpretations,’ he said, ‘and will not even consider what the original intention of the coverage was.’
MMA ranked 14th with 71%.
Comment was 2:0 positive. ‘MMA have the most efficient and accessible claims department,’ said the owner of a small firm, in the South West. ‘MMA are clearly the winner in this area,’ said another, in the North West. ‘From notification to settlement, the process is extremely easy and quick.’ CNA Europe
also scored 71%, to rank 15th, though no broker comments were forthcoming.
QBE ranked 16th with 69%. Comment
was 4:1 positive. A manager at an East Midlands firm had found QBE ‘slow and difficult’, but others reported rapid settlement. A London-based account exec remarked: ‘QBE are hard but fair.’
Seventeenth was Chartis, with 68%. Comment split 5:3 positive. A manager at a national firm named Chartis the insurer that caused him ‘the most difficulty’ on claims, while a South Eastern broker complained that local claims handling authority was lacking. A City-based manager at an international firm accused Chartis of ‘playing the old game of overselling capabilities and under-delivering on claims payment’. Still, the majority were satisfied, reporting helpful staff and quick settlement. ‘Chartis always try to take a reasonable line in difficult areas,’ said a manager at an East Midlands firm. ‘They are reliable, if not quick.’
Allianz ranked 18th with 68%. Comment was 11:8 positive. For a slim majority, Allianz had delivered ‘very helpful’ service: ‘quick and fair’; ‘dealt very efficiently with a
delicate situation’; ‘the best claims department we deal with’. With clear communication between claims and underwriting, queries were quickly resolved. For others, Allianz could be ‘difficult’ and ‘pedantic’. Allianz often lost sight of the intent of a policy, said a claims specialist at a City firm, and seemed ‘unable to apply reason to the circumstance’. A South Eastern broker accused Allianz of using ‘unnecessary queries’ to delay matters. ‘Even the simplest claim takes an eternity to settle,’ said an account exec at one consolidator. For a manager at another, claims handling was becoming less and less of a ‘selling point’ for Allianz. W R Berkley also scored 68%, to rank 19th, though there were no comments.
AXA ranked 20th. Comment on its
claims handling split 7:6 positive. Some had found AXA ‘pedantic’ and hard to deal with. ‘Claims notification is slow,’ said a manager at a South Western firm. ‘It can take a week or more to get an adjuster appointed, regardless of the severity of the claim.’ Three accused AXA of a claim-dodging mentality. ‘It’s not unusual to have to deal with several handlers before anything gets resolved, ‘said a team leader. ‘It’s frustrating.’ Still, others reported ‘extremely quick’ turnaround and settlement ‘with minimal stress’. In the past year, said a broker at a consolidator, service had ‘improved markedly’.
Brokers gave Beazley 67%, for 21st place. A manager at a national firm, based in the North West, praised Beazley’s ‘consistent high standards’ on claims. Chaucer also scored 67%, though it attracted but one comment – from an account exec at a large independent, who described Chaucer’s
13
Commercial Lines Insurers
service on claims and its complaints procedure as ‘embarrassing’.
In 23rd place, with 66%, was Zurich. Comment split 6:7 negative. Some brokers got prompt, proactive service. ‘On a recent very large claim,’ said a City-based manager at a national firm, ‘Zurich took the lead and fronted co-insurers’ payments to speed the process.’ Others, however, had found Zurich a pain in the teeth: ‘the least accessible, with long telephone waiting periods’; ‘very difficult to get the right person’; ‘totally unhelpful, even if you manage to get through’. Claims were being ‘picked up in different departments with no consistency of service’, reported a North Western broker. An account exec at a South Eastern firm was blunt: ‘The main problem experienced with Zurich is the time taken to settle claims that should be dealt with quickly and easily.’
Angel Underwriting ranked 24th. The one comment on Angel – from a manager at a large independent firm – was positive, reporting well-organised claims handling and ‘continuous updates’ on progress. Comment on Brit
– 25th, also on 66% – was 0:2 negative. Rigid interpretation of wordings was one complaint, with Brit allegedly ‘hiding behind policy clauses that were never intended to apply to those circumstances’. Communication, it seemed, was also an issue. ‘Brit claims staff could learn to answer the phone on the odd occasion,’ grumbled a manager at a City firm, ‘which might help brokers and clients.’
RSA scored 65%, to rank 26th. Comment split 8:10 negative. Some reported efficient, client-minded service: ‘look at claims fairly and
objectively’; ‘willing to fight the client’s corner’; ‘dealt with a problematic incident very well’. For slightly more, however, RSA was the nadir: ‘poor service and technical expertise’; ‘blinkered’; ‘pedantic and difficult to deal with’. These brokers found RSA far too inward-looking and slow. Before committing to a claim, said a manager at a national firm, RSA seemed to require ‘a full desk-top review’ of its underwriting. ‘RSA delay matters,’ complained a manager at a consolidator, ‘and can’t seem to understand the financial impact downtime can have on clients.’
HCC International ranked 27th with 65%, three points below par. There was one negative comment. ‘The one case I have been involved with was with HCC International,’ said an account executive at a City independent firm, ‘and they were quite frankly terrible – the complete opposite to their underwriting team, who are extremely helpful.’
Brokers ranked Amlin 28th, also with 65%, but offered no further comment. As for LV, comment was 2:1 positive. Two brokers at independents firms reported excellent service from LV’s claims team – but a South Western broker complained that LV had no recommended repairer network and insisted on two estimates for each motor claim, wasting a lot of time for clients.
NIG scored 64%, to rank 30th. With comment split 5:6 negative, some were happy enough. An account manager at a consolidator, for instance, reported ‘clear lines of communication’ with adjusters and early settlements. Others had found NIG difficult and mean: ‘their philosophy is avoid paying at
all costs’; ‘use any means possible to decline or reduce’. Dealing with NIG was ‘like having teeth pulled’, said a South Eastern broker: ‘They have lovely people but rubbish systems and are way too slow to settle.’
UK General scored 63%, five points below par, for 31st place. There was but one, negative comment, from a broker in Scotland. He complained that UK General’s claims department had been interpreting covers in an excessively pedantic manner, causing problems that had been resolved only through the intervention of its underwriters.
HSB EIL also scored 63%. A North Western broker had found the company’s claims team ‘excellent and very proactive’. But two others – a manager in the West Midlands and an account executive at a consolidator – criticised HSB EIL for a ‘picky’ approach to claims.
Comment on 33rd-ranked Aviva
was 14:22 negative. Some had found Aviva proactive and fair-minded. More had found it disorganised, difficult and above all, slow. This could cause ‘enormous problems’ for clients. Aviva’s Indian call centres were a ‘nightmare’, but even the UK units could be ‘infuriating’. After 15 minutes on hold, brokers would be ‘passed around’ from one department to the next. ‘No one apparently knows which office deals with which class of business,’ said a team leader at a consolidator. Information got ‘lost’. No one took responsibility – least of all Aviva’s adjusters and emergency contractors. ‘Aviva constantly outsource to companies that don’t appear to have a clue what they are supposed to be doing,’ said a South Eastern broker.
14
Commercial Lines Insurers
Groupama ranked 34th, with comment an unattractive 1:5 negative. ‘Groupama are difficult to deal with from start to finish,’ said the owner of a small independent firm, ‘and this is regarding any commercial claim, motor or property.’ Others had similar stories: ‘take ages to respond’; ‘poor service and technical expertise’; ‘staff give the impression they don’t give a toss about the client’. Groupama was another insurer that seemed to lack recommended motor repairers and required its clients to produce two estimates for each claim.
Equity Red Star scored 62%, to rank 35th. Comment was 0:3 negative. Two brokers complained of Equity’s mishandling of claims on motor policies placed via 36th-ranked Arista
– particularly about headaches over write-offs. When a client insured by Equity Red Star had faced legal proceedings, reported a manager at a Yorkshire firm, Equity had twice failed even to enter a defence. Said one broker: ‘Arista have been let down by Equity Red Star’s handling on several occasions.’
Thirty-seventh was This Insurance. An account exec in the North West reported ‘severe problems’ with a claim, for which he blamed This’s loss adjusters. Eventual settlement had been satisfactory, he said, ‘but the client’s goodwill was long gone’.
Towergate scored 61%, to come in 38th of 40. Comment split 2:2. For a manager at a consolidator in the South
West, Towergate’s claims handling had been ‘very impressive, with good commercial awareness applied’. But a partner at a South Eastern firm complained of shambolic paperwork and a City-based account manager told the same story. ‘Towergate has terrible administration,’ he said. ‘Their staff fail to chase up the claims handlers and many claims are slow to be dealt with.’
In 39th place was APC Underwriting, with 57%, 11 points less than the market average. A partner at a small independent in Northern Ireland described APC as the ‘most difficult’ insurer he had dealt with on claims, and ‘very slow’. Last of all – and 19 points further behind – came Tradex, with a miserable 38%.
In our Business Insurers Insight Report 2010/11, five insurers scored more than 80% for claims handling
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 25th 24th 23rd 22nd 21st 20th 19th 18th 17th 16th 15th 14th 13th 12th 11th 10th 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st % Average Score 1 Chubb 88% 2 Hiscox 83% 3 Ansvar 81% 4 NMU 81% 5 Ecclesiastical 80% 6 Oak 78% 7 Novae 78% 8 Angel Underwriting 77% 9 Liberty International 77% 10 Beazley 76% 11 XL 76% 12 W R Berkley 76% 13 Fusion 75% 14 Evolution 75% 15 Tokio Marine 75% 16 Rural 74% 17 Ageas 74% 18 Amlin 74% 19 Catlin 74% 20 HCC International 73% 21 ACE 73% 22 QBE 73% 23 LV 73% 24 Mitsui Sumitomo 73% 25 Travelers 73%
15
Commercial Lines Insurers
General Themes
Broker feedback highlighted some general issues. One of these was an increasing disconnect between underwriting and claims functions.
‘By the time that you reach larger organisations, they seem to lose all control over the intent of a policy and seem unable to apply reason to the circumstance,’ said a claims specialist at an independent firm. ‘It is obvious that a large number of commercial underwriters do not understand the product that they have sold. They will blithely tell an account handler that something is covered, only for the claim to be rejected subsequently by the claims team. The main culprits tend to be the larger commercial insurers,’ he added, ‘especially Aviva.’
Secondly, too many insurers were felt to be employing novice claims staff with scant technical expertise. Thirdly, business processes often seemed dysfunctional. Backlogs were common, with external contractors adding further delay. ‘Unless I’m very unlucky,’ said an account executive at a consolidator, ‘claims handling in general is shockingly poor. Even when a payment is agreed via a loss adjuster, you still have to chase for payment.’
Some business clients may see insurance as a commodity purchase, but of course it isn’t. Not when it counts. Those who expect their policy to convert – if and when needed – to swift, efficient service and a square deal on settlement might find this ranking an eye-opener. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 50th 49th 48th 47th 46th 45th 44th 43rd 42nd 41st 40th 39th 38th 37th 36th 35th 34th 33rd 32nd 31st 30th 29th 28th 27th 26th % Average Score
In our Business Insurers Insight Report 2010/11, five insurers scored more than 80% for claims handling
26 Sterling 73% 27 Markel 72% 28 HSB EIL 72% 29 Brit 71% 30 MMA 70% 31 This 70% 32 Great Lakes 69% 33 Groupama 69% 34 CNA Europe 69% 35 APC Underwriting 69% 36 Chaucer 68% 37 Allianz 67% 38 Highway 67% 39 Arista 67% 40 RSA 67% 41 Zurich 66% 42 Chartis 66% 43 UK General 64% 44 Aviva 63%
45 Equity Red Star 63%
46 Towergate 63%
47 NIG 61%
48 AXA 61%
49 Quinn 51%
16
WE researched the Financial & Professional Lines Insight Report – which addressed the performance of 16 insurers across PI, D&O and Financial Institutions risks – during the spring of 2011, with 157 relevant insurance brokers contributing their informed grades and comment. Results for the claims handling section were as follows.
Number one here was Chubb, with 78%. Comment split 12:2 positive, plus one mixed. Contact wasn’t always perfect. ‘Chubb stand behind their wordings very well,’ said a Midlands broker, ‘but communication from the claims team is often non-existent.’ A manager at an international firm found Chubb’s claims handling cold and remote: ‘Everything is a reservation of rights.’ But for most, Chubb’s claims handlers gave ‘exceptional’, ‘extremely quick’ service. Said an account exec at a large independent: ‘They look to settle.’
Then came Liberty International,
Travelers and Hiscox, all on 74%. Liberty brokers reported an ‘efficient’, ‘consistently good’ performance from dedicated personnel. A senior manager at a national firm had ‘concerns’ about Travelers’ approach to claims, but two praised it for sure-footed performance. As for Hiscox, comment was 8:2 positive. The two had found Hiscox ‘sticky’ on claims. ‘Hiscox have been hard work,’ said an account exec at a consolidator, ‘not really getting involved and leaving the client to do whatever they think is best.’ Most, however, reported accommodating, reliable in-house service, making ‘the whole claims experience for clients relatively easy and efficient’.
Fifth was HCC International, with 73%. One broker had had issues with HCC’s requirement that claims be notified within ten days. ‘HCCI respond promptly,’ said a manager at one small firm, ‘but they do occasionally have to be pushed to
respond positively.’ But three said HCC had dealt with their claims fairly and efficiently, with fast acknowledgement and follow-up. ‘Quick response,’ said an Eastern Counties team leader, ‘and good solicitors with a friendly but professional approach.’
Novae – sixth, with 72% – had earned a good reputation for ‘prompt and no-fuss’ claims handling from ‘speedy’ and ‘consistent’ handlers. For a City-based team leader at an international firm, Novae was ‘tough but fair’. Seventh was Catlin. A South Eastern broker complained that Catlin’s service had deteriorated over the past 12 months to the extent that his firm was moving business elsewhere. But another in the same region reported a well-organised claims process and ‘continuous updates’.
Markel – eighth with 70% – had some sharp critics. ‘The way they try to avoid paying claims is scandalous,’ said a
Financial & Professional Lines
Financial & Professional Lines
% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Zurich Chartis ACE Beazley CNA Brit QBE RSA Markel Catlin Novae HCCI Hiscox Travelers Liberty Chubb Average Score
Top insurer for FinPro claims handling was Chubb
17
partner in a South Western firm. ‘We have had three claims with Markel,’ said an account exec in Yorkshire, ‘all of which have proved difficult. Our view is that they were looking to find ways not to settle.’ But to others, Markel seemed efficient enough. ‘Markel has been very quick in responding to notification and taking the matter up on behalf of the client,’ said a partner at a small firm. ‘Once they’ve admitted liability,’ said another Yorkshire account exec, ‘Markel is very professional.’
RSA ranked ninth. Some found RSA supportive. Rather than hide behind small print, staff would point out clauses under which valid claims could be made. For others, however, RSA’s claims service had miscarried. Initial notification could be tricky and outsourcing had also caused problems. Quality of staff was also a concern: ‘RSA are probably the most fair on claims,’ said one broker, ‘but are not always the most efficient.’
Tenth was QBE. For one account exec, QBE had proved itself in ‘difficult circumstances’. But an account manager in the Eastern Counties complained of slow responses to queries while another, at a national firm in the Republic of Ireland, said that QBE’s claims team needed ‘additional training, or additional qualified personnel’. QBE staff had proved ‘difficult to engage with’, said an account exec at an international firm: ‘They tend to pass the buck and unduly delay payment, rather than taking ownership of a claim and seeing it through to conclusion.’
Brit, on 69%, ranked 11th. A North Western broker rated Brit ‘very supportive’ on claims. But a manager in Yorkshire had found Brit slow, while an account exec at an international firm
complained about poor service from its outsourced claims contractors.
CNA Europe, 12th, did well enough for some. ‘CNA have proved very supportive when clients have had claims,’ said a manager at a large City independent. ‘They have declined claims only when there has been a valid reason to do so.’ But others had found CNA ‘problematic’. ‘CNA Europe has been very obstructive and slow to respond,’ said another City-based broker, ‘often with onerous information requests from clients and reservation of rights.’ CNA claims staff seemed short on knowledge and two brokers complained about their apparent inability to communicate with their underwriting colleagues. Contact from CNA’s loss adjusters was also an issue.
Beazley, ACE and Chartis all scored 68%. ‘Beazley has been atrocious,’ said a Scots-based senior manager at a national firm. A partner at a large provincial independent agreed. ‘Their first objective appears to be how to kick the claim out.’ Those who commented on ACE, by contrast, had found it quite efficient and ‘very good at responding to clients’ claims needs’.
Most brokers at independents and consolidators found Chartis professional and proactive: ‘very efficient and helpful’; ‘genuinely look to help’; ‘always extremely quick during settlements’. Despite some issues with personnel changes, Chartis’ new regional claims team was performing well. ‘Chartis’ D&O claims handling service is first class,’ said an Eastern Counties-based account exec. For a manager at a North Western firm, Chartis service on claims had been ‘exemplary’.
Yet four – three of whom worked at international firms – had struggled
with Chartis claims. ‘Service levels are shocking,’ said a senior City-based manager, ‘and the solicitors they engage overcharge and fail to deliver timely outcomes.’ A team leader, also in the City, reported ‘very poor’ response times and service. ‘Rarely is a Chartis communication something that you can share with a client,’ he said. ‘Getting a response is impossible sometimes. They have few claims staff we can put in front of a client.’
Last, on 67%, was Zurich. Two brokers gave Zurich brief positive reports, but another – an account exec at a large independent – had found it ‘extremely difficult to deal with in respect of claims’.
Professional Indemnity, D&O or Financial Institutions claims are seldom simple. High stakes and vexed legal issues make for a fractious and demanding process. Even Chubb, widely viewed as the acme of claims handling, racked up a couple of complaints here. FinPro brokers identified four main sins: a passive, apathetic response to claims situations; poor communication, either from the handlers or the loss adjusters; sheer inefficiency and incompetence, often linked to poor staffing; and a hard-assed tactical reluctance to pay the claim at all. There are two sides to most stories, of course. Insurers need to judge for themselves where to draw the line and whether a ruthlessly adversarial approach to claimants is in their own ultimate interest. But in short, the route to satisfied brokers and clients is through early and dynamic involvement, active communication, good staffing, service-minded adjusters and solicitors and a fair-minded settlement policy.
18
WE researched the Marine & Transport Insurers Insight Report during the late summer of 2011. The report tackled the performance of 13 insurers active in Marine & Transport business and 104 relevant insurance brokers contributed their informed grades and comments to it. For further detail, please see the full report (54pp). In the section dealing with claims handling, insurers’ average score was 72%. Of the 89 broker comments on Marine & Transport insurers claims handling, 65 (73%) was positive, 21 (24%) were negative and three (three per cent) were mixed. Insurers’ rankings were as follows.
League champion on claims handling was CNA Europe with 81%. Comment, 9:0 positive, revealed a ‘superb’ service. CNA’s claims team was fair to a fault. ‘CNA paid a claim that was not covered, as a courtesy to our client,’ said a team leader at an international firm. ‘In any grey area,’ said a manager at a consolidator, ‘CNA are always prepared
to give the client the benefit of the doubt.’ Said a London-based account executive: ‘Their claims handling expertise is a very worthwhile benefit.’
Northern Marine Underwriters
ranked second, also with 81%. Comment was 22:2 positive, plus two mixed. A few complained that NMU did everything ‘by the book’ or that its senior claims people could be difficult to get hold of. A City broker grumbled that NMU – in common with RSA – could ‘give you heart failure’ on large claims.
But most were more than happy: ‘fair and swift’; ‘efficient and fair’; ‘very fair and communicate well’; ‘particularly helpful and efficient’; ‘very efficient and deal with our claims quickly’; ‘have been very helpful on a number of problem claims’; ‘good and prompt settlement of claims, even if complex’. On sticky issues, NMU would ‘endeavour to find a work-around’ – and
once a claim was approved, it would make an ‘almost immediate’ BACS transfer. ‘NMU always remember that they are dealing with people,’ said a Yorkshire account executive. A manager at a consolidator agreed: ‘NMU make a complicated claim simple.’
Beazley Marine scored 79%, for third place. Comment was a cursory 2:0 positive but described a fast service. ‘Beazley Marine use PCL claims,’ said a Midlands account executive, ‘and they are expert and efficient.’
Fourth was RSA, with 75%. Comment
was 11:5 positive. RSA was causing headaches for some brokers. A manager at one independent firm complained of a ‘computer says no’ mentality, while a claims specialist at another accused RSA of taking ‘difficult and entrenched positions’. Most, however, had found RSA honest and efficient: ‘a very fast claims service’; ‘they look to assist the insured’; ‘professional, especially
Marine & Transport Risks
Marine & Transport Risks
% 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 AXA Tokio Marine Aviva Zurich Allianz Catlin Amlin Chartis Lonham Marine RSA Beazley NMU CNA Europe Average Score
On handling of Marine & Transport claims, CNA Europe and Northern Marine Underwriters led the field
19
with haulage claims’; ‘pragmatic and commercial’; ‘look for ways to pay’; ‘fair, helpful and very good on recoveries’.
Quite often, RSA’s claims management seemed to show a 3D perspective. ‘Their willingness to appreciate the commercial relationship our assureds have developed with them and to pay claims which could, potentially, be strictly avoided has been extremely helpful,’ said a Yorkshire account exec. ‘It has helped cement a very good working relationship.’
Lonham Marine scored 74% to rank fifth With comment split 5:3 positive, Lonham hadn’t pleased everyone. A manager in the South East complained of a ‘very rigid’ approach, while another, in the Eastern Counties described Lonham’s claims handling as ‘painful, long-winded and awful’. He went on: ‘One senior person does not even know their own policy wording and seems to take the attitude that if the claim is rejected, the broker or client will go away. When the policy wording is pointed out, they capitulate.’ That said, the majority had found Lonham’s claims team helpful and efficient. Despite having had some ‘difficult and unusual’ claims to deal with, said a manager at a consolidator, Lonham’s claims team had ‘always taken a positive view towards settling to our client’s satisfaction and interest’. An account exec at a large independent said although he’d had only one client claim this year, ‘Lonhams dealt with it extremely well’.
Chartis and Amlin were sixth and seventh respectively, with 73%. A partner at a small South Eastern firm reported a ‘very proactive and efficient’ approach
to claims from Chartis, while an account exec at a consolidator in the East Midlands said Amlin had been ‘superb on claims handling’. A City broker accused Amlin of tending ‘to overcomplicate simple matters’ on claims, however, which was ‘not very helpful’.
Catlin scored 72% to rank eighth. Comment was 3:0 positive, brokers reporting an efficient service, with claims settled in a fair, timely and supportive fashion. ‘Catlin’s claims department excels,’ said a City account executive, ‘with good turnaround and payment.’ A manager at an independent regional firm told a similar story. ‘We work very well with Catlin,’ he said. ‘They try to pay claims rather than get out of paying.’
Allianz ranked ninth, with 68%. Broker comment balanced 2:2. ‘Allianz are trusted in the claims department,’ said a senior manager at one large independent, ‘so much so that we encourage direct relationships with our clients here.’ But a middle manager at a consolidator told the opposite story: ‘Allianz are notoriously awkward,’ he said, ‘to such an extent that it is difficult to recommend them to clients.’ A City-based account manager said that Allianz had fallen off the pace on settlement speed and that his firm’s support staff had increasingly had to chase Allianz claims in order to get an acceptably quick response.
Zurich, also on 68%, ranked tenth. Comment here was 2:0 positive, a London-based manager highlighting the company’s commitment to settle small claims within five days.
The bottom three on Marine & Transport claims handling were Aviva,
Tokio Marine and AXA. Aviva, 11th, scored 65% and drew 4:5 negative comment. The four reported rapid service. ‘Speed and efficiency are clearly evident,’ said a manager in the South West. ‘Aviva are very flexible and quick to respond,’ said a claims specialist at a Midlands firm. ‘They use good cargo surveyors.’ But others were less impressed: ‘Aviva farm out the claims handling and this leads to delays’; ‘look for ways to avoid paying’; ‘always a problem’. Of Aviva’s five critics, three were based in Scotland.
Twelfth was Tokio Marine, with 63%. Broker comment split 1:1. An account exec at a consolidator was happy, but a manager at a London firm complained of an ‘appalling’ claims service and ‘extreme difficulty in getting answers or being able to contact individuals by phone’. Tokio Marine, he added, seemed to ‘do everything to avoid paying claims quickly’.
Last was AXA, with 61%. Comment was 1:2 negative, plus one mixed. One broker rated AXA’s claims handling ‘fair but slow’. Another – a claims specialist at a large independent firm – said that when commercial considerations were a factor, AXA had proved ‘very helpful’. But two other AXA brokers were wholly critical. ‘AXA claims are very slow,’ said one, an account exec at a national firm, ‘and often have to go in Germany for authorisation, which is extremely time-consuming.’ Lack of feedback on claims was also an issue.
20
WE researched the HNW Personal Lines Insight Report – analysing the full service provided by the ten best-known insurers in this sector, based on input from 212 HNW P/L brokers – during the winter of 2010/11. For detailed results across all aspects of service, see the full report (48pp). On claims handling, the average score was 75%. To brokers, competent handling of HNW claims was particularly important. Established, business-owning clients were often a prime target for sales of HNW policies. Recommending an insurer that then made a hash of a family-related claim was – as one account executive put it – ‘business suicide’
Chubb Masterpiece ranked first, with 94%. Comment was 71:0 positive, plus three mixed. Chubb’s service was ‘faultless’: ‘easy to deal with’; ‘most claims settled within days’; ‘they saved a client’s life’. Where many HNW insurers would demand full supporting documentation, Chubb accepted the client’s word.
Masterpiece clients could list a specific value for each item insured. If a claim arose, Chubb simply paid that sum. When a client had lost a ‘very valuable’ ring, said one broker, full settlement was in their bank account within 48 hours. Far from seeking to reduce a claim, Chubb would highlight further clauses on which it could pay out.
Hiscox 606 was second, with 88%. Comment split 54:6 positive, plus one mixed. Despite the odd complaint, most found Hiscox claims staff easy to reach and said they delivered an ‘outstanding’ service: ‘swift, helpful and commercial’; ‘no hassle’; ‘go the extra mile for clients’; ‘fair at all times’; ‘claims paid within 24 to 48 hours’. They kept brokers updated on progress, too.
On 80% and in third place was Chartis Private Client Group. Comment was 8:0 positive, plus one mixed: ‘fast and accommodating’; ‘quick and flexible’;
‘claims are settled in a few days’; ‘fantastic on more than one occasion this year’. For a manager at an Eastern Counties firm, Chartis had ‘the most efficient claims service we have come across’.
AXA Art scored 76%, to rank fourth. Comment split 3:1 positive. One account manager compared AXA Art unfavourably with Chubb, Hiscox and ZPC, but others gave good reports. ‘AXA Art settle any claim with due speed,’ said a South Eastern broker, ‘and without making a drama out of a crisis.’
Oak Underwriting came fifth, with 75%. Comment, however, was 5:9 negative, plus one mixed. The five reported slick service and ‘no fuss speedy claims settlement’. But nine had had problems – and all linked them to Oak’s claims outsourcing. Trouble, it seemed, had started with a change of adjusters in May 2010. ‘Standards have slipped since they transferred their claims service to GHG,’ said a team leader in the
HNW Personal Lines
HNW Personal Lines
% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Home & Legacy RSA Primechoice Zurich Private Clients Aviva Distinct Sterling Executive Oak Underwriting AXA Art Chartis Private Clients Hiscox 606 Chubb Masterpiece Average ScoreOn HNW personal lines claims, Chubb Masterpiece and Hiscox 606 were the clear leaders
21
North West. ‘The new firm has proved disappointing,’ agreed a Yorkshire broker. Oak is an underwriting agency for which Brit and Chaucer provide capacity. When claims got stuck, Oak staff had limited power to help.
Sterling Executive scored 73% to rank sixth. Comment split 11:9 positive, plus three mixed. Some found Sterling prompt and ‘easy to deal with’. For others, Sterling could be ‘a nightmare – slow and messy’, with arguments over the limits of cover and a poor initial reporting system. But the weakest links, once again, were the external adjusters. ‘Sterling is extremely quick on claims service,’ said one broker, ‘but their loss adjusters don’t always have the expertise to deal with some of our clients’ claims and they come across as arrogant.’ Poor client feedback, he said, was common. Others told the same story. ‘Sterling is efficient and is dealing with claims notifications and settlement quickly,’ said a London account exec, ‘but they are slowed down by the loss adjusters they are using.’
Aviva Distinct ranked seventh, with 69%. Comment split 11:9 positive, plus three mixed. Some spoke of a ‘speedy’, ‘helpful and accommodating’, ‘extremely proactive’ service. Others had a hard time on Distinct claims. ‘Aviva have been a constant source of frustration,’ said a manager at an international firm. Distinct clients were sometimes treated as standard policyholders. When notifying a loss, they could find themselves dealing with an overseas call centre.
Two brokers criticised Aviva’s contractors. Aviva delivered ‘a brilliant service’ on the Distinct claims it handled in house, said a Midlands account manager: ‘But if it goes out to loss adjusters, the service is very poor and the timescales
are just not acceptable to HNW clients.’ Evening service was another issue. ‘You can leave a message after 5PM but can’t talk to someone until the following working day,’ said an account exec. ‘A bit crazy for a HNW client.’
Zurich Private Clients ranked eighth, with 68%. Comment was 9:10 negative. Some reported an efficient, ‘generally excellent’ service from ‘helpful and pleasant’ staff who settled quickly. One broker praised ZPC’s adjusters for their deft handling of HNW clients. Yet just as many rated ZPC’s claims handling ‘variable at best’. Zurich had ‘tightened up its attitude’, said a manager at an international firm, treating HNW claims no more kindly than mass market ones. Brokers reported ‘unhelpful’ and ‘petty’ treatment and said ZPC had grown ‘too fond of declining claims’. One account manager said his large Midlands firm now avoided placing clients with ZPC specifically ‘because of their claims handling, which lets us down’. Once again, external loss adjusters weren’t helping. An Eastern Counties broker remarked: ‘Davies Managed Systems do not appear to be up to handling this class of business.’
Ninth was RSA Primechoice, with 63%. Comment balanced 3:3, plus two mixed. Three reported efficient service, swift turnaround and ‘high levels of customer care’. But three more had found RSA Primechoice claims ‘a pain’. A London-based account manager said he’d had to intervene on several occasions owing to ‘miscommunication’ with his clients. A manager at an international firm complained that RSA’s attitude on Primechoice claims was: ‘What can we reject and how can we do it?’
Tenth and last was Home & Legacy, also on 63%. Comment was 10:12
negative, plus one mixed. Home & Legacy could often produce happy clients: one broker said it had settled a claim ‘within 24 hours of receiving the completed paperwork’, offering immediate BACS payment. But most brokers were critical. A partner at one independent firm complained that Home & Legacy would ‘quibble over trivial, straightforward claims’. A team leader at another found its insistence on a completed claim form a nuisance: ‘I feel this is very ‘behind the times’.’ Many found Home & Legacy uncommunicative and slow-moving, particularly on larger claims. As one account exec saw it, the company was mainly a ‘post office’ for its contractors.
Excepting Chubb, Hiscox, Chartis and AXA Art, shaky service from external loss adjusters was almost a constant. For companies serious about HNW business, that’s not good enough. Several insurers need to take a hard look at their approach here. There’s no free lunch in loss adjusting.
Insurers could also learn from Chubb’s philosophy of trying to ‘settle’ claims before they were even made. Agreed value cover and a ‘pay now, ask questions later’ approach made Chubb claims super-simple and must save thousands of man hours.
Several brokers reported insurers – in their view unreasonably – declining or refusing renewal of HNW risks that had seen a claim. Obviously there is a limit. But for a policy-holder, a claim is a crisis. Tackling it with speed and sympathy can earn terrific client loyalty. A Midlands broker remarked: ‘Chubb’s claims service always delivers. Once a client has experienced a claim, rarely do they want to move.’