Adding value – the AJG difference in the claims process

4 Jul 2016

Nothing quite shows the true value of a broker’s role in the insurance process more than at claims time. When a client’s livelihood is potentially at stake, the outcome of the claim can make or break even the strongest relationship.

This is a key aspect for all insurance brokers, but at AJG we consistently look at how and where we make a real difference in settling the claim in the best interest of our client.

We look to prove that value to our clients by leveraging our relationships with our insurer partners; through our deep understanding of our clients’ business needs; our expertise in a variety of industries and policy wordings; and our dedication to closing out claims as swiftly as possible. In short, we aim to keep our promises to our clients.

Combining all of these qualities allows us to prove the AJG difference to our clients, time and again. The below examples show very clearly how we’ve achieved great outcomes for clients, and how our claims support service adds genuine value to their business – regardless of industry, size of claim or their location in Australia.

 

Case study 1 – keeping a not-for-profit afloat in NSW

Our client is a non-profit community organisation whose sea-going vessel caught fire due to electrical fault. The repairs far exceeded the sum insured, however insurers wanted to delay while extensive reports were being issued, then to apply sub-limits, and to pay any claim settlement in increments – none of which in the best interest of the client.

The insurer’s actions had the potential to drag the claim out for months, if not years.

Resolution

We were able to get insurers to agree a 100% Particular Average claim, where insurers paid out the full value of the cover but the client was able to retain the vessel without deduction for any remaining value. We managed to get the funds available to the client within three weeks of the incident allowing them to continue operating.

Client feedback

The client was thrilled with the outcome as it was exactly what they wanted. They were able to use the funds to purchase a new vessel, for which we will also arrange insurance, and the client will use the damaged vessel as a training opportunity.

The AJG difference

We know that an ‘old claim is not a good claim’ and where it’s in the client’s interest we assertively work through the claim to get a quick resolution.

 

Case study 2 – Keeping a rural client on the road in Victoria

Our client lives in a very remote area, and was involved in a severe motor vehicle collision that resulted in the insured vehicle being declared as a total loss. Our client was left without any access to transportation, they had been totally reliant on their motor vehicle as there was no public transport in the area.

Resolution

Due to the relentless effort of the AJG claims team the claim was confirmed as accepted less than a week from the date of lodgement, with payment promptly made to the client via EFT. This is especially impressive in the case of a total loss like this one, as insurers can be pedantic about carrying out investigations.

Client feedback

The client was extremely relieved by the prompt turnaround as they had no mode of transport. They were grateful for the efforts of the AJG claims team in securing a total loss payment in a record time.

The AJG difference

We put ourselves in the place of the client. Our client was in a difficult predicament and the AJG claims team realised that speed of claims settlement was critical. We managed to have the claim settled a lot quicker than normal by using our influence with the insurers.

 

Case study 3 – Weathering storm damage in the Northern territory

A child care centre insured through AJG had storm damage to a number of shade sails on the property, with a repair cost of approximately $17k.

The policy wording included depreciation at 10% per year for shade sails over 5 years old, to a maximum of 80%. The insurer made no attempt to investigate the damage or assess how much depreciation should be applied to the claim. They applied the full 80% despite the AJG claims team providing evidence that not all the shade sails were subject to the depreciation. In addition, the insurer also incorrectly applied the depreciation to the labour component.

In both cases, even if the depreciation was correct, the way it had been applied was still in error.

Resolution

The AJG claims team approached the repairer and obtained a detailed break-down of their quote including separating out the labour component. They obtained details from the client of recent shade replacements, which included previous claims where shades had been damaged and repaired less than 8 years before.

The AJG claims team made the submission to Insurers and by applying the depreciation correctly increased the initial settlement offer of $3,225 to $14,463. The client was extremely happy with the outcome.

The AJG difference

Where we think an insurer is not being thorough in understanding all the facts we research them and present them in such a way that the correct claim amount is paid.