Part 3 on Leadership: Challenges and Assistance in Leading Change

Posted on March 25, 2014 by Marc Lanzkowsky

Collaborating Can Make The Successful Difference

In Leadership: The Change Process In Claims Requires A Different Approach, I put forth the position that changing a claims organization needs a new brand of leadership skill that does not usually exist in the traditional claims organization. In Part 2 on Leadership: Developing a Strategic Transformation Team, I addressed how to break from existing management process to achieve effective strategic results. In the final installment, I discuss how challenges around leading change make it beneficial to bring in strategic support to help achieve the desired success.

Additional Challenges in Leading Transformational Change

Oftentimes, managers are too close to individual problems to have the necessary perspective to see what needs to be done to benefit the whole organization. As a result, many fail to achieve true Strategic Transformation.

There are three main reasons why building Strategic Transformation can be such a challenge:

Lack of Independence – Management has political ties and history within an organization and are not always free to ask the sometimes difficult questions and make recommendations that are truly in the best interests of the organization.
No Objectivity – Often companies are attached to their existing organizational and procedural structure. Despite very good intentions, it is human nature for individuals to get emotionally connected to a particular method of doing things. Management can be entrenched with emotional or political agendas as to how things are being done. Change requires an objective, fresh viewpoint–without worrying about what people in the organization might think about the results and how they are achieved.
Limited Experience –Strategic Transformation requires a set of skills that combines project management with a strategic sense of determination. Managers have experience and skills on how to execute what has been done but lack the depth of knowledge to execute change that transforms their organization. Most claim managers come from a purely technical claims handling role and may lack experience addressing organizational problems, thus failing to grasp all the process concerns of their own operations.

Facilitated Strategic Transformation to Achieve Success

Bringing in an expert from outside the organization is one way to jump-start the Strategic Transformation process. Independent, objective experts can help facilitate the building of teams and focus the organization on successful, rapid implementations. In addition, the best facilitators will have specific capabilities in managing large scale project management, and insurance industry specific knowledge with proven methodologies in management. Such facilitators can:

Identify Problems – Sometimes employees are too close to a problem inside an organization to identify them. Facilitated sessions can help draw out what many in the company already know but could not see.
Supplement The Staff and Minimize Disruptions – Getting staff to focus on problems is difficult when the call of everyday business comes. Having a dedicated independent resource helps to balance those situations and ensure projects move forward on time and on budget. Delays can have disastrous effects down the chain and across other projects. Supplementing staff can help avoid these pit falls.
Objectivity Allows 3rd Parties to Act as a Catalyst- Most employees resist change. Regardless, change is needed, and an independent may be brought in to “get the ball rolling.” In other words, the facilitator can do things without worrying about the corporate culture, employee morale or other issues that get in the way when an organization is trying to institute change. They can also be there as the independent voice to validate how the change will help improve the organization.
Inject New Ideas – A fresh set of eyes can bring experiences from other transformation projects to inject new change ideas. At one time or another, most businesses need someone to administer “first aid” to get things rolling again.

The Time to Change is Now

In today’s market it is harder for insurance companies to distinguish themselves from competitors. For companies to gain an advantage, carriers must adapt to changing market conditions, embrace technology and further expand their use of data analytics. Moving rapidly to manage change requires new ways to manage multiple initiatives. Strategic Transformation is a method for meeting these challenges and ensuring that projects are rapidly deployed on time and on budget.

How Have You Tried to Move Your Organization Through the Change Proccess?

Part 2 on Leadership: Developing a Strategic Transformation Team

Posted on March 17, 2014 by Marc Lanzkowsky

Breaking the Linear Approach by Leading Strategic Transformation

In my last post, Leadership: The Change Process In Claims Requires A Different Approach, I put forth the position that changing a claims organization needs a new brand of leadership skill that does not usually exist in the traditional claims organization. Continuing with this theme, I will address what it means to break from existing management process to achieve effective strategic results.

Breaking from the linear approach to management is the key to leading Strategic Transformation. A standard organization will have a head of claims and then a variety of department heads to manage each line of business. Depending on the company there may be additional senior managers to handle various operational aspects of the group, which may include support staff, call center, technology and data analytics. Under this method, projects get initiated and managed within the same linear organizational framework. The result of this approach is a development process built in a silo that limits input and understanding of possible interdependencies that may exist outside the framework.

A Strategic Transformation Team, however, is formed with a center to lead change over multiple projects. Each project team consists of people from a variety of departments and levels. The teams are charged with creating objectives, setting priorities, securing buy-in, and executing on the vision. The teams are not formed within a linear framework and can draw upon different expertise to get the project completed. The Strategic Team in the center can drive all projects, manage interdependencies, and facilitate moving projects forward without distraction from the day-to-day management. Their focus is on the bigger picture and not limited within an individual project silo.

The Best Transformation Happens When Dedicated Transformation Teams Are Formed

To make effective change rapidly, it’s best to create a dedicated team to deal with change as their sole mission. This team will have the principal objective of producing outcomes and will be dedicated to adopting and improving the organization on an ongoing basis and not as part of some once every five year strategic plan. The independent team will also have multiple benefits which would include:

A central pressing vision to produce valuable effective change
Being focused on the big, as well as little pictures
Rapid deployment capability to get things moved to implementation
The ability to challenge the status quo to break conventional methods of project deployment
Expanded institutional knowledge about multi-disciplinary impacts to improve team efficiency on future projects

While building such a team internally is possible, there has to be an initial effort on getting commitment and focus from the staff to work in a new framework that is different from their existing work environment. For this reason, it is often best to bring in a third party to help facilitate the process.

How a Strategic Transformation Team Works

Getting from point A to point B requires a methodical approach to projects. The Strategic Transformation team will typically establish a Project Management Office (“PMO”) to help to successfully execute those projects identified “as needed to improve the operation.” The areas of responsibility under a PMO include:

Project identification and defining project purpose and requirements
Organization and management of work resources to execute projects and requirements
Assuring timely and useable deliverables
Coordinating multiple projects and dependencies
Reporting to key stakeholders and organizational communication

With a PMO established, projects can be outlined and staged appropriately to both manage costs and deal with interconnecting parts. Additionally a PMO can facilitate the gradual introduction of new processes and technologies which might otherwise disrupt the existing environment. This will allow an organization to phase in procedural changes in a manner to help gain cultural “acceptance” and “buy in” from employees.

The main team will go through a series of steps following established project management techniques to define, plan and execute on multiple strategic concerns simultaneously. The overall focus will be developed; and for each project, a similar multistep approach will be used and address the following.

Business champion/leadership assignment
Prioritization of project within scope of organizational needs, other projects and budget
Strong objectives established
Well defined project charters drafted and approved
Interdependencies/relationships explored and managed
Develop a risk analysis
Rapid and timely implementation
Buy-in and adaptation to change addressed with staff and stakeholders
Conclusion and re-explore

Achieving strategic transformation is possible with the right teams in place. Regardless, sometimes those efforts still hit road blocks. In my next post I will discuss how assistance from thrid parties with transformation experience can help to expedite the process or, at the very least, provide a second set of eyes to oversee the work being done.

How successful has your transformation team been?

Leadership: The Change Process In Claims Requires A Different Approach

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Marc Lanzkowsky

Meaningful and Successful Improvements to Claim Departments Require a Different Approach to the Management of the Change Process

Successful organizations are always changing and adopting to improve their operations, lower costs and increase efficiencies. Claims departments are no different and have been under pressure to transform their operations and live by the mantra of doing more with less. Good claims organizations continuously evolve and adapt to ensure they add value to the overall business. Regardless, changing to meet the challenges of the marketplace is often fraught with problems and difficulties. Many initiatives fail to get off the ground or fail in the implementation process. Change can be very successful and if managed and led correctly. To change effectively there must be a strategic approach and a change in how these initiatives are led.

Why is claims transformation so difficult?

One reason claims transformation is so difficult is that claims departments are generally linear organizations. The claims value chain, or the process of moving a claim from first notice to resolution, is always looked at in a straight line. A claim comes in, is evaluated, reserved, and then resolved. Of course there are many steps in between depending on the claim, but generally all claims follow a similar pattern from beginning to end. Claims departments are often structured in a linear pattern as well. From intake units, to claims handlers, adjusters, managers, and operations – the claim moves through the organization in a linear pattern. Claim managers know this pattern and manage it well. However successful transformation does not follow a linear path. As such, many claims managers fail to have the transformational leadership skills needed to move projects to a successful outcome.

Change Leadership is Different Than Management

Management of the claims process is not the same as providing leadership to change processes and the culture that has been entrenched to those processes. Leading change is very different than managing change. Management guru and Harvard Business School Professor Dr. John P. Kotter puts is best when he said that:

[m]anagement makes a system work. It helps you do what you know how to do. Leadership builds systems or transforms old ones. It takes you into territory that is new and less well known, or even completely unknown to you.

Although most claim managers are well suited to managing core business functions such as staffing, claim volumes, customer satisfaction, budgets, day-to-day process and other operational and technical aspects of running a claims department, they often lack the skills necessary for effectively managing strategic change initiatives. In order to successfully lead change, a strategic vision and a specific program for management of a series of transformational projects to support those visionary objectives needs to be developed. Taking short-term approaches to individual tactical solutions will not create the strategic outcome needed to transform the organization successfully. Achieving this type of Strategic Transformation requires a new paradigm and skillset to deal with managing multiple interconnecting projects.

Another reason transformation is so difficult is that in response to problems, claims executives will initiate a variety of complex transformation projects to improve operations based upon the same linear task based approach to their day-to-day management. Claims executives use this linear approach to identify problems, conceive and implement solutions, manage expectations and results all within an enterprise environment where multiple interdependencies and stakeholder interests may impact outcomes.

Transformation Requires a Different Appraoach

Despite good intentions to improve operations many initiatives become ad-hoc responses to an immediate problem rather than a holistic solution to operational ills. This reactive focus means that projects will often get initiated in a vacuum, not managed fully, delayed or simply never implemented. To transform organizations, and achieve Total Outcome Management, executives need to adopt a proactive holistic Strategic Transformation approach to changing the organization for the better.

How Should Organizations Approach Change?

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

Posted on December 22, 2010 by Suzanne Ganier

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.

Time to Get Creative – Reducing Claim Costs without Sacrificing Quality (or your sanity)

Posted on November 22, 2010 by Suzanne Ganier

Bright ideas will help reduce legal costs while still getting great service

Even as the country continues its difficult economic recovery, Moody’s recently concluded that P&C personal lines insurers remain financially sound. While such a report is good news, Moody’s also noted that challenges such as rising claim severity trends and significant property catastrophe risk remain. All this leads to an increased pressure to reduce costs and close claims.

The reality that claim and litigation departments are cost centers as opposed to income generators increases these pressures. Claim and litigation departments are also asked to do more with less resources and are under increasing pressure to close claims and litigated files faster than ever, while still maintaining claim handling and litigation management best practices. With all these challenges, how do claims professionals succeed? They get creative.

What You Know and More Importantly, What You Don’t Know

Before you can make changes and employ new processes, you have to know what you know and what you don’t know. Obtain as much information as you can regarding the following:

Number of current litigated and non-litigated claims, broken down by type and severity
Average length of pending litigated and non-litigated claims
Average cost per closed litigated and non-litigated claim file
Average number of days necessary to close litigated and non-litigated claims
Average amount paid (indemnity) per closed litigated and non-litigated claim

These are just the basics. If you have more information available, get it.If you don’t have this information, you have gained some valuable knowledge as well, namely, that you will need to develop or implement ways of tracking such information as part of your plan.

Who Is Doing the Work?

Next, you have to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your claim handlers, claim managers, outside counsel, and any other vendors you employ to handle claims and litigation. If you haven’t formally evaluated these folks in a while, now would be a good time to do so.

Find out what they do, how they do it, and ask them for feedback regarding how they think that they can do their jobs better. One of the biggest problems I’ve seen are companies that get in the way of their employees being successful often through employing processes and procedures that look good on paper, but don’t make sense in practice. The only way to know if this is occurring in your organization is to spend some quality time with the people who are doing the work.

And don’t leave out the lawyers! Although some may believe that panel counsel are only interested in billing you as much as they can, the good ones are also in an excellent position to know if your litigation procedures are costing the carrier money. They can also provide procedural and process changes that may result in moving litigation to conclusion more quickly.

Know Thy Carrier

While all carriers want to decrease costs, decrease claims, and decrease litigation, there are different philosophies as to how to accomplish these goals. Some carriers may want to avoid litigation at all costs because they don’t want to pay legal fees and thus, they may be willing to pay more on questionable claims in order to avoid litigation. Some carriers may want to take a hard-line approach with all claims and litigation (i.e. if they can’t prove it, we’re not paying it). Some carriers take a more practical, business approach and want to do a cost-benefit analysis regarding the payment of claims and litigation.

You must know your carrier’s philosophy before you can make changes that count. Moreover, the philosophy you choose is the one that is going to be the face of your claim and litigation department for the world to see, so make sure it’s the face you want to display consistently. Companies that do not have, or do not know, what their claim and litigation philosophy is will not be successful at consistently reducing costs and closing claims and litigation.

In order to develop your philosophy, you will need to work with the balance of senior management and other relevant stakeholders to discuss the options and arrive at a conclusion that everyone is comfortable with promoting throughout the organization. Depending upon the size of your carrier, the number of people involved, and the difficulty you have obtaining information, going through steps one through three may take approximately two to six months. However, once you complete these steps, you will be armed with everything you need to sit down and draft your new claim and litigation management plan.

Check back in December for part two of my blog that will discuss initial steps in your new claim and litigation management plan and provide an example of a plan that was successful for me.

6 Steps To Reduce Expenses For Medical Experts As Suggested By The Expert

Posted on June 17, 2010 by Philip Lanzkowsky

If you send it all, they will bill for reviewing it all

Lowering expert costs are simple if you just send only the information needed

I have been a medical expert for both the plaintiff and the defense for more than 40 years in various states. I am amazed at the volume of unnecessary medical records and other material sent to experts for review. Once I receive them I have to spend numerous hours, at considerable expense to lawyers and insurance carriers, wading through pages of irrelevant information and quite often duplicates of material.

How can this be avoided? How can this unnecessary expense be reduced? How can this process be streamlined and made more efficient? The following are some suggestions:

The lawyer or insurance carrier is aware of the plaintiff’s complaints and should restrict material initially sent to the expert to the time frame of the alleged malpractice event. This may consist of anything from one page, when an incorrect dose or procedure was the cause of the malpractice suit, or a longer time frame if that is warranted, or to the particular admission in which the malpractice event took place.
The lawyer should send the pertinent pages of the medical record on the event with necessary back-up material, e.g., pertinent laboratory, radiological or pathological reports, or pertinent focused nursing notes or flow sheets.
All other material, e.g., medical records of previous unrelated admissions and duplicative or irrelevant information should be culled from the record and not sent to the expert. The appropriate culling of the record can be done by trained para-legal personnel at considerable less expense compared to this being done by the medical expert. This will expedite the process and be more cost-effective.
The medical expert should then request focused information to conclude his evaluation and report.
If the case is to be settled (and I believe that 90% of them are) then this is all that should be required.
Should the case go to trial, and should it be necessary, additional records can be sent to the medical expert for review in preparation for trial.

Editors Comment:

The costs to defend malpractice has been rising for years (see my post – Medical Malpractice Report Shows Increased Severity Despite Lower Frequency) and this is really a practical idea to help lower those costs. Once an expert receives the entire file they will be obligated to review the material. This suggestion need not be limited to just medical experts and can be used in a variety of cases where experts are retained. Experts are an expensive, necessary, part of the process, and looking for new ways to lower those costs are a good thing.

Any other suggestions for lowering expert costs?

How To Understand Capturing Lost Hotel Profits Due To The Gulf Oil Spill

Posted on June 16, 2010 by Bob Glasser

Knowing how to capture lost profits is critical when seeking reimbursement from the responsible party

With uncertainty and concern surrounding the impact of the Gulf oil spill to the coastline from Florida to Texas, many companies are asking what needs to be done to quantify and document lost income for future claims. Many businesses are considering filing insurance claims. Others may be looking at the potentially responsible parties for direct reimbursement. Regardless of the source of indemnification, proper documentation of claimed losses is critical.

Whether submitting a claim, or receiving one, understanding what is needed will help expedite and manage a fair process.

Quantifying the lost demand can be tricky

Quantifying and documenting lost revenue has been a complicated undertaking for the hospitality industry. On one hand, documenting cancellations in connection with booked rooms is relatively straightforward. On the other hand, identifying lost demand prior to a booking can be quite subjective.

Capturing cancellations with appropriate and supportable documentation to withstand future audit can happen only if specific protocols and procedures are put in place now. The process needs to be properly documented and communicated to the relevant employees. Documentation objectives include memorializing discussions and correspondence among hotel sales personnel or reservation agents with guests, potential guests, corporate booking agents and wholesalers, for the purpose of identifying the reason for a cancellation. Loss documentation prepared today should be reviewed by a seasoned financial professional to increase the likelihood it will withstand challenge by an adverse party.

Stick to a protocol to help get to the bottom of the loss

The protocol for associating lost income from canceled bookings to the oil spill may include refinements to existing sales software or the use of a database/spreadsheet to include the group name, group contact, intended date of stay, number of rooms, F&B revenue, room revenue, ancillary revenue, date of cancellation and reason for cancellation as well re-booking date if any and where the group moved, if known.

Additional recommended procedures to be implemented include but are not limited to the following:

Reservation call centers should be provided specific instructions on how to document lost demand when guests ask about oil spill conditions.
Properties should identify any group discounts they offer to either appease a group with complaints due to the oil spill or to maintain a group reservation that was considering canceling due to the oil spill. These discounts would be considered a mitigation strategy to curtail future lost revenues.
Any extra expenses incurred for marketing promotion or additional advertising over the normal operations to negate a loss of occupancy due to the oil spill should be documented.
Subsequent drops in occupancy rates from historical levels attributable to the oil spill should be recorded. Therefore, pre-oil spill occupancy, ADR and RevPar reports must be archived and maintained for future documentary support of decline in revenue.

The ability to submit and ultimately settle a claim for lost revenue with either an insurance carrier, BP, or another entity will be predicated on the culmination of many hours of dedicated recordkeeping and consistent application of data accumulation protocol. The critical lesson learned is that when an organization is able to execute the above steps, the likelihood of proving a loss and recovery is substantially increased.

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

Posted on February 25, 2010 by Marc Lanzkowsky

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.