Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*ROOFPROCESSUPDATE
*F|RE PROCESSUPDATE
*CSCPROCESSUPDATE
*HDSUPDATE
*GENERAL|SSUES
H000002820
LLMNLPL HLLL ULP1L
H000002821
Koo!roccss\gdatc
Roof Paid Severity*
Phoenix
Denver
Baseline
$1,287
$2,225
Test
$
743
$1,160
Total Roof Replacements*
Phoenix
Denver
Baseline
ZI
Z
"(3 ON8y 1, 1VV
(3 OJuu0 4, 1VV
Test
1
I+
Phoenix
Denver
Phoenix
Denver
%CWP*
Baseline
Z
ZV
ICSS Results"
Baseline
Z
Test
+1
1
Test
1
1
H000002822
Koo!roccssHhh|s
Test results indicate consistent process
execution with 1,008 fles in process
Test results driving desired behaviors
through CWP /CW ratio's and fll
replacements vs repairs
ICSS results are showing positive trends in
customer satisfaction with a total of O+
ICSS surveys in test
H000002823
IcnhardcKoo!roccss
Early Observations
Baseline and t est r esul t s were surveys c onducted using files clsoed 5 t o 15 days vs traditi onal
30t o 30days
*
lu
H000002835
Georgia Property Test- Performance of CSC by Overall Satisfaction
Keeping the customer informed and efectively coordinating claim activities ar key factors that contribute to less than completely
satisfed customers
100%
90%
80%
C
70%
L
C
a 60%
<
50%
D
40%
C
30%
*
20%
10%
0%
First Kept
Contacted in Customer
Expected Informed
Time
Result represent responses fm 35 test sureys plus 1live sureys
Followed Up
as Promised
Efectively
Coordinated
Claim
Activities
Presented
an Easy to
Understand
Explanation
11 5 Comp Sat
O4and Below
|i1|J
/,
H000002836
Georgia Property Test - Overall Satisfaction by Length of Claim
Longer pending claims are beginning to trend favorably in comparison to Baseline and Test results
100%
90%
80%
70%
O
U
@ 60%
O
50%
O
b
_ 40%
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
-IDays
Test and Live result represent CSCclaims only
Baseline = 80 daims sureyed
Test = 35 daims sureyed
Live = 64 daims sureyed
0
71%
60%
0%
8-14Days 15-21 Days 22-28 Days 1-2 Months
Length of Claim
bW
?2 Months
Baseline (Pre-CSC)
llTest (5-15days post closure)
Live 3-3days post closure)
6/24/98
H000002837
Georgia Propery Test - Overall Satisfaction by Peril
Overall satisfaction is trending positively in all major perils other than wind/hail
100%
100%
90%
80%
70%
G
V
60%
U
D
t
50%
b
C
40%
L
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fire
Test and Live result reprsent bclaims only
Baseline = 80 claims sureyed
Test= 35 claims sureyed
Live = bcaims sureyed
89%
Lightning Theft
Peril
86%
Water Wind/Hail
LBaseline (Pre-CSC)
Test (5-15 days post closure)
Live 3-3days post closure)
6/24198
H000002838
Georgia Proper Test- Impact of Contact Times on Overall Satisfaction
Quicker initial contacts and inspections are leading to completely satisfied customers
1680
144.0
120.0
U
J6.0
O
D
C
E
| 2.0
4.0
.1
24.0
0.0 ~
Initial Contact
Resu|tsa|emed|aasfr 35 testsue,sc|us1||.esure,s
23.5
1.1
Level 00 Initial Contact
144.0
[0as)
Adjuster On-Site Inspection
N 5Comp B.
O41dBelow
?V
H000002839
Georgia Property Test - Overall Average of ICSS Responses and Likelihood of Renewal
The CSC process has 'averaged up' customers' overall satisfaction and consequently, increased the percentage of customers that are very likely to renew
5.00
4.90
m
m
[ 4.80
C
m
4.70
z
C
T 4.60
m
4.50
U
4.40
L
@ 4.30
w
4.20
w
4.10
4.00
Baseline
Test and Live results represent CSC claims only
Baseline (Pre-CSC) 80 claims surveyed
Test (5-15 dys post closure) 35 claims sureyed
Live (30-36 dys post dosure) 64 claims sureyed
Test Live
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
> 70.0%
w
c
w
O 60.0%
E
50.0% w
.
40.0%
w
3
B 30.0%
20.0%
10 0%
0.0%
Baseline Test Live
61418
H000002840
LL O|gD|2l|ODl|uOlu|O -1llDlOSlS|lO FtSnl
6/1/98
H000002841
CC Org8nl28ll0n lruOlur8 - AlI8nl8T88l ll8 Ft8S8nl
Structure Description
- STL added to manage the OC's
- Express Team is added to handle the subset of claims
that a Coordi nator doesn't add value to
- Mul ti pl e IC's withi n teams al l ows greater flexibil ity and
more eficeint use of adjusters
Key Learnings
- Express team al l ows greater flexibil ity for
Controller
- STL manages the OC's,now the OC's
can focus solely on the customer
H000002842
LLLN MPHLL
H000002843
L O!gD|2l|ODl|uOlu|O - 2Dd HOuDdlOSl - LlODh!d|O Ft8S8nl
6/23/98
I
I
g L '
H000002844
Glenhardie Workload
Inside Coordinator
Outside Coordinator
Express
Inside Adjuster*
Outside Adjuster
OC Adjusters**
* Includes Independent Adj uster assignments
-Workload is pr edominantly Fir e pr ocess
Avg rec'd per day
7.73
0.64
5.00
8.51
1.96
0.26
Goal per day
6.0
undetermined
8.0
undetermined
3.2
H000002845
Glenhardie Customer Satisfaction Results
1997 Y ICSS
Test Baseline results
Test results
70.4%
71.2 %
92.0%
153 surveys
12 surveys
H000002846
Key Activities to be completed
Controller Job re design
Time studies for:
- Controller
-QE
- Express
- Inside/Outside Adjuster
QE design work
Focus Group updates
H000002847
HO555\L5
HDS Status
- Requirements
- Design Database/Programs
HDS Timeline
- 1/13 deliver Coordinator workfow
- 8/24 deliver Process data captre
*
Training/ Audit Support
- Provided training on dispatch/ADS to H
CCPR team
H000002848
HO5ssucs
HDS Future Plans
- Design Inspection, Testing and Implementation
- Performance Management and Report
Requirements
3c
H000002849
Lene| |88ue8
71
H000002850
STATUS UPDATE-MAJOR DESIGN WORK ACTIVITIES
H000002851
AREA
Skill Assessment Worksheet
New Job Descriptions and pay
grades
Process Training Manuals
Staffing Model
STATUS
*Design work completed
*Worksheets reviewed by Ed.
Serices (Donna Porrier)
NEXT STEPS
*Meet with Bill Rathey Paul
Zigterman
*Make final changes if necessary
*Recommended changes completed
*Job descriptions completed for
IC,OC,STL,QE
*Meet with Bill Rathey to review
content, Determine pay grade
*Finalize CSC training manual,
*Roof and Fire manuals completed including word paths
*Currently working with Ed
Serices on Recommended
enhancements
*Currently working with
Zigterman to review manuals
from legal perspective
*Time study work completed for
IC/OC, Roof Fire
*Brian Dittle has had several
meetings with Finance to
understand methodology
*Refer to Ed Serices and legal for
sign off
*Complete time studies for
Controller, STL Express
*Build Model
EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE
Jul-98
Jul-98
Aug-98
Aug-98 to Sept-98
o
H000002852
AREA
Implementation Video
Implementation Manual
STATUS
*Meet with Dave Kenney.Corp
Relations to discuss approach
and time line
*Begin work on manual while at
currently test site for Roof, Fire
Processes, general issues
NEXT STEPS
*Complete video
*Finalize manual following CSC
testing in Glenhardie
EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE
Sep-98
Sep-98
H000002853
WORK GOING FORWARD - KEY ISSUES TO RESOLVE
AREA
Ski Assessment Wor ksheet
New Job Posit ions/ Pay Grade
CosUBenefit Analysis of Outside Coordinat or/Adj ust er
Team Concept
ISSUE
J PCCSO phi l osophical appr oach on use of this t ool
J
Overs ight needs t o assure ongoing usage in employee
j ob placement decisions
J Linkage t o H.R. scr eening of new h ires
J I mpl icat ions of CSC st ruct ur e on PG 3I( PE, PL)
J Appr oach with c urr ent PL's who have the skil l-set
for STL posit ion, but no opening t o p lace them
J Appr oach with c urrent PL's who do not have the
ski l l-set for STL posit ion
J Appr oach with PE' s who do not have the ski l l -set
for new PE posit i on
J Do the cust omer sat isfact ion benefits and/ or r et ent i on
benefits j ust ify the high number of r esources dedicated
t o the process
J Claims that fit the O.C. pr ofile are minimal 3~
of t otal c lai m c ounts)
J Virt ual ly no impact on ICSS r esults
J Ret ent ion is not measur ed
H000002854
ROOF TEAM
FIRE TEAM
CSC TEAM
IMPLICATIONS:
TOY STATUS
Name Star Date End Date Re-up Date MCO
Mike Bolts-Team Leader 11/1/96 9/1/98 No NCT
Hugh Davis 8/1/97 8/1/98 Until 9/1/98 Nashville
Dick Fisher 8/1/97 8/1/98 Until 12/31/98 Glenhardie
Glenn Sternisha 5/1/98 11/1/98 Until 5/1/99 Denver
Paul Tracey-Team Leader 12/1/97 12/1/98 No Prop. PCCSO
Margie Bowman 7/1/97 7/1/98 Until 10/1/98 Roanoke Subro
Diane Collier 9/1/96 9/1/98 Until 12/31/98 Nashville
Terry Arnall 5/1/97 11/1/98 Until 5/1/99 Phoenix
David Rydell 5/1/98 11/1/98 Until 5/1/99 San Antonio
Kim Bearden 5/1/98 11/1/98 Until 5/1/99 BAHO
Vicky Lusby 6/1/97 6/1/98 Until 12/31/1998 Dallas
Jef Dwyer-Team Leader 12/1/97 12/1/98 No New Jersey
Tracey Geigerich 5/1/98 11/1/98 No Ct. Prop.
Melanie Thurston 5/1/98 11/1/98 No Indiana
Grantley Aaron 5/1/98 11/1/98 No Harrison
Lori Quagliano 5/1/98 11/1/98 No Florida
Ed Patane 5/1/98 11/1/98 Maybe New Jersey
Scott Sylwester 8/1/97 8/1/98 No WA. PROP.
Jude Samson 8/1/97 8/1/98 No Ryder
Wayne Evans 8/1/97 8/1/98 Until 9/1/98 Carolinas
Penny Howell 8/1/97 8/1/98 Until 9/1/98 Atlanta
Chrissie Bowers 9/1/96 9/1/98 Until 12/31/98 Maryland
Jef Menaguale 6/1/98 12/1/98 Until 12/1/98
Roy Delph 1/1/98 1/1/99 Maybe VNDC
Carol Palmer 5/1/98 11/1/98 Until 5/1/99 Rosevile
24 of 25 team members will spin of the team prior to of during planned 10/98 countrwide implementation start;
however, we can keep 8 of these team members fr the first-round implementation (10-98 to 12-98) if
re-ups are approved.
Page 1
H000002855
Ap endix Roof
\
H000002856
_.>..<*^*me -.v+v.<.t.<~m.- >Jvmv>v/+e* v+++ w v
J
CCPR PROCESS - BASELINE SUBPERIL PAID STATISTICS BY STATE
i
24-Jun-98
STATE SUBPERI CLAIS ROOF CWA'S ROOF%CWP ROOF PAI OOF SEVRIT ROOF CLOSED COST FIE PAI FIE CLOSED COS
U WIN 62 41 33.87% $26,550 $647.56 $428.23 $43,263 $697.79
N WIN 109 68 37.61% $55,888 $821.88 $512.73 $127,018 $1,165.30
N WIN 162 116 28.40% $139,644 $1,203.83 $862.00 $181,004 $1,117.31
AZ WIN 85 58 31.76% $71,347 $1,230.12 $839.38 $116,676 $1,372.66
CSA WIN 418 283 32.30% $293,429 $1,036.85 $701.98 $467,961 $1,119.52
U HAI 9 5 44.44% $3,760 $752.00 $417.78 $6,456 $717.33
N HAIL 2 0 100.00% $0 Mtt0t $0.00 $2,086 $1,043.00
N HAI 85 62 27.06% $145,274 $2,343.13 $1,709.11 $167,066 $1,965.48
AZ HAI 14 10 28.57% $20,773 $2,077.30 $1,483.79 $25,573 $1,826.64
CSA HAI 110 77 30.00% $169,807 $2,205.29 $1,543.70 $201,181 $1,828.92
1
H000002857
#7-9J/#W % ^Jv VPvwJVt ^* *<<<~*P ^Vv4yPvVP<\V7-9v-y_
CCPR PROCESS - HAIL PAID STATISTICS BY STATE
24-Jun-98
STATE CLAIS ROOF CWA'S ROOF%CWP ROOF PA OOF SEVERIT ROOF CLOSED COST FIE PA FIE CLOSED COST
A 177 131 25.99% $136,476 $1,041.80 $771.05 $393,417 $2,222.69
N 23 4 82.61% $6,793 $1,698.25 $295.35 $8,284 $360.17
N 6 3 50.00% $7,316 $2,438.67 $1,219.33 $14,834 $2,472.33
U 4 4 0.00% $7,612 $1,903.00 $1,903.00 $9,433 $2,358.25
CSA 210 142 32.38% $158,197 $ 1,114.06 $7 53.32 $42 5,968 $2,028.42
H000002858
CCPR PROCESS - SUBPERIL BY STATE FACTORS
24-Jun-98
SUBPER STATE CLAIS 24 HCONTACT CONTACT% ROOFISP ROOFISPo EST ON SITE EST ON SITE%
H A 177 80 45.20% 146 82.49% 129 72.88%
H N 23 20 86.96% 23 100.00% 5 21.74%
H N 6 3 50.00% 5 83.33% 2 33.33%
H U 4 2 50.00% 4 100.00% 4 100.00%
W A 142 86 60.56% 131 92.25% 63 44.37%
W N 72 45 62.50% 66 91.67% 44 61.11%
W N 175 78 44.57% 121 69.14% 57 32.57%
W U 79 67 84.81% 70 88.61% 57 72.15%
CSA 678 381 56.19% 566 83.48% 361 53.24%
H000002859
CCPR PROCESS - WIND PAID STATISTICS BY STATE
|
24-Jun-98
STATE CLAIS ROOF CWA'S ROOFoCWP ROOF PA OOF SEVERTY ROOF CLOSED COST FIE PA FIE CLOSED COST
A 142 61 57.04% $33,311 $546.08 $234.58 $62,500 $440.14
N 72 29 59.72% $13,065 $450.52 $181.46 $25,925 $360.07
N 175 88 49.71% $48,901 $555.69 $279.43 $155,576 $889.01
U 79 44 44.30% $16,969 $385.66 $214.80 $26,198 $331.62
CSA 468 222 52.56% $112,246 $505.61 $239.84 $270,199 $577.35
H000002860
_
_ + _______
_____
s
______++a+a+e++++a++++a++++++e+++_
24-Jun-98
SUB PERI STATE TOTAL CLAIS BY AREA DAMAGE TYPE COUNT OF DAMAGE. DISTRIUTION OF DAMAGE
H A 177 30 16.95%
H A 177 2 119 67.23%
H A 177 3 10 5.65%
H N 23 1 4.35%
H N 23 2 3 13.04%
H N 6 2 4 66.67%
H U 4 1 25.00%
H U 4 2 2 50.00%
H U 4 3 1 25.00%
W A 142 1 7 4.93%
W A 142 2 51 35.92%
W A 142 3 44 30.99%
W N 72 2 17 23.61%
W N 72 3 31 43.06%
W N 175 8 4.57%
W N 175 2 56 32.00%
W N 175 3 26 14.86%
W U 79 1 2 2.53%
W U 79 2 50 63.29%
W U 79 3 10 12.66%
H000002861
""T F5~g
_p_______
---
. _ _
__ _
24-Jun-98
STATE SUBPERIL CLAIS ROOF CWA'S ROOF% CWP ROOF PAID ROOF SEVERITY ROOF CLOSED COST FIE PAI FIE CLOSED COST
co WN
co H
97
108
58
80
40.21% $45,479
25.93% $261,557
$784.12
$3,269.46
$468.86 $59,405
$2,421.82 $308,083
$612.42
$2,852.62
H000002862
CCPR PROCESS - HAIL PAID STATISTICS BY STATE
24-un-98
STATE CLAIS ROOF CWA'S ROOF% L ROOF PA ROOF SEVERITY ROOF CLOSED COST FIE PA FIE CLOSED COST
co 228 70 69.30% $104,401 $1,491.44 $457.90 $115,451 $506.36
CSA 228 70 69.30% $104,401 $1,491.44 $457.90 $115,451 $506.36
H000002863
CCPR PROCESS - SUBPERIL BY STATE FACTORS
.
24-Jun-98
SUBPERIL STATE CLAIS 24 HR CONTACT CONTACT% ROOFISP ROOFISP% EST ON SITE EST ON SITE%
HI co 228 205 89.91% 189 82.89% 90 39.47%
W co 102 83 81.37% 78 76.47% 64 62.75%
CSA 330 288 87.27% 267 80.91% 154 46.67%
1
H000002864
CCPR PROCESS - WIND PAID STATISTICS BY STATE
24-Jun-98
STATE CLAIS ROOF CWA'S ROOF% L ROOF PA ROOF SEVERI ROOF CLOSED COST FIE PA FIE CLOSED COST
co 102 39 61.76% $22,042 $565.18 $216.10 $32,216 $315.84
CSA 102 39 61.76% $22,042 $ 56 5.18 $216.10 $32,216 $315.84
J
H000002865
__
P
__
_ e eeeee
24-Jun-98
SUBPERI STATE TOTAL CLAIS BY AREA DAMAGE TYPE COUNT OF DAMAGE DISTRIUTION OF DAMAGE
H
H
H
W
W
W
co
co
co
co
co
co
228
228
228
102
102
102
1
2
3
2
3
40
31
19
5
42
33
17.54%
13.60%
8.33%
4.90%
41.18%
32.35%
H000002866
T%Z4Z
ZZbZ4
Z4S
Z4bZT%
Z4
Z44
TdT
Z4
Z4Z
ZZ4b4T
TT
TT9
Z4 TZ
bdTZ
T4 Z
Z4
TdTdT%
TTTT
bdT1
TT
TTTT
Z4
bdTTdZ
bM Z
Z4bT
4ZbT
T
>Tb
>T
b4dZ
bTU
b
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
l-Hdala
JT 4
VNT b
? T
JT b
b HT
b VNT
b JT
b JT
b LT
b T
d JT
b HT
b VNT
b VNT
b HT
4 JT
b ?JJ
d T
b JT
b VNT
b JT
b VNT
Pag T
VNT
VNT
LT
HT
JT
JT
N
HT
N
VNT
JT
b
b
b
4
b
b
b
4
b
b
b
b
H000002867
%
%
%T
%Z
%TZ
%ZTZ
%Zd
%T%
4
%T
%TT
%ddT
4
%
%T
%T
%TT
4
%T
%T
%T
44
%ZT1d
%
%TM
%
%ZT
4
4
%Td
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Ml8W08l8
@0T
c
cR
c
N
c
c
c
c
c
c
N
4
b
T
4
b
b
b
4
b
1
b
b
1
b
b
T
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
4
b
4
H000002868
Ap endix - Fire
\
H000002869
ECLUDESDRDfDCD ECLUDESDRDfDCD
SITE SITE SITE SITE SITE SITE SITE
CATEGORY BASE 3/10198 $/# BASE 3/1918 $/# BASE
1. no. o| |l|es
1 829 738 106 357 298 534 96
1 829 738 106 357 298 534 109
549, 112 18 476 65 302 49
13 23 103
8 11 38
7 10 37
17 20 94
6 10 31
0 0 34
Subro ation
1. % ||lesubmlsslon 16 177 9 14 109
2. % subm|||e0 101413 1,829 738 23957 87119 298,534
3. #|llessubml||e0
Clean in
1. % c|ean|o0well 86018 1201902 21503 87781 46901 225508
32097 142048 7696 17048 28616
18064 44764 2105 3545 3872
121533 1201902 4326 87781 7351 225508
68324 1201902 3773 87781 6300 225508
Contents
84032 549112 10509 38418 65302
69085 549112 10355 37594 65302
3. % ||nel|ems 0e 3565 7139 27 311 1903
4. % o||aken |n0e 127274 507249 714 11826 39601
5. % ||emsclean/re a|r 2616 7139 654 1515 1903
Size of Loss Distribution Anal sis
A.0- 500 16.38% 29 28.13% 18 19.27% 21
. 501 - 1000 12.43% 22 12.50% 8 11.93% 13
C. 1001 - 2500 24.86% 44 32.81% 21 36.70% 40
L. 2,501 - 5 000 16.95% 30 21.88% 14 20.18% 2
E. 5,001 - 10 000 10.73% 19 4.69% 3 8.26% 9
|. 10 001- 25 000 10.73% 19 0.00% 0 1.83% 2
G. 25 001 - 50,000 2.82% 5 0.00% 0 1.83% 2
H. 50 001 5.08% 9 0.00% 0 0.00% 0
100.00% 177 100.00% 64 100.00% 109
e
\
"
H000002870
ROSEVILE MCO FIRE MEASUREMENT DATA
CATEGORY Bzsel|ne/181les J Files 76 Files J00 Files 14Z Files J77Files
Severit/Closed Cost
1. avo file sever ity 15.767 5.961 6.278 7.217 8.059 7.917
2. ava closed costs 15.031 5.727 5,948 6.929 7.832 7.738
3. Content sever itv 9.569 4.634 3. 166
Process Compliance
1. Subrogat i on NIA 90.5 94.7
2. Str uct ur e cl eanina NIA 93.8 97. 1
3. Repair vs Replace NIA 100 95.7
4. Customer Serv ice NIA 76.2 80.8
5. Contents NIA 87.5 90.9
6. Vendor Manaaement NIA NIA 81.8 81.3
Subrogation
1. % file s ubmission 4.8 27.4 30.3 36 31.7 25.99
2. % $ submitted 1 1.2 34.6 33 39. 1 49 42.73
3. #fil es s ubmitted 14 23 36 45 46
Cleaning
1. % cl ean $ t o dwel l $ 4.2 9. 1 8. 1 7.9 6. 1 6.33
Repair
1. c l ean ? r epair $ 27. 1
.
58.4 61 46.9 37.8 42.91
t o t otal drval l $
.
.
.
2. clean ? r epair $ t o 1'.7 30.5 32.4 24.2 20 30.33
t otal cabinet $
Specialty Trades
1. % soc. tr d t o dwel l $ 8 8. 1 7.8 7.3 10 9.17
2. % l umosum bids 4.6 4 4.3 3.5 4. 1 4.34
ROSEVILLE (cont) Bzsel|ne/181les J Files 7b Files J00 Files 14Z Files 77Files
CT ct to o.
``
H000002871
8ubbImht8/PAC8 73Z/9 208 FII8 230 flI8
1.$ and # 8ttuG.8u $11,189{15 $36,894 125) $38, 056 127)
1. Missed damaaes $1.056 3) $2.5.41 14\ $3.539 15)
2. Hidden damaoes
3. Unsat cleanina $16.505 11) $16 669 12)
4. Unsat repairs $574 11 $574(11 $57411)
5. Incorrect measure.
6. Incorrect Pricina
7. FRC $963(4 $2 100 18\ $2 10018\
8. Cleanina vendor SUP. $105 11 $10511) $10511)
9.ALE $1,391 (1) $1.39111\ $1 391111
10. Exoense oavment $1.550 2 $1 550 (2\ $1.550 12)
11. Other $5,550 3 $12, 128 (7) $12, 128 (7)
2. $ and # Cont. 8ubb $4,802 '2 $14,786 (4) $15, 130 (5)
1. Missed item(s)
2. Unsat cleanina
3. Could not clean $9 668 11\ $9.668 (1 )
4. Unsat repair
5. Incorrect Pricina $2.388 11 $2 388 (1\ $2.388 11\
6. Prooer verification $2,414 (1 $2,414 111 $2,414 (1)
7. FRC
8. Other $316 11) $66012\
Size of Loss Distribution $aseIInel151BIes 51 Files 76 Files 100 |Il8 142 FIl8 177 |Il8 208 FIl8 230 fl|8
A. 0- 500 16 8 15 16
B. 501 - 1000 19 17 38 39
C. 1001 - 2500 36 29 58 63
L. 2 501 - 5,000 15 19 38 46
E. 5.001 - 10,000 19 12 23 25
F. 10,001 - 25,000 18 6 17 19
G.25,001 - 50,000 16 6 11 13
H. 50,001 11 3 8 9
Percent 1%\ Dl8t.
A. 0- 500 10.67% 8.00% 7.21% 6.96%
B. 501 - 1000 12.67% 17.00% 18.27% 16.96%
C. 1001 - 2500 24.00% 29.00% 27.88% 27.39%
D. 2.501 - 5 000 10.00% 19.00% 18.27% 20.00%
E. 5,001 - 10 000 12.67% 12.00% 11.06% 10.87%
|. 10,001 - 25 000 12.00% 6.00% 8.17% 8.26%
G. 25,001 - 50,000 10.67% 6.00% 5.29% 5.65%
H. 50,001 7.33% 3.00% 3.85% 3.91%
H000002872
Ap endix CSC
H000002873
Ap endix - CSC Skill Set Analysis
H000002874
Knowledge/Skill Set Matrix
Claim Controller Quality Eval. Serice Team Ldr Outside Coord.
know. skill know. skill know. skill know.
Customer Serice -- T -
-Phone T -- Z -
-Face to Face T -
W
Z
Interpersonal -- Z
-Coaching -
--- -
Organizational -- Z --- Z
- Z
+
-Coordination -
- Z
Technical
W
-Mitigation T
-Coverage Eval.
-Contractual Z Z
-Damage Cov. Z
-Subrogation Z Z Z
-Structure
-Structure Scope Z
-Structure Est. Z T Z
-Fast Track Est. Z T T T Z T
-Contents
-Contents Scope Z
-Contents Est Z T Z
-Fast Track Est. Z T T T Z T
-ALE Z T Z Z Z
-Vendor Managemt Z T Z
-Trend Analysis T T T
-Mainframe Caoabilitv Z Z Z
Knowledge- The underanding of a specific prcess, acivity or issue.
Skill- The ability to apply knowledge and execute acivities rlated to a specific process or customer related issue
1 = Evident 2=Competent 3=Advanced
skill
Z
Z
Z
T
Z
T
T
Z
Inside Coord.
know. skill
--
--
- Z
--- Z
--- Z
- T
- Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z Z
Z Z
T T
Z Z
Z Z
T T
Z Z
Z
T T
5/13/98
H000002875
Knowledge/Skill Set Matrix
Structur Adjuster Contents Adjuster Exprss Adjuster
know. skill know. skill know. skill
Customer Sefice
WW
- Z
W
Z --- Z
-Phone
WW
- Z -
W
Z --- Z
-Face to Face --- Z
WW
Z --- T
Interpersonal - T
W
T -- T
-Coaching --- T --- T --- T
Organizational
W
Z
W
- Z --
-High Vol. of Claims
W
Z
W
Z --
-Complex Claims
W
Z
W
- Z --- T
-Coordination -
W
Z
W
- Z
WWW!
T
Technical
%
-Mitigation Z T T
-Coverage Eval.
-Contractual Z T
-Damage Cov. Z Z
-Subrogation Z Z
-Structure
-Structure Scope T T Z Z
-Structure Est. T T Z Z
-Fast Track Est. T T T T
-Contents
-Contents Scope Z Z Z Z
-Contents Est Z Z Z Z
-Fast Track Est. T T T T
-ALE Z Z Z T T T
-Vendor Managemt Z Z T
-Trend Analysis T T T T T T
-Mainframe Caoabilitv Z Z Z Z
Knowledge- The understanding of a specific process, acivity or issue.
Skill- The ability to apply knowledge and execute acivities related to a specific process or customer related issue
1= Evident 2=Competent 3=Advanced
5/13/98
J`
H000002876
Knowledge/ Skill Assessment
Assessors Name(s):
Activity/Topic Know. Skill
Customer Serice
wwww
T. Empathy
W
Z Explanation
qwW
3. Expectations
wwww
4. Educate (refer tech)
wwM
5. Communication
wmww
a. Phone Etiquette
mW
b. Face to Face
wmww
. Prof. Manners
wwq
1. Flexibility
Mww
Interpersonal
Wm
1. Leadership
WwM
Z. Motivational
MM
3. Communication -
m
4. Explanation
Wwww
5. Prof. Manners
w wmm
6. Coachino
ww@
. Flexibility
wm
d. Analytical
Wwmm
Organizational -
M
-
1. Prioritize Respon.
Mmw
2. Suspense Svstem
www
-
3. Pendina Control
mwww
4. Commitments
wMW
5. Coordination
MM
Technical
1. Mit./Pre-Clean/EW
Z. Cov. Evaluation
a. Contractual
b. Cov. Proo./Limits
c. Cov. Losses
d. Add. Protection
e. Loss Settlement
f. Opt. Protection
3. Subrogation
a. Recognition
b. Direction of Invest.
Date:
Pesilien:
Analyze productivity
Determine skill gaps based upon opporunit identified by file reviews and reinspections
( suppored by the Quality Evaluator )
Coordinate, and assist in training based upon skill gaps identified from file reviews and
reinspections ( supported by the Quality Evaluator and Serice Team Leader's )
Training techniques
Property policies
CCPR processes
Claim investigation, evaluation and settlement techniques within the Propery discipline
Allocating resources
May direct the activities of property teams, usually not exceeding four employees
Advises claim adjusters, Serice Team Leader's and Market Claim Manager on technical claim
matters
Consults with Home Ofice P-CCSO claim staff on technical claim matters
DECISION MAKING:
Aproves
MOI changes to claim assignments which have had the Triage and Matrix applied
Shares Aproval
Granting authorization
able to apply concepts based on law, contracts, case law, company policy, and/or procedure
reliable attendance
able input data to CRT, personal computer and review stored data
able to input and retrieve data by using Company electronic equipment or other similar,
compatible electronic equipment
able to visually inspect loss sites, including climbing onto roof tops
able to conduct in person meetings with members of the public in locations other than an Allstate
office
able to convey detailed, imporant, complex information to others accurately and quickly
able to compute data by means of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and percentage
calculations
able to use office equipment, such as, personal computer; lap top; facsimile machine; copy
machine; voice recorder; pager
H000002886
Advanced Working Knowledge:
] Policies ( homeowners)
J Settlement values
p File procedures
p Decision justification (approval or denial)
J Legal requirements (restrictions, guidelines, general laws, contracts, directives)
Procedural documentation
Facilitation
p Solve Problems
Train Employees
p Analysis and sharing of technical information and repair techniques
PRINCIPLE RELATIONSHIPS/CONTACTS:
Suppors STL PE regarding training needs, estimating issues & data findings
SCOPE ROOF DAMGE: (l -5)_ACCUPRO USED FOR EST( Y/N) :_EST COMP DATE :
CHECK ISSUED ON- SITE: ( Y/N)_CWP REASON CD: (1-3)_SETTLE SERVICE CALL :
GROSS EST ROOF: NET EST AMT: -- DED:
GROSS EST OTHER STRUCT/CONT/ALE: NET EST AMT:
SURO SUMISSION TYPE: SURO MTRIX COMPLIANCE: (Y/N)
MNAGEMT WITE OFF DATE: INSUED REPRESENTATION:
TRANSFER TO ( S) :
CLEAR-CANCEL Fl-HELP F3 -RETU
Each feld with a numbered choice will have F l - feld help with the coresponding valid
choices to select fom.
Lroof inspection:
- Yes
2 - Roof to stee
3 Exposure too high
4 - Cause fher damage
5 - Weather
Scope roof damage:
- No covered damage
2 - Replace slopes
3 - repair slopes
4 - Full roof replacement
5 - Repair/replace slopes
Subro submission type:
- Product Liability Case
2 - Workmaship Issue
Roof Complexity:
1 Simple
2 - Cut-up
3 - Complex
Roof Type:
1 - Composition
2 - Barrel Tile
3 - Wood Shaes
4 Flat Built-up
5 Cement Tile
6 Slate
! - Metal
3 - Other than insured
CWP Reason Codes:
1 - No coverage
2 - No covered damage
3 - Below Deductible
Rolled
V - Other (please specif)
Insured Reresentation:
0 - None
1 - P/A
2 - Attomey
4 - Did not submit to subro
H000002904
FROG N HA1BR CLAIH PRDC899 DA18
CLAIM NUMBER: 1234567890 EMP NAME: PROCESS CD: IN PROCESS:
INSPECTION TYPE : INITIAL SERVICE CALL: INSPECT DATE :
ESTIMATE COMP DATE: SETTLEMENT SERVICE CALL: CLOSE DATE :
TIER LEVEL: (l - 4) ON-SITE EST: (Y/N) CHECK ISSUED ON-SITE: (Y/N)
CWP REASON CD: (1 -3)
MITIGATION ATTEMPTED: (Y/N) MITIGATION SUCCESSFU: (Y/N)
CLEANING VOR ASSIGN DATE: CLEANING AMOU:
SURO SUMISSION TYPE ( 0-3) : SURO MTRIX COMPLIANCE: (Y/N)
MNAGEENT WITE OFF DATE: INSUED REPRESEATION:
TRANSFER TO ( S) :
CLEAR-CANCEL Fl -HELP F3 -RETURN
Each feld with a numbered choice will have Fl - feld help with te coresponding valid
choices to select fom.
CWP Reason code:
1 - No coverage
2 - No covered damage
3 - Below Deductible
Subro Submission tye:
\ - Product Liability Case
2 - Workanship Issue
3 - Other than Insured
0 - Did not submit to subro
Tier Level :
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
Insured representation:
0 - None
\ - PIA
2 - Attorey
H000002905
PRDC FTR8 91RCCTR8 PRDC899 DA18
CLAIM NBER: 1234567890 EMP NAE : PROCESS CD: IN PROCESS:
INSPECTION TYPE : INITIAL SERVICE CALL : INSPECTION DATE :
ESTIMATE COMP DATE : ESTIMATE AMT: SETTLEMENT SERVICE CALL :
ON-SITE EST: (Y/N) CHECK ISSUD ON-SITE: (Y/N) DED: CLOSE DATE :
CWP REASON CD: (l-3) SURO SUMISSION TYPE (0-3) SURO MTRIX COMPLIANCE: (Y/N)
MNAGEENT WITE OFF DATE:
CLENING VNOR ASSIGN DATE:
TRANSFER TO ( S) :
CLEAR-CANCEL Fl-HELP F3 -RETURN
INSUED REPRESENTATION:
CLENING AMOUT:
Each field with a numbered choice will have Fl - field help with the coresponding valid choices to select fom.
CWP Reason code:
1 - No coverage
2 - No covered damage
3 - Below Deductible
Insured representation code:
0 - Not represented
1 - PIA
2 - Attomey
Subro submission type code:
1 - Product Liability Case
2 - Workanship Issue
3 - Other tha Insured
0 - Did not submit to subro
Deductible should be displayed in dollars not percent. If deductible is stored as a percent convert to dollas then
display. Initial serice call edit: can't be befre assig date. Inspection date edit: can't be befre assig date.
Estimate complete date edit: may be equal to but not befre inspection date. Settlement serice call edit: may
be equal to but not befre estimate complete date. All dates must be valid, ca't be future dates and ae required
fr closure.
Issues: Will we collect all service calls fr all assigments (both in ad out of process)? YES 5/21 We will
continue to collect curent data felds on the estimate on WON0560. (Yes). New edits will be put in place fr
closure (required felds fom the process screens). Allow transfr between WON0560 ad the process screens.
Should we only collect data on employee assignments? Transfr to payment and supplements screens values P
and S in tansfr question (F5 and F6 fom prior screen desig).
H000002906
PRDC FIR8 CDHW9 PRDC899 DA18
CLAIM NER: 1234567890 EMP NAME : PROCESS CD: IN PROCESS :
INSPECTION TYPE : INITIAL SERVICE CALL: INSPECTION DATE :
EST COMP DATE : EST AMT: SETTLEMENT SERVICE CALL :
ON-SITE EST: ( Y/N) ON-SITE INVENTORY DATE: CHECK ISSUD ON-SITE: ( Y/N)
CLOSE DATE : INSURED REPRESENTATION: CLEAING VENDOR ASSIGN DATE :
CLENING AMOUT: CWP RESON CD: ( l-3) SURO SUMISSION TYPE: ( 0-3)
SURO MTRIX COMPLIANCE: (Y/N) MNAGENT WITE OFF DATE:
TRANSFER TO ( S) :
CLEAR-CANCEL Fl-HELP F3 -RETURN
Each feld with a numbered choice will have Fl -feld help wit the corresponding valid choices to select fom.
CWP Reason code:
1 - No coverage
2 - No covered damage
3 - Below Deductible
Subro submission type code:
1 - Prduct Liability Case
2 - Workaship Issue
3 - Other than Insured
0 - Did not submit to Subro
Insured representation code:
0 - Not represented
1 - P/A
2 - Attomey
Issues: all sae fom the fre stcture screen. Edits fr all dates would also be the same. Cross edits fr all
processes on subro submission to maagement write-off date if subro 1-3 mgt date required.
H000002907
PROG NM BROWSE SUPPLEMENT DATE
SUPPLEMENTS :
DATE COMP/DENIED : AMOUNT: SUP TYPE :
DATE COMP/DENIED: AMOUNT: SUP TYPE :
DATE COMP/DENIED: AMOUNT: SUP TYPE :
DATE COMP/DENIED : AMOUNT: SUP TYPE :
DATE COMP/DENIED : AMOUNT: SUP TYPE :
CLEAR-CANCEL F3 -RETURN
Do we need to show empl/vend name? How many lines should we display? Do we need paging (more
than 3 supplements?) Display only supplement Q coverage of assignment corg fom or display all
supplements fr claim number?
Change the supplement update screens and help fr additonal supplement types (ignore if type listed
already exists):
Unsat Cleaning, Unsat Repair, Incorrect measurement, Incorect pricing, Cleaning vendor sup, AE,
Expense payment, oter (aren't some of tese tan reason codes not sup types?)
H000002908
PROGNM ** QUALITY REINSPECION INFORMATION **
CLAI NUMER:
MOI: EMND I:
REPAI STATUS: (BID/A)
SUPPLEMENT REINSPECT:
****
EXCEPTION
AREA
EXCEPTION
TYPE
LRS I: COV: PERIL: PROCESS CD:
EMND NAME:
REINSPECT EM I: REISPECT EM DT:
SUPPLEMENT CREA TE DT:
EXCEPTIONS ****
ESTIATE
AMOUNT
REINSPECT
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
DIFERENCE
CLEAR-CANCEL Fl -HELP F3-RETURN F9-PRT SCREEN
Patter afer WON0760 only diferences would be Uexception area (codifed values) and edit to
exception type.
DATE
H000002909
PROGNM ** QUALITY REINSPECTION INORMATION ** DATE
CLAIM NUMER: LRS I: COV: PERIL: PROCESS L:
MOI: EMNEND I: EMNEND NAME:
REPAI STATUS: (BID/A) REINSPECT EM I: REINSPEC EM DT:
SUPPLEMNT REINSPECT: SUPPLEMENT CREA TE DT:
*** REINSPECION ***
ORIG EST:
DOLLARS SAT:
%SAT:
ECONMIC OPP $:
ECONMIC OPP %:
SUPPLEMENT AMT PD:
DOLLARS SAT:
%SAT:
ECONMIC OPP $:
ECONMIC OPP %:
COMENTS:
NEXT CLAI#: LRS I: COV CD: MOI:
REI/REV DT: RE-REISP DT: REI/REV:
CLEAR-CANCEL Fl-HELP F3-RETURN F9-PRT SCREEN
EMLNEND I:
SUP CRTDT:
Possible use same screen fom auto (including reinspection and re-reinspection WON0770). When writing
to DB2 table will need to identif non-auto CCPR reinspections and re-reinspections (use codes 8 and
9).
H00000291 0
Georgia Property Test- ICSS Results fr Claims Closed from lJlJO through 0/1 U/JO
Overall satisfaction K|Atlanta claims during this period was 77.8%
Overall satisfaction was 10 percentage points higher on claims that were handled by a CSC
1 00%
95%
90%
86%
85% 83%
80%
79%
75%
73%
70%
Overall Satisfaction Likelihood of Renewal
(1) Results are based on 135 ICSS surveys conducted during this period (64 claims handled by a CSC and 71 handled without a CSC)
(2) Claims without a CSC include:
- Claims opened andor closed before 213198
- Claims that did not go to a CSC due to abnormally high claim volume
(3) Macon claims are not included in either CSC or Non-CSC reults (Macon's overall satisfction during this period was 77.8% for 63 claims)
[Claims with a CSC
WClaims without a CSC
H00000291 1
Georgia Property Test - I CSS Results fr Claims Closed from /J/JO through 0/1 U/JO
Overall satisfaction has predominantly trended higher for claims with a CSC than claims without a CSC during this 1 1 week period
\ X \ X \X \X
1 00%
90% J%
80%
70%
&
V
40%
L
M
30%
C
20% ZJ%
10%
0%
2123- 312- 319- 3/16- 3123- 3130- 4/6- 4/13- 4/20- 4/27- 5/4-
3/1 d/b 3/1 5 3/22 3129 4/5 4/12 4/1 9 4/26 5/3 5/1 0
Claim Closure Dates
( 1) Missing dt points are the result of zero surveys being conducted fr that group during a given wek
(2) Reults are base on 13 ICSS sures conducte dring tis priod (64 claims hande by a CSC and 71 handle without a CSC} 0
H00000291 2
H0m80wu8M'CCPH
Im|8m8uaI|0uPIau
68l. 10, 1 99
H00000291 3
H00S0W0S|8 LLH
| 0S0S0S|00 S0
Pnt 1 n 1 QQR
H00000291 4
We are here with a new approach to Auto
CCPR
The "New Approach" to Auto CCPR
is all about leadership
Remember the - in severity and +10
in customer satisfaction we promised.
We are here to show you how to get that
- and +10! !
t
HOW BOAT CHART"
H00000291 5
or implemen ng.
We are here to support you in process
compliance and expert execution.
Intense Modeling, Role Playing and Coaching
We will help you prioritize your work.
We will help you focus.
e are going to give you tools to achieve
results you never imagined.
H00000291 6
We will show you how to lock in process
compliance through expert execution of
evepaae' saewJah.
And everyone does have a new job.
Let' s talk about our new roles in the
infrastructure of P-CCSO.
"SHOW INFRASTRUCTURE SLIDE"
,-./.;/ 7
//c ,a
Before1 continue . . ...... ..... .
Do the Cas folks know why they are here?
H00000291 7
You may have thought ....
Why am I going to an Auto meeting?
Although we' ve built Auto and Casualty
out of necessity, we now must merge the work,
we are all on the team, in the same game.
Let me give yu an example:
Sometimes I hear the Auto processes are
in confict with Casualty processes.
The example most often used is
comp negative calls.
Nothing could hefurther form the truth!
Wearea|||athe gameatpravah|e/deteadah|e
liability . . . . injur or not!
H00000291 8
I, and you, should expect them to apply
and win on that negligence call with the
claimant. Same is true if no injury.
Provable/efendable
Another example of confict between
Auto and Casualty CCPR is proper LOU
handling.
There is not a different standard for injured
claimants.
I never said to put all injured claimants in
Cadillacs or Mercedes ! ! !
We should approach transportation needs
(not automatic rental car) the same way
in unrep, as we do in the liability segment.
H00000291 9
If we owe it, explore all possibilities,
offer rental if warranted, in the appropriate
type vehicle and manage the number of days.
We need to work very hard to merge these two
efforts.
H000002920
I never said "Roll up Liability" !
If any leader, Auto or Casualty,
makes a call on liability in a fle review,
whether an injury fle or not,
it should be the exact same call.
If an unrepped Claim Rep. determines 5/
negligence on the injured claimant,
but does not feel it is defend/provable.
They are to document their case, indicate they
are not going to use this issue in negotiations,
same is true of no injury.
However, if that same unrep person fnds 20/
provable liability on that injured claimant . . . . . . .
H000002921
WHAT ACCPR BRINGS UPSTATE NY
. .Z ...
-
O| |5|VBI|O|3 Cdl| IO|l | -ZZ-9Z9
H000002924
110
NDLX1O J
ALL51ATY& NDL5T
bYJ LLm
LDJ
.
100
Vb.V
M
%
m
%
%
VJ. %
%
%
W.
%
%
"w w *
w
Vb.7
77.b
T.V
J 95 '7
m
At8t0 adulQ
bBttt! a8ttacK
I1mm
LMTbAV+STR974
J
H000002925
ALL51A1L*b L51RY
b1 LLbLD
L1L
NDLX1O J
1 ZD
1 Z0
121.2
1 1D
1 10
1 0D
V 4 V
~Allt8tc ~ ~ Imq
Surce: Fast Track
12M
4
LMTAV+STRK974
H000002926
AfJ51A1LY
SEVERTYCOM
COMRHENSD
1 ]0 .. . ... . mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmww
I I 0
101.5
,,
<
<
~
~ -
1
@
^
93
,
<
1 14.8
1 16.
-
-
-
%
~ =
P
,,
,
1 10.
95
@@ ~ ~
W
6
H000002927
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Scott
FI. . .
John Reardon
SSMITH2, CBBJS, CBBQ6
7/31/98 11 :40am
Upstate New York Baseline - Forarded
Sue- can you get a copy of this to Deb and Scott also . .
Thx.
jbr
H000002928
From:
To:
LBO
Subject:
Gar Dundas
D47.PPCCLMS1 . MDONO
7/31/98 6:58am
Upstate New York Baseline
M
-
I faxed a copy of the baseline packet to Sue Winkelman to give to you this
'
morning - been having a little E * mail trouble.
Wanted to just give you a quick synopsis of results.
Damages: Qyerall quality was 88%. PRO came in at 87% , Field 90% and DI 87%.
Opportunities i n ERcomplance, writing est on a best case scenerio ,
teardown ( pending mgmt. will help ) and more oversight. The big 3 of repair
vs. replace , missed damage and no visible damage were common exceptions all
week. Good news i n that there is economic opporunity i n the damage arena.
Segmentation: Percent of files with improper liability decisions
lnsd. contact and assignment was 47% and 72%. Clmt. contacnment was
38% and 50%. Matrix compliance was 31 % with opportunities in clmt and insd.
driver statement and interiews and review est. and photos.
Total Loss: Determinas _84% based on 38 reinspections. Valuation is a
real opportunity withcuracy and an average $369.00 exception.
Settlement accuracy was 78% with an average variance of $223.00. Conditioning
is by far the biggest thing we saw this week.
Total Theft: !00% on verifcation of vehicle existence. Verification of theft
was 68% and matrix compliance 1 8%. Most of these areas are things we can work
to fix pretty quickly.
Good enthusiasm and suppor evident in CSA. Look forard to kick off week.
Think we will be very successful in CSA. Have already established many good
partnerships and identified opportunity areas.
Thanks,
Gar Dundas
CC: D47.PPCCLMS1 .CBBJG
H000002929
C
U
U
*
U
O
+
O
U
+
f
L
F
U
C
O
O
C
+
O
O
+
O
I
C
O
+
w
o
O
L
.
L
Resu|ls oftheUstate NYC8A
Rensectonsand FIeRevews
WK 0Ju| yZ, 1 ddd
H000002930
L
L
O
O
C
+
L
.
L
SUMMAY r FINDINGS
Dage - erll etmatng quality W G in ict at signi cant
prces compliance oppornit do exist Oerll Hestmatng quali
W 87, Field 90%, and Driven 87
Liabilit/Segmentton Liablldeision-aking rve indict signifcnt
opprnit W4% of fle having imprpe liabilit deisions or not having
sufcient infnaton W suppr te liabili deision. Insur Z hour contct
is 47., wile insur assignment is 72%. craimant contct and asignment ar
38% and 5% rpevely
Totl Los Totl 0 detninaton acurcy 84f. Subntal oppornit
exist in valuaton (19%} and te seteent prC (81).
Totl Tef - Veicle existnce WM verfe 100% of the time. Signifcant MC
opprni exist i n vrifcton of the tef (68%} and matx compliance (18)
T
H000002931
I
O
*
G
+
SAMPLE SIZS FOR REINSPECTON RESULTS
BUFFALO PNPLVb HERITAGE Ml HUDSON SYRACUSE
|
L T T T T
U
|6Id 1 T J J TO T U
*
U
O
LOV 0 TZ T 1 4 T T Z
+-+
O
G
+
|
Totl 32 4 20 42 33
L
F
C
F
O
.
.
C
f
O
O
C
+
O
Sour: Rensnmms
O
+
O
`
|
C
C
=
.
C
2
L
.
L
0Wl
%
63
62
171
Z
H000002932
O
O
C
+
L
.
L
OVERLL ESTIMATING QUALIT
rBfCB0l
UtPL UPLVl
HHL 0
M0
0 K
1O W
w' Ro oN
HLH MU HUbN HCU TOTA
W N
92 W
W
9 d
W M
H000002933
U
U
*
U
O
.
O
G
.
l
L
l
C
l
O
.
. .
f
+
O
D
C
C
+
+
.
C
2
L
.
.
L
ASSESSMENT OF PRO ESTMATING QUALIT VS. OTHE
Percent
UlRB
I
!
: ~Y
M
| Wm
WTNC
8m. m
1 M mN
"8w6W
W
|
M
9!
'
_ l
W
|
:
|
'
|
W
|
'
|
|
W
W
|
I
W
4
H000002934
*
U
O
+
C
U
+
I
F
U
.
.
C
C
.
L
.
L
ASESSMENT OF ESTtMATNG QUALI VS. OTHER BENCHMARKS
Pent
l00
w ~@- @w~y @~- =~~~~ *~~~
P
FM0
0
M Ra7
on0WWN
1KW
H
0
N
W
l
|
I
l
l
I
t
| i
l
9
!
l
I
!
l
I
.
M
.
T
W
b
H000002935
U
U
U
O
+
O
G
|
L
.
o
. .
f
+
O
^
D
C
C
+
w
.
C
L
DISTRIBUTION LECEPTION TPE8 BY MOS/MOI
rB|CBD
1 0% T,J 1 0,
Al L00 Eons
Z
|
0
|
Pror Damae
'
11
No Vsble Damage
T
T 1
|p HQfMM0
14
TT
l
HB0G0
1b
T
MG wDaage
T
1d
'
Reair vs Repace
1
T4
|
>w . m m
qsaw0l em oQ
l 1 ,4 ,Z0
Z
Z
<
`.
. O `
.
/
+
v
.
?
Tq
.
.
U .*-
.
.
.
`*
. .
.
:
7 1b
.
.?
*
`
T T
.
'
.
.
v
.
7
. 1
.
.
.
|
,
Z `
14
ZT
T
0 D p
H000002936
U
U
2
O
v
O
U
w
I
L
.
.
C
f
C
+
o
C
2
L
.
L
DISTRIBUTION OFECEPTION DOLL8 FOR FIELD & DRIVE-I N
B|CBR1OBXCBOG dollar
T00%
P||BfEtons*
0IDamage
Staighteing
NoVsible Damage
Ateate Repair Metod
Refnish
Misse Damage
Repair vs Relace
|
'
' '
'
:
t
l
.
'
' '
H000002937
C
+
U
G
C
O
l
O
*
G
+
|
U
u
m
u
O
+
O
u
+
|
L
F
C
F
U
.
.
. .
f
O
O
. .
C
+
O
O
+
O
D
C
O
+
+
.
C
2
L
.
L
DISTRIBUTION OF EXCEON DOLLRS FOR NON-ENTR &TOTAL PRO
6|06UtO6XO00 00II8O
l00X" $,01J =01 Z, -W
,
9
P O eEcors* Tb
T
Z 2 .
9
AlUeEcons*
.
.
Ubv|o0SNo Qamage
T3 7
. .
-`-
. QbvoNo Damage
.
1 T0
Ms Dam
``
~Q=
` l ,
T
.
No V8Ie Ow
0~
: Qm Z4
.0*
MOwe
.
10
!0
|
+
T1 '
.
.
&
' `. NoVsibeOe
.
1 t
HdorDaae
M 9
. 6
1 Ib D0|D@e
0~
47
14
.
ZT
,
PI RtNBOO
14
PL H$IfMMod
`
|
.
1
. 4
T
H0hotN
.
HMn|sh
Z1 12 Z
T
.
RevsRp
T M M
'
.
4
O
S
w O
a
U
C
V
P RrV8Rea
M
"
C
a
a
O
< m 2
# 7
m
7
W
4
. w
RNWm@g
1
7
1
W
1 1
14
1b
1
1M
PRO
8
H000002938
+
<
C
L
U
U
C
O
l
C
*
U
+
U
U
*
U
O
+
O
U
w
L
-
U
.
.
C
C
=
C
L
OVERLL SUPPLEMENT QUALIT
Percent of exception dollars
wpct W 01
Al Ote Eom
MoNNK808g6
LW8
N0nm H&8
6Hl8
Vss0ge
SupememHC&B0h
&am.
eW- Jpwmos
T , 14
1
b
1
17
19
2
l
|
i
9
H000002939
O
+
U
O
+
C
U
-
U
.
.
C
C
O
O
C
+
O
O
+
O
D
C
O
+
+
UMY NN
88@0 Orll WmBD0@ QU8QW8 00W,WRC0 00CW8I8@0C0t
QNC%80OmQ8RCBD0lQ000X8L w 0m8D0@ QB8
W88 A, BO, B0O NV00W.
L&DQB0D0 L80lQ008D08K0@ V0W 000W8@0C0I
DQQOO0QW 4 O70 h8V0@ mQNQf 80Q008O08Df 0OtR80@
80C00I0WH8D0 U80QN0 l&DQ008O0. l08024 0O0fCD0Ct
847%, W0lB insur B @0m00t 8 TZW. 8m80t 0O0CB0OW@0mB0IB
BRG W
OL0% D O8 G00BO0 BCC00W 84%. 0080D8 OQQDN0t
BX8W 0 V8l08O0 [T]B000S0D0m0RIM8[0].
1O1h0 Y00CB0X80C0W88 V0D0G T0% 00I0. @0mC80tQN8
OQQOH0Q0X8W 0V0fWO0 0fI0BI00[b8Wj 800mBDX 0DmQl8hC0 [TW].
T
H000002940
C
*
C
=
L
.
L
PMHLblZb LlPlL | Lbblb bUL
ML File review
BUFFALO 1Z
LPP Vc b
ML|PL b
N| MULN b
7LUc
0W
|
372
l
Sourc: Labilit reuirent V|0W
! 1
H000002941
L
U
C
O
l
U
O
+
O
U
w
l
L
|
C
|
U
.
d
o -
C
= =
C
+
O
O
FILE RIE RESULT
Pecnt of|esWRD |mproperl|ab|I|qde|sions
DJ 4
@ =*w ..
P
2
Bw o V MdH
&m , ~=
S. u|M W
7
b
-~
LT
:
~.~ ~~~:
.
L|mm|n
MM|mgH
.
0W MIlg
+
~.
12
H000002942
CONTACT REQUIREMENTS - I NSURED
Percent of files completed appropriatety
U
O
+
O
u
-
L
-
U
.
.
C
. .
f
C
*
. .
C
+
+
O
D
C
O
+
+
Buf o
CaVe
m
MtO
H$
me
CS
Aveqe
File Review
24hour cntc
ocu. ui|mN
L
. '
.
.
.
.
T
.
|
.
.
l
I
!
!
|
|
!
DataVee YD
24our COC
&+ + +&~ & &.= &
File Hev|ew
24our PD assignment
l
l
b1
'
S
|
!
|
l
|
,
i
.
|
|
:
!
|
r
- I
- l
. I
' l
' '
|
.
DataViewer Y
24our PD assignment
&m & m~**~- ~
1
H000002943
CONTACTREOU| REMEN8 - CLMANT
Percnt 0fles complete appropriately
U
G
G
O
+
O
G
L
L
F
U
.
.
C
= =
C
C
*
C
+
o
uP
L&U|m
UI0
Huo
yMU3u
L
PVwe
|||eHev|ew
2-hOu|Cn!aC
cw. JQMW
'
4
i
l
|
l
!
I
taVewerYD
Z-hOurOODc
i
|
!
t
:
|
i
1
'
l
|
|||Hev|ew
72-hOut PD assignment
'
'
,
'
!aVew|Y
2-hOu|PD assignment
14
H000002944
U
O
D
C
*
U
+
C
+
+
O
D
C
O
+
w
=
C
2
U
MTIX COMPLNCE
B|CBRof HBSCDmBB B|O|B1Oly
'
Hee
MK m0
.
L av6B
.
oW mmM
'
M8REcm
0N0Moccum fle
Clamat d&OOI(16.6%)
Rev|et $d phcms(16.6)
Clamat d0U|m(12.6%)
|nsu0V5MI0m0m ( 124%)
TS
H000002945
U
u
u
O
+
O
u
+
I
|
U
.
.
C
C
C
C
+
+
O
C
O
+
+
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
m8@0 - Wl Wm80@QU8lQW 00W, W0C0 R0CW Ih8I8@0BC0I
C08 CDBRC0OH0QUO0X8L PRO 0Dm80@ QU8Q
W880W , 0Om, 80D fV00 dW.
L80@00DD0- L80Q0W8OR8K0@ V0W 00CW 8@0C0I
OON0QWU4% m% D8VR@ lml80008O08Of0OI08V0@
8UC0I0ON8O0W80OM08000C8O0. 08UZ0OUf0O0WCI
|8 4W, W00R8UB @0m00 N TZW. 8m80I0O0C800 88@00RI8
0W80Gb MWV0
0Wl L O |00m08tO08C0CgW804W. 00808l OON0Q
0XM 0V8U8O0 [TW]8RG08W 0m00IDC0 [0].
OWl 0- Y00C0 0X0C0ws V0O0 TW O0 0. @0mC80I NC
OON0Q0X8W n V0HC8IO0 ofIh0Ih0{b0W] 800 m8X0OmlB0C0[T0W] W
TU
H000002946
O
+
u
u
c
O
r
C
=
u
-
l
u
u
u
O
+
C
u
+
L
F
I
U
.
.
C
C
O
m
c
+
O
O
.
O
r
c
O
-
-
.
C
L
.
L
RESULT OF TOTAL LOSS REINSPECTONS ^ TOTAL CSA
BlneAccuy
WuW 0W
Ll08B0n 84% 1 0%
V8|U00 t9% 39 86%
Set 1W b3 d
P
g
m
w: 1MWmW, wWmb
W.0 .WWW
1M- W0W- wnmJuW
AwmgVanancew
W 06f&m
[Be||ne)
0lN O
3bS
Z
T7
H000002947
U
U
*
U
O
+
C
U
=
f
U
.
.
C
C
O
C
+
+
O
C
=
4
&
L
.
L
SUMMAY FiNDfNGS
Dage Oerll etmatng quali W 88%, which ndicm ta signifcant
pces compliance opporni 0O exist Oerll etmatng qualit
WN 87% Field 9%, and Drve-n 87.
Liabili/Seenton - Liabilit deision.aking rview indict signicant
opporni W4% of fle havng imprp liabilit 008OR8 or not having
sufcient innaton to suppr te la0ilit deision. Insur Z hour Gntct
is 47, while insur asignment is 72. Claimant contct an0assignment &M
38% and 5% rpvely
Totl L Totl loss detninaton accurcy ws 84%. Subtntal opprnit
exist in valuaton (19%) and the sett emen pM (78%).
Totl Tef Vehicle existence was WN0 10% of te tme. Signifcnt prC
opprnit exst in VeNcaton of te tef (68%) and matix compliance (18%) .
Td
H000002948
RSULTS LLP THEF tL RIE - TOTA CSA
PercenIDflescompleIed aO0|a!ely
V0hO0x8l0DO vmMd
1W
VehcemeWO
MBcmplianc
Min excton
Pernt ocurnce in fle
Revie eJphotos (1 9%)
N LLM equip (1 9%)
Policire rep (16%)
Avege vlue/cr were
ho0Wdid D0l
oc r = M699
1 9
.
|
2
C
t
t
G
N
O
t
r
C
4
O
H000002949
o00|0|L0300|80| pY00l|0g
o0pl0000|J U, J HHb
Hoaow^a|s'CCPH
| p' aa^tat|o^P' a^
H000002950
Homeowners' CCPR
Implementation Plan
Implementation Approach
Location of Training
Implementation Begins
Implementation Ends
of MCO's Implemented by:
Y6 1998
Y61999
of CCPR Resources
Team Members
Team Leaders
of Weeks per MCO
Roof Fire
CCPR Trained CCPR Trained
MCO MCO
2/1/99 2/1 /99
1 1119/99 1 1/19/99
3 3
24 24
12 (6 per site) 12 (6 per site)
1 1
6 6
l
H000002951
Homeowners' CCPR
Fi nancial I mpact
1999
2000
F L Severity
Fir e Sav ings
- 1.6%
- 3.2%
(Savings of $21 mi l l i on)
EC Severity
HOOSavings
- .8%
- .9%
(Savi ngs of $1 2 mi l l ion)
2
H000002952
Homeowners' CCPR
Comparison of Pre-Test vs. CSC ICSS Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
M
U
U
T
60%
0
>
50%
O
b
40%
C
f
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
00|gl8|0 |0008|0|0
(!)Per prr to tt Is 4SP97 for Gergia Prp and 1RP98 for Glhardle and Washingtn Prp
[2}CSC rult only Incude acal ICSS sur 0Wci hanl b a CSC sinc Wbinni of OW
Geia Prp (2)!Mcaims surey, Glnharle (6) 73 cis, Wahintn Prp (61) 59 cim
s
+
W880|0gl00m
0||00|||0|l0108l
LCbC b0N0y8
3
H000002953
UPSTATE NEW YORK AUTO CCPR KICK OFF
GOOD MORING
WOW, HA VE YOU WAITED A LONG TIME FOR AUTO CCPR! !
I TIUK YOU WILL FIN THAT EVERYTHING WE HA VE LEARNED AS WE HA VE GONE
ACROSS 1COUNTRY WBE TO YOUR ADVANTAGE
/!'
FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, PLEASE LISTEN DIFFERENTLY
WHAT WE SAY AND HOW W SAY HOW WDO IT IS ALL A METHODOLOGY
WE WILL BE DRAMATIC AND REDUNDANT BY DESIGN
MCM' S
WEDNESDAY NIGHT GARY, YOUR TEAM LEADER IS GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH A
REHEARSAL AN EDUCATION PROCESS
WHEN YOU RETURN TO YOUR MCOS YOU WILL BE GIVING THIS PRESENTATION TO
YOUR FOLKS
IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU DO THIS PRESENTATION WITH PASSION, AND SINCERITY
WE HA VE LEARNED THAT ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF CHANGE BERA VIOR
IS EXPLAINING TO PEOPLE WWAR DOING WHAT WE DO.
SO AS I SAID LISTEN DIFFERNTLY
H000002954
Homeowner |m. Team
Oct ober Z1 , 1 99d
H000002955
H00B0W0B|0. BS0
LC0DB|ZT , T JJd
/
/
H000002956
P7TO
ALLSTATEYb NDUSTRY
PAID SEVERITY COMPARISON
BODILY INJURY
.
00
" " " " " " -
-
0.
-
-
.
0.7
90
80
4.
* - J.0
w " "
" "
.
77.0
7.
70
93 94
Source: Fast Track
l . YLMLAMI51KK 974
95 96
AIstatc lndust,
1Zmm
9
7
stQtr98
J
H000002957
J0
INDEX TO WJ
20
0
9J
mMrce.ml1rBck
I \CLMTEAM\FSTRK974
ALLSTATEYb NDUSTRY
PAID SEVERITY COMPARISON
PROPERTY DAMAGE
ZJ. ~
w
w
~
w
Z.Z
95 90 97
~Atatc ndustQ
11mm
Z.J
w
~
w
w
w
Z .4
stQtr98
4
H000002958
(
0
INDEX TO Y
J0
20
0
ALLSTATEY NDUSTRY
PAID SEVERITY COMPARISON
COLLISION
Zb.
Z.!
ZZ.
Zb.Z
00
9J 4 95 90 97 stQtr98
Atatc ndustQ
bonrc8. a8l1rack
11mm
J
I\CLMTEAM\FSTRK974
H000002959
20
INDEX TO WJ
0
ALLSTATEY NDUSTRY
PAID SEVERITY COMPARISON
COMPREHENSIVE
#
W. X
#
#
4.
b.
.
Z.
#
V.
7
~
#
-
.
.
-
Z.
J
bourcr a8l1Otk
l\CLMTE/M\FSTRK974
95 90
A lalc
ndustQ
11mm
97 stQtr98
6
H000002960
Customer Sat/Severity
cSS Execution
CYe ponance, kindness, recognition
MCM
F1
FL ?L PE
Front LiUC M
Enforce prmrp
Enforce premreq
EC DE
Manaa twcm mc w
Srit Judges
Evaluate performance
on individual claims
Communicate reasons
for performance gaps
Consult on performance
iprevemeatopportunities
SML
Teach, train, coach
processes
Diagnose performance
Develop performance
improvement strategies
Recommend process
improvements
The customer sat
conscience
H000002961
Cw|m
Aqsler
~
PCC8O
~
~
~
~
6vl86d6lJl5
HM-4
H000002962
MM 1 MCM
C W
r08
Cme
CZM
LM
OP5
CPS
Teach, train, coach, process
Diagnose performance
Develop performance
improvement strategies
Recommend process
improvement
Admin HMb
H000002963
Rcvicw8
Rcla8pli0
twm Ur0u
Lm0cr
lalcrvicw8
Bgloy
lalcrcw8
P
*~
H000002964
Enlightened
Strateg
CCPR
Process
Mastery
New Strategies
Design process
requirements
Sr. Leadership Team*
Singularly responsible
for overall perforace
(Employee Sat. Cust. Sat.
Severity &Exp. )
"Winning"
Results
Produced by the execution
of wongr0css
Inspired
Performance
Process
Performance
Perform process
and enforce
process execution
LitSerrices,Sabra CaMrmm ma]tbaryanitmianalaraacb.
H000002965
Hcmecmcr mpI
Apr|I Z7, 1VVV
H000002966
HOMbOWNbR
TMFLbMbNTAJON
P1 Z7 VVV
H000002967
Reviews
Relnspections
Jous Groups
Customer
Interviews
Eploye
Interiews
lLV 1Mllll
Deign
Solutions
Debriefs
Potential
solutions
Front line/
CCPR
TmSolutions
Refine or
Change
solutions
Front line based
Strctured
analysis
Dedicated
leaderhip
Measurement
Highly Stnicturcd
Consistent
Front line based
Compnation
Recognition
H000002968
I20
INDEX TO)993
I 0
ALLSTATE Yb IDUSTRY
PAID SEVERTY COMPARSON
COMPREHENSIVE
#
. #
#
#
7
4.
b.J
.V
-
_
e -
#
1 .4
*
00 -
_
V.b
V.4
.
0
J 4 5 90 97 )adQh98
Mstate ~ ~ Iadastq
bOurcc a8l1rack
Zmm
0
Cl.HMTQK
'
'
H000002969
l )0
lNDLXTU )993
l l0
ALLSTATE Yb IDUSTRY
PAID SEVERTY COMPARISON
COMPREHENSIVE
#
#
0.b 7
#
#
4.
~
~
~
~
~
_ Z.V
#
~
0V.4
.4
j
$.0
V.b
93 94 95 96 97 2adQtr98
Allstate ~ ~ ladastq
b0utc0! W8ltscK
Zmm
0
Ll. 1l hWlhTQ8
:
H000002970
130
lNDEXTUIJ
120
1 1 0
ALLSTATE Yb IDUSTRY
PAID SEVERITY COMPARISON
PROPERTY DAMAGE
I23.8
~
~
~
.
.
2.2
.
.
8.9
27.3
~
~
IJJ
1 00
93
bOurcc! a8l1r8ck
M MTQ8
94
95 96 97 2nd Qtr 98
Al state - - Industr
I2M
H000002971
J
HU1 lJ
1 20
1 l 0 .
ALLSTATE Nb IDUSTRY
PAID SEVERITY COMPARISON
PROPERTY DAMAGE
I23.8
~
~
w
w
I2I.2
w
.
II8.9
w
I27.3
w
~
I 22
1
00
J
b0urc0 FaslTrack
M J1Q8
94
95 96
Alal0 * * hdu8lQ
I2M
97 2odQtr 8
H000002972
ALLSTATE Yb INDUSTRY
PA0SEVERITY COMPARISON
BODILY INJURY
0
'
T0
#9}
00
0
0
.
@
~
"
0.
0
"
J.0
4.0
-
=
0.7
"
"
w
" " " " "
l.4
77.0
T.
9J 94 -s 90 97 :-q:- -s
Source: Fast Track
aii.:.:c- - t..:
I7MM
J
H000002973
0
lNDLXTO)993
ALLSTATE Yb INDUSTRY
bYHYllBHblP
lYPJHY
.d
00
%
0.
0.7
0
0
9J 94
bourcc a8l1rack
Ll.M .HF72Q8
"
J 0
^
o
4.0