Tag Archives: Cost Controls

Getting Creative And Reducing Claim Costs Without Sacrificing Quality – Part II

Posted on by
3

Building blocks on which to create a new foundation to improve processes

Last month, I discussed the building blocks needed to reduce claim and litigation costs, while still maintaining a strong focus on quality. Those building blocks included:

  • collecting current data about your claims and litigation
  • evaluating the claim and litigation work itself
  • settling on a carrier claim and litigation handling philosophy

These building blocks create a foundation on which to build new processes and procedures that will reduce your claim and litigation costs, and maybe even decrease you volume as well. I refer this building process as looking at What I Have, What I Want, and What I See.

What I Have – All This Data

The data you collected regarding the current state of your claims and litigation is an excellent starting point. Examine your data and identify the areas that you wish to improve.

For a couple of reasons, while the amount of your legal spend may a visible target for improvement, don’t spend too much time on rate-issues first.  This is because the impact of improved processes and procedures will likely decrease total spend naturally, without having to address rate issues. Focus instead on issues like overall litigated volume (the number of pending litigated claims), cycle time (the average amount of time litigated claims take to close from inception), severity (of your pending litigated claims), and other factors. Developing processes and procedures that improve these other factors is a good starting point.

What I Want – Creating The Benchmark

Look again at your non-dollar data. Think about what you believe those numbers should reflect. For instance, if the average time it takes a litigated claim to go from inception to closure is two years (730 days), you know that, on average, you will be paying panel counsel for two years to bring that matter to a close. Based on your knowledge and you your industry contacts, determine whether this number appears high. Do this for other non-dollar metrics that you have measured.

Look at each area you wish to improve and consider a practical benchmark and goal you would like to achieve. My advice is to not set arbitrary goals, as they bear no particular relation to what you will be able to achieve, and thus set your organization up for disappointment or worse. Instead, work with stakeholders in the process and think about how your metrics work together to form a complete picture.

Set incremental measurement points. Hypothetically, you may be starting with a two year cycle time and wish to set a benchmark objective of reducing that by six months, followed by a long-term goal of reducing it to one year. Again, always make sure that your objectives align with the other information you are obtaining. Do your objectives make sense in light of the jurisdiction, the severity of the portfolio, the type of case, and the claims handling philosophy of your organization?

You may have a very diverse book of cases and wish to develop benchmarks and goals first by line of business, or by stakeholder. In fact, when you start objectively considering all of the factors involved, you may end up with benchmarks and goals that look something like this:

  • Overall Litigated Claim Pend Time – Current Average: 730 days
  • Motor Vehicle Accident (simple): 550 days (benchmark); 365 days  (goal)
  • Product Liability 700 days (benchmark); 650 days (goal)
  • XYZ Claim Professional 680 days (benchmark) ; 600 days (goal)

These numbers are purely arbitrary for the sake of example, but they are illustrative of processes you may wish to consider when examining your current situation and deciding how you’d like them to look in the future.

What I See – You Have To Look At What Is There

A continual focus on quality is critical. Higher-quality claim and litigated file management results not only in lower indemnity payments, but in decreased costs as well. As someone who has managed thousands of files with bad faith allegations, there is nothing more expensive than trying to successfully litigate a poor quality claim file.

One of the core building blocks of the process are evaluations – evaluations of all professionals involved in your litigation life-cycle, from claims professionals to attorneys. In looking at those evaluations (whether through internal or external audit), identify those practices that need to stop and those that are more likely to extend the cycle-time of your cases.

A simple example — in reviewing a number of litigated claims last year, I noticed a consistent pattern of defense counsel granting numerous extensions to opposing counsel to respond to written discovery. These numerous extensions were causing files to last for months with no activity (other than counsel billing for those activities associated with granting the extension). During my review, I made note of such patterns and then developed ways of addressing them through new procedures and processes. In addition, I also considered what I discovered in these evaluations and my solutions for addressing these issues in my benchmarking and goal-setting.

In the next and final part of this series, I will explore the nuts and bolts of the procedures, processes and guidelines that can be used when moving forward with a revamp of your litigation management system.

Thinking Outside The Box: Litigation management program initiatives can substantially lower costs

Posted on by
Reply

There is money to be saved by managing the litigation puzzle

Managing litigation is an easy way to save extra expense costs on claims files. A strong litigation management program designed to help foster improved communication, and streamline defense of insureds, benefits all parties involved. As I wrote about the cost savings benefits of out-of-the-box claims handling, using new and forward thinking strategies for litigation management is an excellent way to save money as well. This is even more important in complex litigation found in the areas of product liability, class actions and D&O claims where defense budgets can often trump the loss side of the claim.

A different perspective on how you can manage the larger litigation process

I was recently reading about cost reduction in the Sophisticated Litigation Support blog by Kevin Brooks, Managing Partner of Teris, a litigation support company. These types of companies provide eDiscovery and document management services that can significantly reduce expenses in litigation. Managing eDiscovery and other large document productions is a critical step to control defense budgets.

In his article, Is your outside counsel costing you time, money and case results?, Kevin explains why this vendor–provided service can be particularly beneficial:

You may believe that litigation support management is better left to your outside counsel. And in some situations, this may be true. However, in many cases your law firm could be costing you time and money, as well as affecting case outcome. Law firms are experts in the law, but very few have the resources and data expertise to manage your litigation life cycle properly.

If you take a more active approach by utilizing different types of vendors that compliment each other, you can considerably reduce spending while also having confidence that your operation is both efficient and effective. You as a claims person can proactively manage those services by leveraging specialized vendors instead, at a much lower net expense.

Kevin’s article continues with a list of ten important reasons for why your organization should hire a Litigation Support vendor directly. Four of the ten stand out as significant cost reduction opportunities:

Cost and Expense Forecast – Consult directly with data experts to more accurately identify costs for each project and keep expenses down. Vendors can also help cut future costs by proactively consulting on your data.

Budget Management – Identify points of savings by being able to initiate volume discounts. The service provider can extend volume discounts as they build long-term relationships directly with corporations. You can also avoid the markup from some law firms which could increase your costs for services from 25 percent to as much as 100 percent.

Streamlined Litigation Management – Reduce the number of vendors your corporation works with. This is especially relevant if your company works with several outside counsels and all have their own separate lit support vendors.

Resources – Access the most cutting-edge technology for handling data. Small and medium-sized law firms may not have an in-house IT department to manage large numbers of electronic documents.

I have been involved in a number of litigation projects that would have significantly benefited from support services provided by companies such as Teris, Xerox Litigation Support , Trial Solutions and others (as a side note, I have not worked with any of these vendors and cannot specifically endorse their services here). Litigation costs can get out of hand on large cases in a hurry so paying close attention to them is essential. The largest part of those costs can often be the handling and management of documents and eDiscovery, and not all attorney’s have the skill and technical capabilities to handle the types of services supported by these vendors.

In addition to those mentioned above and in Kevin’s article, there are many different kinds of vendors available to help lawyers streamline the litigation process. These include medical records retrieval companies, litigation graphics and video reenactments to name a few. Claims managers can and should suggest using additional resources to assist law firms which will also help lower litigation costs.

Evaluating your total litigation management process to streamline the procedures, understand the costs in advance, and ensure resources are effectively allocated, will allow for proper expense reserves to be set, and in the end reduce the amount of money spent.

A note on expense reserves

Expense reserves are often the forgotten stepchild of the reserve process. Many time claims handlers will adjust the expense reserve in the beginning of the claim and then increase it over time as expense bills come in. Good claim handlers will establish litigation budgets and evaluate expense reserves in a similar manner as a loss reserves. Regardless, ensuring expense reserves are accurate will help you manage costs across the board and enable you to truly understand the true expense exposure to your organization.