Claim and risk managers are continuously searching for new solutions to automate the claims process and increase organization for their employees.

With constant change in the insurance software technology industry to update aging systems, solution providers are now offering updated services for clients by the dozens. Claims management software now includes newer capabilities, to consolidate multiple lines of business to gain efficiencies, and to enhance customer service. As companies are making these major enterprise decisions, this process can become complex and confusing. Pay attention to these features while browsing software reviews.

Efficiency of Claims Management

Handling claims efficiently and accurately is essential to keep customers satisfied and improving a company's overall performance. As claims management software manages the claim process, starting from First Notice of Loss (FNOL) to final settlement, reviewers should show that the system effectively managed each claim. Making sure that the software helps with organization of all file activity and easily maintain reports and correspondences should be a deal breaker in your decision making process. Improving workflow productivity with faster access to claims data will be a major plus for employees to operate with efficiency. With an efficient claims management system in place, companies are able to manage risk more effectively and settle legitimate claims faster.

Easily Documenting and Maintaining File Activity

The scenario that takes place from first notice of loss (FNOL) to claim assessment and processing should be fully documented for later use. A key factor in a claims management software review should show that each claim can be maintained by the software's document depository. Your claim data should be properly retained for future reference.

Security and Confidentiality

Claims information should always be kept secure and safe with the use of multi-level access passwords and encrypted data. All users should be given unique ids and passwords. No plain text version of any password should exist. If the claims management software gives users the option to reset a password while viewing an old password, that is an immediate red flag for an unsecure system. Data to and from the user should always be encrypted using standard SSL encryption to guarantee a secured network. Additionally, user access rights, authority levels, and hierarchy relationships with management for over the limit approvals are a necessity.

Software Integration

Incorporating other software products like Microsoft Excel and Outlook helps to assist with the management of claims data. These new capabilities will give options to export/transfer claims data, and handle each claim quickly, more efficiently, and can automate the process. An automated process is the most ideal set up for a claims manager system and reduces any chance of error. Working with an integrated system, provides the ease in just a few clicks to manage claims, eligibility, benefits, reports, and notes with the most up-to-date system.

As companies embark on finding the most optimal claims management software, make sure a clear idea of what is needed to successfully manage all claims has been established. Quality customer service and employee productivity should be provided by the claims management software. This helps insurers and risk managers to enhance their service and gives them a competitive edge over other companies.

JDi Data Corporation has provided insurance claims software since 1992. Our product suite includes workers compensation software and claims management systems for property and casualty, medical malpractice, and specialty lines to be administered by insurers, risk managers, and third party administrators. JDi Data has built a reputation in quality claims management software with special emphasis on complex litigation.

View the original article here

See More →Where to Start With Claims Management Software Reviews

Architects, surveyors and consulting engineers fees incurred in reinstating subsidence damage are usually insured under the subsidence insurance policy wordings. The amount of fees being limited to the appropriate professional scale (if any); the cover for fees is contained within the sum insured. Reasonable costs incurred in determining the cause of subsidence are normally regarded as part of the reinstatement costs, assuming that the damage is established as having been caused by subsidence, landslip or ground heave. Consequently the cost of trial holes, or in more exceptional cases, a site investigation, will be claimable under a home insurance policy if the damage is related to the operation of an insured peril, whereas it will be the sole responsibility of the building owner in any other case.

Problems can arise in relation to overlapping of professional fees. If, for example, a surveyor or an architect is appointed to deal with the repair of serious subsidence damage, an engineer is frequently appointed to advise on underpinning. The engineer investigates the existing foundations, prepares a scheme including drawings for underpinning, often invites specialists' tenders for this work and then supervises the underpinning.

Example:

In a contract with which Mr Robbucka was concerned, the total contract sum was some £10,000, of which £8,000 was expended on underpinning. In cases such as this, it is, in Mr Robbucka's submission, inequitable for a surveyor or architect to seek to charge the full professional scale fee on all the works, as if the consulting engineer had not been employed, in addition to the engineer's charges. If both parties charge full-scale fees, the total fees in relation to underpinning can approach 25% of the cost of the works, which is high. If the surveyor or architect does not perform the full duties specified in the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) or Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) scales of professional charges, they are clearly not entitled to the full percentage scale fee.

The problem is usually overcome by the surveyor or architect accepting a lower percentage charge, say 3-5% for co-ordinating the underpinning works dealt with by the engineer; the normal surveyor's or architect's fee is then charged on other works associated with the repair of the superstructure.

Professional fees are only payable under a subsidence home insurance policy when the building damage is reinstated; therefore if an owner decides not to repair his house, he will not be entitled to claim any fees under his policy.

A new feature has been the developing practice of insurers in funding initial investigations, usually by an appointed loss adjuster with engineering expertise. If a bona fide claim is established, the loss adjuster frequently prepares a scheme for repairs and is involved in contract management during the progress of the works. The subsidence home insurance policy wording remains unchanged and the insured remains entitled to appoint his/her own professional representative and to recover fees necessarily incurred in reinstating damage.

View the original article here

See More →Professional Fees in Subsidence Insurance Claims