If you could make changes to auto insurance claims...

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

What I was hoping to gather from folks is more around the claim process itself ... <snip> Is there a certain way you'd want to have your estimate done?  Paid by check (was it quick) or EFT?  Did you only have to talk to one claims person or multiple?  How was that experience?  Putting subjective things aside, such as the value of a car, how would you want the claim process to flow from the perspective of a customer?  Using what technology (text, phone, e-mail, etc...)?  Things like that.  <snip> I want to make sure navigating through a claim is as customer friendly as can be, and efficient. 

The mechanics of the process don't make a damned bit of difference to me. I don't care if I have to give a statement in the form of interpretive dance and take my settlement in livestock and nickels if it means the agents and adjusters are reachable, responsive, and competent, and a fair outcome is reached in a timely fashion. Honestly, anything else is just about irrelevant. 

One notable exception: calling an 800 number and talking to a machine is worse than excruciating. Having to tell the same story to a series of unconnected humans, being passed from one person to another to another, across state lines or even international borders, is not much better. A single, local point of contact is a huge advantage, provided that individual is competent, and is both empowered and willing to do right by all parties.

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

Javelin, I don't work for any of those.  I work for a company most won't have heard of and we write commercial insurance.  In re-reading my original post, I did a really E36 M3ty job of wording it.  People get frustrated about the value of their car, how that's arrived it and the like.  That's a conversation for another day and one we can have many beers over.  Well, I don't drink, so make mine a soda.  I don't want to go down that rabbit hole here.  What I was hoping to gather from folks is more around the claim process itself, and I should have been clear in saying that at the outset.  Was the process smooth or were there obstacles?  What did you like, what didn't you like?  How did you get your estimate done?  Did you have to go to a shop?  Take photos yourself?  Is there a certain way you'd want to have your estimate done?  Paid by check (was it quick) or EFT?  Did you only have to talk to one claims person or multiple?  How was that experience?  Putting subjective things aside, such as the value of a car, how would you want the claim process to flow from the perspective of a customer?  Using what technology (text, phone, e-mail, etc...)?  Things like that.  I want to make sure navigating through a claim is as customer friendly as can be, and efficient.  Yes, of course I want a fair settlement to take place too.  Believe it or not, the job of the adjuster isn't to try to pay as little as possible, it's actually to pay what they owe.  However that's easier said than done sometimes and a conversation for another time...feel free to PM me if you want to go down that rabbit hole.

Oh, and as for tow truck vendors, yeah they suck.  You can have the best vetting process in the world, but at the end of the day you're at the mercy of the independent vendor.  I've had a negative personal experience myself, and that tow vendor wound up getting kicked off a MAJOR network because of it (good to have connections).  

Ahh ok.

My one at-fault claim. On a twisty backroad, came around a corner in the BRZ, the road was covered in sand, can't save it, BRZ goes in ditch. I have the car towed back to my house for an initial look over (air bags did not deploy), it was fairly slow. This happened on a Sunday.

I called State Farm the next day and explained what happened. They gave me the list of preferred shops (nice thing about using the preferred shops is the warranty they put on the work), I recognized one as having a good reputation with nicer cars. Chose the shop, called them, they sent a tow truck to come get it, did a great job, State Farm cut them a check to pay for it. I took them a $1k check for the deductible. 

I spoke to the claim rep exactly twice. Once to report the claim, and afterward they called me to make sure the car was repaired to my liking. It was very straightforward simple process. 

The only thing that sucked was not making sure I had rental coverage on my policy, so I spent $1k on a E36 M3ty Mitsubishi Mirage for 6 weeks while they waited for parts and fixed the car. 

DarkMonohue said:

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

What I was hoping to gather from folks is more around the claim process itself ... <snip> Is there a certain way you'd want to have your estimate done?  Paid by check (was it quick) or EFT?  Did you only have to talk to one claims person or multiple?  How was that experience?  Putting subjective things aside, such as the value of a car, how would you want the claim process to flow from the perspective of a customer?  Using what technology (text, phone, e-mail, etc...)?  Things like that.  <snip> I want to make sure navigating through a claim is as customer friendly as can be, and efficient. 

The mechanics of the process don't make a damned bit of difference to me. I don't care if I have to give a statement in the form of interpretive dance and take my settlement in livestock and nickels if it means the agents and adjusters are reachable, responsive, and competent, and a fair outcome is reached in a timely fashion. Honestly, anything else is just about irrelevant. 

One notable exception: calling an 800 number and talking to a machine is worse than excruciating. Having to tell the same story to a series of unconnected humans, being passed from one person to another to another, across state lines or even international borders, is not much better. A single, local point of contact is a huge advantage, provided that individual is competent, and is both empowered and willing to do right by all parties.

Bingo.

You are asking about re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It doesn't matter if filing a claim was effortless and I can communicate via text and my adjuster is a happy, well-adjusted person with exquisite customer service. If you offer me half the value of my car because you don't know the difference between models and trims, I am going to be upset. Every single time.

Making sure the adjusters use the actual comparables (same model, same engine, same drive, same trim, within 200-300 miles of the customer because Subarus are worth double in WA than in GA) will go further for customer satisfaction than everything else combined.

In reply to Javelin :

I would beg to disagree.  A lot of the comments here are centering around the value of a car when it's a total loss.  That is a pain point for all involved, both the customer and the insurance carrier.  It's not a perfect science...far from it, and could stand to be improved.  And to be honest, I'm taking everyone's comments about the total loss value subject and plan to include that in my 2022/2023 plans.  Trust me, I've worked on it before, but it's always worth revisiting.  How can I make that process less painful for all involved (besides just having Agreed Value policies across the board)?  It's also an entirely different discussion.  Total loss claims make up roughly 15% of all claims, the other 85% don't go down that road.  I hear you about the fair settlement, and you're right.  At the same time, I'm aware that right now companies like State Farm, Nationwide and USAA are experiencing hold times of 60+ minutes in their phone queue.  That's utterly unacceptable, and an extreme example.  That'll turn a customer away instantly.  At least in my experience, customers also care about speed of the claim, communication/explanation, and the like.  DarkMonohue touched on it a tiny bit when he said "reachable, responsive and competent".  That means different things to different people.  It actually matters to a lot of people, along with the fair and accurate settlement...which I whole heartedly agree with.  It may seem like tiny details, or re-arranging chairs on the Titanic, but when put together as a whole, it's not.  It goes hand in hand with a fair settlement.

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

How can I make that process less painful for all involved (besides just having Agreed Value policies across the board)?  It's also an entirely different discussion.

<snip>

It may seem like tiny details, or re-arranging chairs on the Titanic, but when put together as a whole, it's not.  It goes hand in hand with a fair settlement.

As a policyholder, it may not be an entirely different discussion. I understand that your assignment is limited to the process. That's entirely logical and reasonable. But as the guy paying the premium, it all falls under the umbrella of how the carrier is treating us in exchange for the hundreds or thousands of dollars per year we're legally required to pay them to gamble on our potential misfortune.

Until we file a claim, there is no return on that mandatory wager; when we do have to file a claim, we don't want to feel like we have to go to battle against a corporate goliath who holds our financial future by the short hairs just to get what we are owed.

Maybe it would help to ask that you do whatever you can to provide context to every employee, contractor, etc., involved in a claim. As I said earlier, it's exhausting and unnecessary to have to tell the same story over and over and over again to a string of people who area each reading your file for the first time. That's not strictly a customer interface device, but it is important.

Better still would be assigning one individual rep/adjuster responsibility to each claim. Even if they aren't empowered to make every decision, make it their job to act as a liaison throughout each phase of the claim. Make it their job to be available to the client through whatever means and hours work best for that client on that claim. Make it their job to retain the customer, without having to go to a manager for every dime or otherwise demonstrate a lack of authority and ability. 

IOW, flexibility. Don't let your operation switch to a one-size-fits-all process, no matter how well the focus groups respond to catchy buzzwords.

There's 2 things I can think of offhand. Both incidents involve State Farm - for the first one, they were our carrier, for the second one they were the at-fault's insurer. 
 

Our oldest daughter got hit by an uninsured drunk driver on New Year's Eve about 6 years ago. We had liability-only on her vehicle, since I only had about $1800 in it. Since we had uninisured motorist coverage, I filed a claim with our agent. Problem-1: after filing the claim State Farm told me that since we didn't have full coverage, basically they weren't going to do anything. I would have to track down the other driver & do all the legwork myself. It would have been nice if the claims rep explained all of that to me, so it wouldn't have caused the next issue... 
 

The second issue resulting from this claim I just found out about over the holidays. Our daughter, now married for the last 3+ years, is paying higher insurance premiums(I believe with USAA) because there's an accident on her record - even though it's not her fault. 

The second event involved our other daughter getting rear-ended at a red light last summer. Her car ended up being totaled, even though it still ran/drove fine. It would have required pulling out the RR corner, replacing the hatch, rear bumper/cover, right tail light & paint. We really didn't want to total the car, as I could have put a tail light on it and sent her down the road. However our only other option was to buy it back - but the rebuild process in MS is a hassle & I'm not sure I could have successfully done it myself and got it to pass inspection. I think she got $4k for the total loss, but we both would have been happier to just get a $500 check and have kept it. It seems like that would have been a much better outcome for the carrier too. 

With our claim, I grabbed my wife's phone and snapped 20-30 photos and just emailed them in. The bid came in email and was forwarded - easy. The direct deposit check was verified account numbers via email, text, voice? I don't remember. I do remember the company offering to pay for tarps to cover the damaged areas and prevent water damage.

I'll give you two examples from the same company.

About 12 years ago I was backing out of a space in my Suburban and my trailer hitch tagged the bumper of a truck parked behind me.  I'm a DA.  Maybe a 10 month old Lil Stampie distracted me.  NBD I waited for the driver to come out and called my insurance company.  Exchanged info with the driver and gave their info to my company.  They called me about 10 minutes later and said that the claim had been handled with the other driver taking a settlement for a dented bumper.  Nice and easy.

Seven years ago I had a driver that had taken an exit decide it was the wrong exit, hit their brakes hard and come back onto the highway into me.  They admitted fault and we had the same company.  Exchanged info and took the car in to be inspected.  A couple of days later I get a call and the first thing the rep says is "We need to know where the Miata is located so that we can come get it."  The berk you will.  That turned into 6 months of them trying to say that an automatic trans Miata is the same value as a manual trans Miata.  I spent hours coming up with comps they said they would use only for them to ignore.  We finally agree to a value and the only saving grace for them was when I went to drop that car.  They ended up refunding those 6 months of payments even though I had been driving the car the whole time.

My big thing is integration.  It has been a couple years since I made a claim, but I get tired of runarounds.

My previous insurance company offered a bunch of great perks, but they were all third party.  If I wanted roadside assistance, I had to make an account with [insert roadside assistance company] and link it to my LiMu account.  Then if I needed actual roadside assistance I had to call LiMu's 800 number and give them all of my information, then they would forward me to a [insert roadside assistance company] who may or may not answer the phone, and if they did answer the phone I had to give all of my information again so they could confirm my accounts were linked.

I get it.  You use third parties, and I applaud it.  But I want a website/app that does all of that for me.  If I'm involved in an accident or need roadside assistance, I want to open the app, click a few buttons, and have it do all that for me.  You have my info.  I want to tap my screen and have the information (including my validation) sent to the applicable service I need.

Do you need:

• A tow
  • which car on your policy (so they know what equipment to send)
    • the rwd auto
    • the fwd manual
    • the awd exotic
    • the motorcycle
• Refueling
  • which car on  your policy
    • the diesel one
    • the gas one
    • the EV one
    • the flux capacitor one (additional radiation charge may apply)
• Accident claim
  • which car
    • was anyone injured
    • was the car driveable
    • etc
• Update my policy
  • Did you sell a car
    • are you replacing it with another
  • did you buy a large automobile
    • where is that large automobile
    • how did I get here

The tech is there, but the constantly changing nature of who companies contract with and instead of putting in the time and effort, insurance companies just punt to the customer and make them work for it.  Just for once I want to see insurance companies put the effort into actually integrating systems BEFORE releasing it and making us jump through a zillion hoops to access our benefits.  I totally understand that there is also a huge component from the bean counters that the more frustrating it is to receive a benefit, the fewer people will avail themselves of it, but I would pay a premium for the opportunity to have it all integrated.  Seriously.  Offer it like optional roadside assistance.  For an additional $4.99 a month, you can get the "enhanced app" which gives you one-touch access to all of your benefits.  Then use that revenue to fund a department of a large handful of people to operate the software that makes it all work.  

If a company is going to contract with third parties, I applaud it, but don't make it MY job to connect the dots.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

• Update my policy
  • Did you sell a car
    • are you replacing it with another
  • did you buy a large automobile
    • where is that large automobile
    • how did I get here

 

I think you're asking too much of one app at $4.99/mo.  You need a second navigation app for the last two questions, or, for example, "where does that highway go to?".  And probably a World Traveler Plus upcharge should you find yourself in another part of the world.

It's bound to get complicated.

Hmm my loaded f250 diesel was stolen. It took at least 3 months for them (USAA) to start the process of giving me money for the value of my truck. The whole time I'm still paying insurance on it, wtf. Then, they lowball me to hell. Offered well under $10k for a vehicle I couldn't buy for $20k. And I had to send them comps which was easy and the justified me not taking their offer. The would up their offer in such low increments a week and a half at a time. After months of them trying to lowball me they have me a reasonable offer. I took it, then they dropped me,  lmao. I can't get car insurance with them anymore. The worst part of the process was getting the same person I talked to last time and the time between communication. I really don't want to have to wait 5-7 days just to get told no or be told they need something else. If they could have something that had a great user experience the allows immediate sharing of files and communication that would be great. Do I really have to tell the same ole sorry to different rep.

Is the goal to make their paying customers whole again or to hang onto every dollar? 

Up front information on how filing the claim will impact my rates.  I recently had a rock strike my windshield while on a major highway. I pay for glass coverage, so I claim it. Apparently, that plus my wife being rear-ended twice ( not at fault) kicked us up due to number of claims filed and my rate went up enough to cover 1.5 of that windshield replacement a year for the next 4 years. It would have been way better for me to eat it out of pocket, but no up front information. Found out 4 months later. Rate went up despite zero at fault claims.

Lots of grousing about car valuations. Yeah, that needs to be a separate endeavor.

So, I'm currently working (temporarily, thank doG) as a claim rep.  This is because my employer, like almost all of them, have foolishly diminished staff during Kung Flu. The entire industry is in turmoil right now.  I have a little box that shows hold times for our company and the worse I've seen it is 5 minutes.

We are the exception.

I've had the displeasure of calling several of the competition just trying to get info for 2 party claims and there are two things that are complete aggravations:  hold times of 20 minutes or more, and the utter impossibility of finding a freaking phone number to even call.  They have shifted so heavily to online contact it is nearly impossible to reach someone by phone.  Since I'm not a customer, I don't have the information the automated system asks for. So I get trapped in the endless loop. It's horrible.

Training:  remember, 90% of the people hired to handle claims, estimates and total loss valuations are not car people. They are data processors. Your 'unique' car is nothing more than just another vehicle whose information gets typed into a database and the value is electronically determined. The older the car, the less data there is, and that's when the problems start. I think companies should have a few 'specialized vehicle' people to handle these outliers. 

Direct repair shops should be chosen on work quality and customer satisfaction, not on how agreeable they are to silently do whatever the ins co wants or because they are part of a chain (Caliber, ABRA, Service King, etc).  I love the DRP system but we don't choose the best shops out there on merit.

Insurers need to stop pushing numbers/quotas while giving lip service to customer service/retention.  If they truly provided superior service in an industry that is terrible at it, they would quickly stand out and policies in force would grow. Instead, they spend billions on some of the worst advertising schemes ever conceived (Liberty Mutual...I mean really, WTF?).

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

wae said:

My wife made a claim about a month or so ago after she (sigh) ran a red light and tagged a Civic.  She filled out a form online, talked to someone on the phone, and that phone agent was able to switch to using text messaging which worked better for my wife's work schedule.  I haven't gotten the news as to how much they're going to raise our rates yet, but the claim filing part was pretty easy.

How long did that take?  She filled the online form out to file a claim.  When did someone call her?  Did she switch to texting immediately?  Was everything done via text...i.e. give her statement of facts, talk about picking a shop, payment, etc...?  I'm very much interested in using text, just wrestling with the logistics.  

We didn't have a claim on our own vehicle, just my wife's victim's car.  So we didn't have any discussions about shops or that sort of thing.  But she filled out the form online and then the rep called her.  My wfie explained that her job keeps her on the phone all the time, but if she could text things would go a bit faster.  So at that point, the rep switched over to texting and it all went that way.  All of the information about the crash went into the website, so she says she didn't have to really recount the events that lead up to the loss again.

In reply to ddavidv :

Lots of grousing about car valuations. Yeah, that needs to be a separate endeavor.

This is the problem. The question was what could be done to improve service. A number of customers mention that the valuation process is their number one service complaint, and the insurance guys disregard it. Yea, I get it that's not your focus and you want to hear about other stuff, but at some point you need to stop and listen to your customers. I don't care if you quickly screw me with a smile, or have a nice app to screw me more efficiently. It's like restaurant manager asking how my experience was, but not caring if the food was any good. You have my vin number. My policy states the make, model, and trim level of my vehicle, which is what my rates are based off of. If my loaded, top trim level, 4x4 F150 gets totaled, base model 2WD work trucks have no place in the valuation. I'm certain you wouldn't use a King Ranch as a comp it my stripper work truck was totaled. Screwing people over and playing dumb when they call you out on it isn't good customer service. It doesn't matter if they aren't car people. I could spend 10 minutes training someone to match like engines, drivetrains, and trim levels, and have 5 minutes left over. No "but the computer" bullE36 M3. Dozens of other industries have had programs that sorted cars by those parameters for many years. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Amen brother

There's no use having a discussion when you believe they are all 'actively screwing' you intentionally.  Yes, there's incompetence. Yes, there's too much reliance on a 3rd party valuation system. But the idea of intentional lowballing is pretty much tinfoil hat thinking. 

I suppose the counter is that if they are ALL 'actively screwing' you UNintentionally - then somewhere the industry has decided to screw you intentionally -procedurally.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

No, not disregarding.  My very poorly worded initial post was intended to focus on process and the like.  Believe it or not, that's by far the number one complaint we hear..."My claim took too long".  The reason that complaint is the most common is that as I mentioned earlier, probably 85% of claims aren't total losses.  Therefore, by sheer volume total loss complaints are lower on the list.  I am looking for ways to make the process quicker and smoother, so my customers get paid faster and of course still get paid what they owe.  I very much hear you guys on the total loss topic, so let's talk about that.  I've read all the posts and have spent a lot of time thinking about it this weekend.  Here are the challenges the industry faces with respect to total loss.  Believe me, don't believe me, up to you.  GRM guys don't bullE36 M3 each other, so I hope you do believe me.  Unless I were to tell you I own a running Bi-Turbo and Bradley GT, both with air conditioning... ddavidv already covered much of it, so forgive me if I'm a broken record.

First, let's get one thing out of the way.  There is no intentional screwing of anyone, at any time.  We are a VERY heavily regulated industry.  If intentional screwing were to happen, the hell that would rain down on us would be ugly.  Are total loss valuations wrong sometimes?  Absolutely.  It's never intentional.

What's a car worth?  The half-joking answer we have here at GRM is "Whatever someone is willing to pay".  That's a very true answer, but it doesn't help us in the insurance world.  We need hard and fast numbers.  How do we come up with them?  Not so easy.  

State laws vary some, but by in large they all give various "approved" methods to calculate a total loss.  One of them is to use books, such as KBB or NADA.  In my professional opinion, those things absolutely blow chunks.  They're far worse than the other methods currently used.  The other approved method is through the use of comparable vehicles...a far better option.  Pretty much all carriers I know of use that method.  There are third party services who specialize in doing exactly that.  

Let me be 100% clear in saying those services are very far from perfect.  Fairly often they are pretty spot on.  Other times they are not.  That's where the human factor needs to come in, and frankly where the insurance industry falls short.  The VIN decoding very often does not tell you trim level, etc... It happens most often on trucks, because they can be so "custom" and have so many combinations of engines/trim levels/bed length/cab length, etc... When a Ford F150 VIN is decoded, it will say "XL/XLT/Lariat".  That's where things start to go sideways.  The valuation service does its' best to decipher, but doesn't always get it right.  The valuation service does not physically "see" the vehicle being valuated.  It goes on VIN and data provided to it by the customer (the insurance company and/or the customer).  Before you say anything, I fully agree that's a weak point in the process and needs to be improved.  Not as easy as you may think, but I'd love to see it improve.  

From there, another challenge arises.  Let's say the F150 is a 2018 quad cab Lariat with a 5.0 V8, short bed, 4WD, 72,500 miles, trim packages A, D, F and N.  Try to find several exactly like that within a 50 mile radius.  Sometimes you can, often you can't.  The "comparable" may have similar miles, same bed length, and have trim packages A, D and N, but not F.  Valuation is now throw off.  It's even worse if the VIN decoded as an XLT and not an actual Lariat.  Finding a precise comparable...and you typically want several...within a 50-100 mile radius is often like finding unicorn piss.  

Now the valuation comes back to the adjuster, including the above mentioned challenges.  As ddavidv said, adjusters aren't car guys/gals (more than half my staff is female).  They don't know an XLT from a King Ranch from a Chevy Spark.  Why?  Because 95% of what they do isn't this.  It's taking statements about how the accident happened, getting the police report, writing checks for the vast majority of cars that aren't totaled, dealing with the attorney hired to represent someone claiming to be injured.  Knowing all the nitty gritty about trim levels of the F150 is not a skillset I truly value when I hire someone.  Would I like it?  Hell berkeleying yeah, but it's not high on my list.  Time management, decision making, ability to have difficult conversations and the like are.  

None of these are excuses.  It's the reality of the industry.  Does this specific part need to be improved?  Unquestionably, 100% yes.  How?  Well...that's the million dollar question.  I'm open to suggestions and input...and of course my wheels are turning too.  One obvious solution is agreed value coverage.  I've been pushing for this for YEARS.  Makes life easy for all.  That's more an underwriting function, so I can't completely speak for them.  My company finally listened to me and has started doing it for heavy trucks (tow trucks, dump trucks and such).  Sadly, that's less than 10% of the vehicles we write.  It's still not common in the private passenger vehicle world.  It also has other challenges, which I won't get into now.  Training people to match engines, trim, etc...isn't as easy as you think.  I want my staff to look at the valuation they receive back and look at the vehicle they have to try to make sure they match.  It's an imperfect process at best.  The next thing they are told to do is present it to the customer and very clearly ask them "Was anything missed on this valuation?"  If so, we re-evaluate it and try again.  I want them to get me involved if they are stumped.  However, even I am a relatively rare breed.  Senior claim leadership usually aren't "car guys" either.  Yeah...I know...a weak spot again.  Finding people who are not only skilled at all the previous things I mentioned AND car experts is not so easy.  I am not at all bragging on myself, far from it.  But again, most insurance claims employees aren't car folks.  Other skillsets are far more valuable day to day.

So there you have it.  Total loss is a pain point for customer and industry.  Suggestions on improvement or open dialogue to make it better?  I'm all ears.  Just straight angry and blind bashing and venom...you lost me.

In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :

Hire one person who IS a car person to review the total loss valuations before they go the customer. Your service looks for comparables but doesn't get the trim right? Mr. Car Expert kicks it back with an explanation of what they need to change. A customer complains that the value is off? Have Mr. Car Expert review it. That's his or her only job.

Doesn't have to be agreed value, just tell me up front at each annual renewal what you would pay for a total loss. If I don't like it I will go elsewhere.

I have 4 vehicles insured with one company. Two "normal"  vehicles and two  semi-vintage sports cars.  I guarantee if either sports car gets damaged we will end up in a long drawn out negotiation about what they are worth.  Yes, I probably should go to one of the agreed value companies, but why can't a regular insurance company also have a reasonable valuation? Why is this so hard? Used car salesmen can figure out what a car is worth, are insurance companies worse than used car salesmen? Wait, don't answer that.

In reply to Javelin :

Yes.  For the mega carriers, I completely agree.  They have "total loss departments" who handle nothing but total losses.  They are more process oriented than anything, and I would wholeheartedly agree that those departments ideally should have someone who understands cars.  There are different ways to do it..and I think your concept is spot on.  Why it doesn't happen, I don't have an answer.  I don't work for one of them.

For small carriers like mine, it isn't so easy.  I simply don't have the volume to justify a full time total loss adjuster, let alone a specialist who only looks at car values and does nothing else.  My team (along with lots of small carriers) has to wear many hats.  The bulk of their job is being an adjuster (statements, etc...).  I can, and do, teach them.  Challenging issues get escalated to me.  But again, I'm not the "norm" in the industry.  I have to use the resources I have, and a car value expert only isn't in the cards.  

B. Yourself, your ignorant comment aside, what you describe IS agreed value coverage.  It's an underwriting function and I'm a claims guy so I don't want to go too far down that road.  I know enough to be dangerous, but I'm not as versed in uw as I am in claims.  If it's not an agreed value policy, then the total loss settlement falls back to the claims department.  In that case, refer to the above discussion.

ddavidv said:

There's no use having a discussion when you believe they are all 'actively screwing' you intentionally.  Yes, there's incompetence. Yes, there's too much reliance on a 3rd party valuation system. But the idea of intentional lowballing is pretty much tinfoil hat thinking. 

With all due respect, sir...

The collective experience of everyone participating in this thread, and, for that matter, everyone else I've ever spoken to regarding any claim, strongly support the notion that intentionally lowballing the customer is industry standard.

This may not be the discussion the OP was hoping to have, but it is part of the discussion we're having now. Saying there's no use talking about it if we're all in agreement that it happens is a bit silly. It's like telling your doctor it's no use having physicals if he's just going to keep telling you that you have cancer.

Yes, the industry is regulated. We get that. But most of us, thankfully, aren't lawyers. We sign documents we don't fully understand because we are legally required to and scared not to, and then we hope and pray that we haven't given the carrier the legal right to bankrupt us. When the nice young man in the sport coat eventually says, "here's your offer", most of us are desperate enough to get back to our lives that we grit our teeth and take it. Most of us don't have the time, patience, resources, or stomach to enter into a protracted legal battle with a gigantic corporation that won't even answer our phone calls and has more lawyers on retainer than Carter has liver pills. The insurance industry knows that, and it is my firm belief that they act accordingly.

While we appreciate your insights, they don't negate the experience we've all had over the course of decades.

OP: we understand that most of the job of an insurance adjuster is not car-guy stuff. But their job title indicates that their primary responsibility, unless I am very poorly informed, is to adjust the value of the payment to match the value of insured's losses. You're telling us that nobody in the organization has the skills or tools or training they need to do that, because the insurance industry doesn't really believe it's all that important.

I'm sure SKJSS and ddavidv are upstanding people. I don't doubt their individual integrity. But our experience with insurance indicates that the goals of the industry are to do exactly what you claim they are not. It's hard to believe the sun is shining when we get soaked to the bone every time we go outside.

Maybe the discussion to have is how to make sure we get treated fairly by our insurance carriers. You two could make a hell of a lot of friends here if you were willing to have that conversation. 

One thing I want to add here. We probably shouldn't need to say it, but let's say it. We all have our own experiences with insurance and our own perspectives, but the odds that those are the fault of either SKJSS and ddavidv are statistically insignificant. So let's not rail on those two individuals. They probably get enough bile in the course of their daily lives, and I wouldn't do their jobs.

Conversely, everyone else in this discussion has had their own experiences and developed their own perspectives. Most of them are distinctly negative. Anybody in the insurance industry should be able to understand why, even if they don't agree about the reasoning behind the outcome. We've been hosed. We're probably going to talk like people who have been hosed. It's not personal. 

DarkMonohue said:

 

Maybe the discussion to have is how to make sure we get treated fairly by our insurance carriers. You two could make a hell of a lot of friends here if you were willing to have that conversation. 

Uh...I thought we were?