Keoghs bring issues to the fore
Personal Injury aware
We’ve had a busy few months with our events from the teams in Legacy, Complex and Catastrophic Loss and Motor to name a few, as well as more coming up (watch out for invites!). We would like to provide a summary of two events which have brought about further information for us to work with.
Firstly, the Complex and Catastrophic Loss team hosted a day around the future of complex injury claims, ‘Great Expectations or Hard Times’. The day provided an insight into future claims challenges from acknowledged leaders in their respective fields. Presentations from Matthew Perkins and Andrew Underwood kicked off the day, looking at dementia and the biggest challenges that are causing concern. We then had a very interesting (and at times very funny!) presentation from Professor Peter Thomas, followed by talks from Jon Graham on exoskeletons and Gerard Martin QC, who gave his views from the claimant side.
Maggie Sargent provided an interesting update on case management, and then Hugh Jones gave an illuminating presentation on costs involved in catastrophic claims. The day ended with a panel debate, where David Heaton QC, Andrew Ritchie QC, Andrew Underwood and Matthew Perkins addressed three key ‘bugbears’ clients wanted to discuss – case managers, settlement/JSM frustrations, and lack of engagement and evidence in sub-catastrophic cases.
We had extremely positive feedback from clients, including “Well presented, informative and thought provoking, one of the best I’ve attended this year...” and “Good range of speakers, balanced well from defence and claimant perspective.”. The Complex and Catastrophic Loss team continue to engage with clients around some of the key issues addressed by the conference, particularly looking at case management with clients which is continuing in the coming months.
Then in November, we held our motor conference, which took a strategic path, looking at the great potential technology has to disrupt or enhance the claims process – not just the impending reforms. We started with our Director of Product Development, Dene Rowe, and Chief Executive of Rainbird Technologies, James Duez, who provided an insight into how AI capabilities can either automate or augment decision points in the motor claims journey. This was followed by Don Clarke and Chief Executive of Exam Works UK, Donald Fowler, discussing what the ‘new world’ will look like, with a consolidating claimant market and new business models very much being the centre of the presentations.
After a break, John Gibson was next, to discuss the impact of technology and reform on credit hire, before Damian Ward gave his (strong) views on the world of fraud and how things will change due to new behaviours.
The day ended with a panel debate where our speakers were asked a variety of questions from the audience and host for the day, Don Clarke.
Again, feedback was very positive from those who attended and a future update event is being considered nearer the time of the reforms being implemented.
During Dene Rowe’s presentation, an interactive survey produced some interesting results:
Do you consider that the reforms, given an adjustment time, will significantly reduce the frequency of low value motor PI claims and achieve a reduction in fraud?
43% - Frequency same or reduce/fraud up
29% - requency same or increase/fraud down
14% - Both increase
14% - Both reduce
Which technologies do you think will be adopted on scale?
12.5% - Automated decision making and processing of claims, e.g. liability decisions in low value claims, automated protocol processing for credit hire claims
6.5% - Process automation e.g. cheque processing, instructing suppliers
0% - Document analysis, extracting information automatically to triage claims, look for triggers, avoid double-keying
0% - Language processing – translating voice into structured data (e.g. for FNOL calls)
81% - All of the above – 81%
If a competitor gained first mover advantage on claims automation that was seen to deliver a benefit, would you:
56% - Look to catch up internally
19% - Outsource to someone who could automate
19% - Seek to differentiate in another way
6.5% - Ignore it and carry on
Would you trust a computer, a software platform and/or an external body to filter and automate routine claims?
90% - Yes
10% - No
As a result of the twin challenge of reform and technology – are you actively considering the way in which you handle volume PI claims for the future?)