Is our approach to claims mitigating costs and improving the customer experience?

I have never had so many discussions, with so many residents in my suburb like over the past week or so. As soon as it started going around that I was in insurance and insurance claims, the questions and complaints on service have been growing.

Here are just some of the issues: with the homes, some customers have had up to nine different people come out to site either trying to do mitigation work, examine the extent of damage and price the work, or both.

With the rain over the past week, most have complained of ongoing and growing damage and now the presence of mould. They appreciate that many of those attending are being paid by their insurer, but questioning the value add.

Many do not realise and are concerned when we discuss it, that the firm carrying out the initial assessment is related to the one engaged with the make safe, the repairs, or both of them. More than one has also asked if that is why the make safe was so poor in the first instance.

Tried to explain that responding to a catastrophe of this size is not easy, considering the industry’s simultaneous efforts in dealing with bush fire claims. However, it does look like there is a lot of band-aid stuff happening rather than, say, tarping roofs correctly to reduce the risk of future damage until a detailed assessment and repair can be carried out.

The most frustrated are those that have had to wait for over an hour to report the claim and no one is yet to contact them. The advice to them is to take reasonable steps themselves to mitigate the damage. At this stage, I was shocked by how many people were not aware of the services provided by the State Emergency Service.

Another major surprise was the level of non insurance on some magnificent homes and their contents. Again, this is an issue that I feel the industry as a whole has to address.

Just as frustrating is the case with some of the motor vehicles. I do not get involved in this area much myself, but what does not make sense is having two vehicles insured under one policy, both suffering hail damage, but two separate firms of loss adjusters appointed. Clearly common sense would dictate that you appoint one firm or individual to do both, make one trip, and knock the assessments over, which would save money and cause less hassle to the customer. Clearly, this insurer has a system that allocates claims on a rotation basis, or the person entering the claim did not think to link the two claims and assign it to one person.

You then add the possible fact that one assessor does not turn up, then his employer says he arrived and waited outside for 15 minutes, alleging he rang the phone number but no one answered or returned his call. Meanwhile, someone was home waiting all day, with no missed calls on their mobile he claims to have rung and cameras show that no one was parked outside the home at anytime of the day.

No wonder so many customers have lost trust and faith in our industry. They see unbelievable inefficiencies, a failure of their representatives to make reasonable efforts to mitigate the damage, and a general lack of common sense. I do what I can to defend the industry, but some of what I am seeing is indefensible.

I know that the ICA is hosting some community meetings in Canberra in respect of the hail claims there, and I suspect some of this will be the same issues I am hearing here in Melbourne.

I must stress that while I am copping it from neighbours, and my newly made friends in the suburb, I cannot complain about the service I am getting as, being so risk-averse, I take great care where I place my insurance.

The purpose of the post is to ask the question, while the industry is looking to reduce the cost of handling claims: what is the offset when it comes to the average claim cost and customer satisfaction?