The insurance industry performed well in phone customer service, but was ranked as below average when it came to customer service through email or the Web, an eGain survey found.
eGain Communications Corporation, a customer service software provider, evaluated multiple aspects of Web self-service and contact centre customer service of 175 companies in the U.S. and Canada.
The companies covered a spectrum of sectors, including, retail, insurance, healthcare, consumer goods manufacturing, financial services and pharmaceuticals.
Analysts used a “mystery shopper” approach. Aspects of the customer service experience were rated on a scale from zero to four (a score of less than one being ‘poor’ and above three as ‘exceptional’). Scores were abstracted to an overall service quotient for each of the companies, as well as for the industry sector and overall market.
The overall performance of the insurance sector was unchanged from 2008 with a “below average” score of 1.8.
Web self-service improved from 1.3 (below average) to 1.7 (still below average, but improved).
Email customer service dropped slightly from 2.2 (above average) to 2.1.
“The industry has yet to adopt eService [email, Web chat, co-browsing] best practices,” an eGain release says.
“For instance, a stunning 84% of the companies did not send an automatic acknowledgement of email queries, a common best practice that can help set the right expectations and elevate customer experience.”
Roughly 28% of the companies simply did not respond to email queries, ignoring revenue opportunities, it added.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Fulfilling legal obligation to advise of policy cancellation does not prove insured knew his policy had been cancelled: FSCO
An insurer that has satisfied its legal requirement for policy cancellation has not automatically proven that the insured knew his policy had been cancelled, an Ontario arbitrator has ruled.
In Ersin Aksoy and Markel Insurance Company of Canada, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) found Markel had to pay Ersin Aksoy income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses.
Aksoy was confined to a wheelchair after serious injuries he sustained in December 2006, when he lost control of his Jeep Grand Cherokee in Toronto and collided with a tractor-trailer traveling in the same direction.
Markel denied his application for income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses.
(Kingsway General Insurance Company wrote the policy in 2006, but Markel was the defendant in the arbitration because it handled Aksoy's claim for accident benefits.)
Markel maintained Aksoy knew or ought to have known that he was driving without an insurance policy, which had been cancelled a few months prior to the crash. Kingsway cancelled the policy for non-payment.
FSCO arbitrator Fred Sampliner noted that Kingsway had in fact issued a policy cancellation notice to Aksoy by registered mail to the last-known address the insurer had on file. Aksoy had moved from that address in mid-2006 without notifying the insurer.
The signature on delivery was not Aksoy's name, and Markel argued it was entitled to infer that the person was authorized by Aksoy to pick up his mail for him. Aksoy denied that he ever received the notice of cancellation.
"Markel contends that Canada Post's verifications alone are sufficient evidence that Mr. Aksoy or someone authorized to act for him picked up Kingsway's registered letter, and therefore knew he did not have insurance at the time of the accident," Sampliner wrote. "Case law has established that this issue is an individualized inquiry of the entire circumstances, rather than whether Kingsway satisfied the statutory requirement to send Mr. Aksoy the cancellation notice by registered mail.
"Thus, I reject Markel's position that satisfaction of an insurer's statutory requirement for policy cancellation equates with Markel's burden to prove Mr. Aksoy knew or reasonably ought to have known he did not have insurance."
Kingsway had also advised Aksoy's insurance agent that the policy had been cancelled. But there was conflicting evidence in the arbitration as to whether or not the agent had ever explicitly told Aksoy the policy had been cancelled. (The agent did not keep records of the discussions.)
In Ersin Aksoy and Markel Insurance Company of Canada, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) found Markel had to pay Ersin Aksoy income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses.
Aksoy was confined to a wheelchair after serious injuries he sustained in December 2006, when he lost control of his Jeep Grand Cherokee in Toronto and collided with a tractor-trailer traveling in the same direction.
Markel denied his application for income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses.
(Kingsway General Insurance Company wrote the policy in 2006, but Markel was the defendant in the arbitration because it handled Aksoy's claim for accident benefits.)
Markel maintained Aksoy knew or ought to have known that he was driving without an insurance policy, which had been cancelled a few months prior to the crash. Kingsway cancelled the policy for non-payment.
FSCO arbitrator Fred Sampliner noted that Kingsway had in fact issued a policy cancellation notice to Aksoy by registered mail to the last-known address the insurer had on file. Aksoy had moved from that address in mid-2006 without notifying the insurer.
The signature on delivery was not Aksoy's name, and Markel argued it was entitled to infer that the person was authorized by Aksoy to pick up his mail for him. Aksoy denied that he ever received the notice of cancellation.
"Markel contends that Canada Post's verifications alone are sufficient evidence that Mr. Aksoy or someone authorized to act for him picked up Kingsway's registered letter, and therefore knew he did not have insurance at the time of the accident," Sampliner wrote. "Case law has established that this issue is an individualized inquiry of the entire circumstances, rather than whether Kingsway satisfied the statutory requirement to send Mr. Aksoy the cancellation notice by registered mail.
"Thus, I reject Markel's position that satisfaction of an insurer's statutory requirement for policy cancellation equates with Markel's burden to prove Mr. Aksoy knew or reasonably ought to have known he did not have insurance."
Kingsway had also advised Aksoy's insurance agent that the policy had been cancelled. But there was conflicting evidence in the arbitration as to whether or not the agent had ever explicitly told Aksoy the policy had been cancelled. (The agent did not keep records of the discussions.)
Fraud Charges Laid
A 48-year-old Sault Ste Marie resident has been charged with five courts of fraud and five counts of theft after allegedly misappropriating client’s funds as an insurance agent.
As of press time the allegations have not been proven in a court of law.
Jeffrey McWhinney was arrested and charged on Mar. 9 by Sault Ste. Marie police.
It is alleged that between Dec. 11, 1997 and Aug. 14 2002, McWhinney misappropriated client’s funds as an insurance agent by receiving and converting these funds for his own use, according to a police statement.
According to the police, the approximate fraud value is said to be $353,972 and five separate victims were involved.
McWhinney was associated with — but not an employee of —Schuster Boyd McDonald, who immediately ended its “associate” relationship after “officials first heard speculation of fraudulent activity last spring” and the company alerted the regulatory authorities, according to a company release, posted on SooToday.com.
McWhinney acted independently when it came to case management and client services, the company said.
Andrew Shepherd has been selected as the new Collision Training Director to oversee the delivery of I-CAR and partner training to the collision sector in Canada.
Shepherd brings with him an extensive background in training and professional development, as well as experience in association operations and national committee, according to the Automotive Industries Association (AIA) of Canada.
He will be responsible for building the infrastructure in Canada to deliver, monitor, track and grow training for all aspects of the collision repair industry.
Additional duties will include strategic planning, partnership development, industry relations, business planning, data collection, committee and advisory group development, creation of a trainer network and liaison with the I-CAR head office in the U.S, the association reports.
As of press time the allegations have not been proven in a court of law.
Jeffrey McWhinney was arrested and charged on Mar. 9 by Sault Ste. Marie police.
It is alleged that between Dec. 11, 1997 and Aug. 14 2002, McWhinney misappropriated client’s funds as an insurance agent by receiving and converting these funds for his own use, according to a police statement.
According to the police, the approximate fraud value is said to be $353,972 and five separate victims were involved.
McWhinney was associated with — but not an employee of —Schuster Boyd McDonald, who immediately ended its “associate” relationship after “officials first heard speculation of fraudulent activity last spring” and the company alerted the regulatory authorities, according to a company release, posted on SooToday.com.
McWhinney acted independently when it came to case management and client services, the company said.
Andrew Shepherd has been selected as the new Collision Training Director to oversee the delivery of I-CAR and partner training to the collision sector in Canada.
Shepherd brings with him an extensive background in training and professional development, as well as experience in association operations and national committee, according to the Automotive Industries Association (AIA) of Canada.
He will be responsible for building the infrastructure in Canada to deliver, monitor, track and grow training for all aspects of the collision repair industry.
Additional duties will include strategic planning, partnership development, industry relations, business planning, data collection, committee and advisory group development, creation of a trainer network and liaison with the I-CAR head office in the U.S, the association reports.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Ontario Auto Reforms Highlight Choice, Protection and Costs
Coverage choices, consumer protection and tight cost controls—that’s the future for Ontario’s auto insurance system, according to the province’s long-awaited changes.
The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) presented a list of auto insurance reforms in a March 3 bulletin to insurers. The new framework includes many of the measures outlined in the commission’s Five-Year Review of Auto Insurance, stressing consumer choice when it comes to coverage, caps on assessment fees and limits on how insurers can use credit scores.
The changes will take effect September 1, 2010.
Accident benefits redefined
The amendments centre on a new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), establishing new minor injury guidelines—for whiplash disorders--capping minor injury medical and rehab assessment costs at $3,500, capping all other assessments at $2,000, and getting rid of “rebuttal examinations” altogether.
Drivers can choose $50,000 in standard, non-catastrophic medical and rehab coverage, or opt for richer, $100,000 or $1.1 million packages, as well as additional caregiver options.
The measures also attempt to streamline the claims process following an accident by simplifying the rules, combining treatment plans and assessment approvals into one process and eliminating certain forms.
They also do away with some red tape, making appraisals mandatory for property damage when requested by an insurer.
Consumer protection
But the consumer is at the core of many changes: insurers are prohibited from dragging out the claims process, either by discouraging or deflecting claims, and the first insurer to receive a completed application is now required to pay out a claim right away.
The new rules also put use of credit scores under the microscope, banning use of credit information for quoting or renewals, and further defining credit information to include not only a credit rating, but an credit-based insurance score, and even the place of residence or number of dependents.
The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) presented a list of auto insurance reforms in a March 3 bulletin to insurers. The new framework includes many of the measures outlined in the commission’s Five-Year Review of Auto Insurance, stressing consumer choice when it comes to coverage, caps on assessment fees and limits on how insurers can use credit scores.
The changes will take effect September 1, 2010.
Accident benefits redefined
The amendments centre on a new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), establishing new minor injury guidelines—for whiplash disorders--capping minor injury medical and rehab assessment costs at $3,500, capping all other assessments at $2,000, and getting rid of “rebuttal examinations” altogether.
Drivers can choose $50,000 in standard, non-catastrophic medical and rehab coverage, or opt for richer, $100,000 or $1.1 million packages, as well as additional caregiver options.
The measures also attempt to streamline the claims process following an accident by simplifying the rules, combining treatment plans and assessment approvals into one process and eliminating certain forms.
They also do away with some red tape, making appraisals mandatory for property damage when requested by an insurer.
Consumer protection
But the consumer is at the core of many changes: insurers are prohibited from dragging out the claims process, either by discouraging or deflecting claims, and the first insurer to receive a completed application is now required to pay out a claim right away.
The new rules also put use of credit scores under the microscope, banning use of credit information for quoting or renewals, and further defining credit information to include not only a credit rating, but an credit-based insurance score, and even the place of residence or number of dependents.
Friday, March 5, 2010
New Ontario regulations to eliminate delays in benefit payments due to insurer disputes, ban credit scoring in auto lines
New auto insurance regulations to take effect in Ontario in September 2010 are designed to make it impossible for insurers to place an accident benefits claim on hold in order to resolve a dispute between insurers.
In addition, Ontario regulations now ban credit scoring in auto insurance lines as an "unfair or deceptive act or practice."
Tackling the issue of disputes among insurers, Ontario Regulation 283/95 now prohibits insurers from refusing applications or attempting to redirect claimants to other insurers while they work out which one owes payment.
It also prohibits insurers from attempting to prevent or discourage claimants from submitting applications to them.
The new rules require claimants to submit their applications for benefits to only one insurer, rather than all insurers that may be liable. They also require the first insurer to receive a completed application to provide benefit payments without delay.
On the issue of credit scoring, Ontario Regulation 7/00 has been amended by Ontario Regulation 37/10 to ensure that automobile insurers cannot use credit information for specific automobile insurance purposes.
A definition of "credit information" includes a person’s credit rating, credit score, credit-based insurance score, occupation, place of residence, number of dependants, education, profession, place(s) of employment, income, debts, cost of living and assets.
The regulation also prohibits insurers from requiring that a consumer consent to the collection and use of his/her credit information before providing an insurance quote or offering to renew a policy.
Insurers are not allowed to use credit information in order to treat consumers differently when they respond to requests for quotes, or process applications for automobile insurance or renewals of policies.
In addition, Ontario regulations now ban credit scoring in auto insurance lines as an "unfair or deceptive act or practice."
Tackling the issue of disputes among insurers, Ontario Regulation 283/95 now prohibits insurers from refusing applications or attempting to redirect claimants to other insurers while they work out which one owes payment.
It also prohibits insurers from attempting to prevent or discourage claimants from submitting applications to them.
The new rules require claimants to submit their applications for benefits to only one insurer, rather than all insurers that may be liable. They also require the first insurer to receive a completed application to provide benefit payments without delay.
On the issue of credit scoring, Ontario Regulation 7/00 has been amended by Ontario Regulation 37/10 to ensure that automobile insurers cannot use credit information for specific automobile insurance purposes.
A definition of "credit information" includes a person’s credit rating, credit score, credit-based insurance score, occupation, place of residence, number of dependants, education, profession, place(s) of employment, income, debts, cost of living and assets.
The regulation also prohibits insurers from requiring that a consumer consent to the collection and use of his/her credit information before providing an insurance quote or offering to renew a policy.
Insurers are not allowed to use credit information in order to treat consumers differently when they respond to requests for quotes, or process applications for automobile insurance or renewals of policies.
Demand for standalone intellectual property insurance outstrips capacity: Lloyd's
There is growing interest in buying standalone intellectual property insurance, Lloyd's of London says.
“There’s huge demand out there from customers," David Rees, vice president of the financial and professional risks practice at Marsh, tells lloyds.com. "In fact, there’s more demand than there is market capacity at the moment.”
Intellectual property insurance coverage pays for the legal fees of a policyholder that sues another company for stealing one of its ideas or tarnishing one of its brands.
The insurance market notes that companies can get some limited coverage for legal actions arising out of intellectual property disputes under their D&O or professional indemnity policies. Even so, more companies are inquiring about standalone insurance for protecting their intellectual property.
"That’s because in a global economy, where innovation can be the difference between success and failure, there are an increasing number of bitter wrangles between firms over who came up with a money-spinning idea," the insurance market says on its Web site.
“Every firm insures their physical property, but not everyone insures their intellectual property,” Rees says. “But for many firms their intellectual property is their unique selling point — it’s what they make their money from.”
Lloyd's notes such disputes can be "eye-wateringly expensive," with costs spiralling to millions of dollars before the case has even reached a courtroom.
"Companies as diverse as software firms, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and toy makers have approached this niche insurance market…for cover," lloyds.com says.
“There’s huge demand out there from customers," David Rees, vice president of the financial and professional risks practice at Marsh, tells lloyds.com. "In fact, there’s more demand than there is market capacity at the moment.”
Intellectual property insurance coverage pays for the legal fees of a policyholder that sues another company for stealing one of its ideas or tarnishing one of its brands.
The insurance market notes that companies can get some limited coverage for legal actions arising out of intellectual property disputes under their D&O or professional indemnity policies. Even so, more companies are inquiring about standalone insurance for protecting their intellectual property.
"That’s because in a global economy, where innovation can be the difference between success and failure, there are an increasing number of bitter wrangles between firms over who came up with a money-spinning idea," the insurance market says on its Web site.
“Every firm insures their physical property, but not everyone insures their intellectual property,” Rees says. “But for many firms their intellectual property is their unique selling point — it’s what they make their money from.”
Lloyd's notes such disputes can be "eye-wateringly expensive," with costs spiralling to millions of dollars before the case has even reached a courtroom.
"Companies as diverse as software firms, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and toy makers have approached this niche insurance market…for cover," lloyds.com says.
New Ontario auto insurance regulations to take effect Sept. 1, 2010
Regulations for Ontario's auto insurance reforms are now public, and will take effective on Sept. 1, 2010, the province's insurance regulator has announced.
The reforms include a new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) that will cap medical/rehabilitation and assessment/examination expenses for minor injuries at $3,500.
The new SABS also features a new Minor Injury Guideline for accidents.
A minor injury is defined under the new SABS as "a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and any clinically associated sequelae." (Sequelae are symptoms arising as a result of any of the listed injuries.)
Reforms to the SABs will provide standard medical and rehabilitation coverage for non-catastrophic claims of $50,000, with optional coverage of $100,000 or $1.1 million.
The reforms will offer standard attendant care coverage for non-catastrophic claims of $36,000, with optional coverage of either $72,000 or $1.072 million.
For non-catastrophic claimants, insurers will supply optional caregiver, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits. Payment for in-home assessments will be available only to those claimants who have sustained more than a minor injury.
Assessments will be capped at $2,000. This applies to all assessments, be they requested by the claimant or the insurer. Rebuttal examinations will be eliminated, as will be a number of existing approval forms.
Several procedures will be simplified. For example, treatment plans and applications for approval of assessments or examinations will be merged into one process. And the rules governing claims processing will be simplified and consolidated.
Adjusters will have discretion in the use of insurer examinations.
The new SABS also contains a definition for "incurred expense".
The reforms include a new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) that will cap medical/rehabilitation and assessment/examination expenses for minor injuries at $3,500.
The new SABS also features a new Minor Injury Guideline for accidents.
A minor injury is defined under the new SABS as "a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and any clinically associated sequelae." (Sequelae are symptoms arising as a result of any of the listed injuries.)
Reforms to the SABs will provide standard medical and rehabilitation coverage for non-catastrophic claims of $50,000, with optional coverage of $100,000 or $1.1 million.
The reforms will offer standard attendant care coverage for non-catastrophic claims of $36,000, with optional coverage of either $72,000 or $1.072 million.
For non-catastrophic claimants, insurers will supply optional caregiver, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits. Payment for in-home assessments will be available only to those claimants who have sustained more than a minor injury.
Assessments will be capped at $2,000. This applies to all assessments, be they requested by the claimant or the insurer. Rebuttal examinations will be eliminated, as will be a number of existing approval forms.
Several procedures will be simplified. For example, treatment plans and applications for approval of assessments or examinations will be merged into one process. And the rules governing claims processing will be simplified and consolidated.
Adjusters will have discretion in the use of insurer examinations.
The new SABS also contains a definition for "incurred expense".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)