1 / 18

BI Settlement Issues I

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

amalia
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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BI Settlement Issues I • IRC Studies (1977+, latest 2002 CY) • AIB Studies (1986+, latest 1996 AY) • Medicals Dominate • Injury Types • General Damages

  2. BI Settlement Issues II • Investigation • Suspicion of Fraud and Build-up • Settlement Negotiation • Low Impact Collision • Passengers • Bad Faith • Evolution Over Time

  3. Injury Type Changes

  4. Total Claimed Medical Charges by Type of Service

  5. 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

  6. Table 1

  7. Table 2

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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%]

  11. 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%).

  12. Total Value of Negotiation Variables

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

  14. 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.

More Related