Bi settlement issues i l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 18

BI Settlement Issues I PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 90 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

BI Settlement Issues I. IRC Studies (1977+, latest 2002 CY) AIB Studies (1986+, latest 1996 AY) Medicals Dominate Injury Types General Damages. BI Settlement Issues II. Investigation Suspicion of Fraud and Build-up Settlement Negotiation Low Impact Collision Passengers Bad Faith

Download Presentation

BI Settlement Issues I

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Bi settlement issues i l.jpg

BI Settlement Issues I

  • IRC Studies (1977+, latest 2002 CY)

  • AIB Studies (1986+, latest 1996 AY)

  • Medicals Dominate

  • Injury Types

  • General Damages


Bi settlement issues ii l.jpg

BI Settlement Issues II

  • Investigation

  • Suspicion of Fraud and Build-up

  • Settlement Negotiation

  • Low Impact Collision

  • Passengers

  • Bad Faith

  • Evolution Over Time


Injury type changes l.jpg

Injury Type Changes


Total claimed medical charges by type of service l.jpg

Total Claimed Medical Charges by Type of Service


General damages l.jpg

General Damages

  • Special Damages are Claimant Economic Losses

    • Medical Bills

    • Wage Loss

    • Other Economic

  • General Damages are Residual of Negotiated Settlement Less Specials

    • “Three Times Specials” is a Myth


Table 1 l.jpg

Table 1


Table 2 l.jpg

Table 2


Negotiated settlements l.jpg

Negotiated Settlements

  • Specials may be Discounted or Ignored

  • Medicals: Real or Built-up?

  • Information from Investigation

  • Independent Medical Exams (IMEs)

  • Special Investigation

  • Suspicion of Fraud or Build-up


Settlement modeling l.jpg

Settlement Modeling

  • Major Claim Characteristics

  • Tobit Regression for Censored Data

    (right censored for policy limits)

  • Evaluation Model for Objective “Facts”

  • Negotiation Model for all Other “Facts”, including suspicion of fraud or build-up


Evaluation variables l.jpg

Evaluation Variables

Prior Tobit Model (1993AY)

  • Claimed Medicals (+)

  • Claimed Wages (+)

  • Fault (+)

  • Attorney (+18%)

  • Fracture (+82%)

  • Serious Visible Injury at Scene (+36%)

  • Disability Weeks (+10% @ 3 weeks)

    New Model Additions (1996AY)

  • Non-Emergency CT/MRI (+31%)

  • Low Impact Collision (-14%)

  • Three Claimants in Vehicle (-12%)

  • Same BI + PIP Co. (-10%) [Passengers -22%]


Negotiation variables l.jpg

Negotiation Variables

New Model Additions (1996AY)

  • Atty (1st) Demand Ratio to Specials (+8% @ 6 X Specials)

  • BI IME No Show (-30%)

  • BI IME Positive Outcome (-15%)

  • BI IME Not Requested (-14%)

  • BI Ten Point Suspicion Score (-12% @ 5.0 Average)

  • [1993 Build-up Variable (-10%)]

  • Unknown Disability (+53%)

  • [93A (Bad Faith) Letter Not Significant]

  • [In Suit Not Significant]

  • [SIU Referral (-6%) but Not Significant]

  • [EUO Not Significant]

    Note: PIP IME No Show also significantly reduces BI + PIP by

    discouraging BI claim altogether (-3%).


Total value of negotiation variables l.jpg

Total Value of Negotiation Variables


Slide17 l.jpg

Actual parameters for negotiation and evaluation models, with and without suspicion variable, are shown in the hard copy handout


References l.jpg

References

  • Derrig, R.A. and H.I. Weisberg [2003], Auto Bodily Injury Claim Settlement in Massachusetts, Final Results of the Claim Screen Experiment, Massachusetts DOI 2003-15.

  • Derrig, R.A. and H.I. Weisberg, [2003], Determinants of Total Compensation for Auto Bodily Injury Liability Under No-Fault: Investigation, Negotiation and the Suspicion of Fraud, Working paper, Automobile Insurers Bureau of MA.

  • Derrig, R.A., H.I. Weisberg and Xiu Chen, [1994], Behavioral Factors and Lotteries Under No-Fault with a Monetary Threshold: A Study of Massachusetts Automobile Claims, Journal of Risk and Insurance, 61:2, 245-275.

  • Ross, Lawrence H. [1980], Settled out of Court, (Chicago, III: Aldine).

  • Insurance Research Council [1999], Injuries in Auto Accidents, An Analysis of Auto Insurance Claims. Malvern, PA

  • Insurance Research Council [ 2003], Auto Injury Insurance Claims. Countrywide Patterns in Treatment, Cost, and Compensation, Malvern PA

  • Abrahamse, A. and Stephen J. Carroll [1999], The Frequency of Excess Claims for Automobile Personal Injuries, Automobile Insurance: Road Safety, New Drivers, Risks, Insurance Fraud and Regulation, Claire Laberge-Nadeau, and Georges Dionne, Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 131-151.


  • Login