Tag Archives: adjuster

Let’s Watch Our Language

During a podcast I recorded last week with Capgemini’s global insurance lead, Seth Rachlin, we went on at some length about a pet peeve of mine: the insurance industry’s archaic and often downright unfriendly language.

While I’ve hit this topic before (most notably here), I haven’t exactly seen much change in the past several years, so I’ll keep harping on the problem. I realize that not everyone focuses on language as much as I do — coming from a family with half a century as copy editors at the Wall Street Journal will shape your perspective — but I believe that insurance’s insular language limits our ability to entertain outside perspectives.

As the saying goes, “We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us.”

The particular issue that set Seth and me off is the notion of the “customer.” That’s hardly an archaic or unfriendly term — in normal use. But insurers often refer to brokers and agents as their customers. I love brokers and agents, but, sorry, they aren’t the customers. The people who pay the premiums, who face the risks, who file the claims — those are the customers.

At a time when we’re all supposedly focusing on the customer experience, how can we even begin to get it right if our language steers us toward serving those who sell rather than those who actually use our products?

Almost as bad: In just about every industry, interactions are handled by “customer service representatives.” Why can’t insurance use that term? Why send me an “adjuster,” whose title suggests that either the insurer doesn’t think I’m bright enough to get the claim right on my own or that I’m downright dishonest and need to be checked out? The adjuster can do exactly the same job as always. Let’s just give customers a friendlier term.

Or: Why are payments to customers referred to as “losses”? When a bank or mutual fund sends me money I’ve earned, it’s paying me interest or capital gains. Corporations pay me dividends. None of these firms talk about losses just because money has moved from them to me. So, why does the insurance industry refer to a payment on my behalf to a doctor as a “medical loss”? Why is a payment to help me recover from property damage in a storm a “catastrophe loss”? Why isn’t a “loss” called a “payment to a cherished customer to help the person/business recover in a time of need”?

Yeah, that’s a bit long, but surely “claims” or “paid claims” could replace “losses.”

Just changing three terms — “customer,” “adjuster” and “loss” — would go a long way toward reorienting the industry’s thinking and lead to a friendlier experience for customers, but let’s not stop there. Here are some other changes that the insurance industry should make immediately to its language to make it more accessible to customers:

  • Binder → temporary insurance
  • Rider → addition or supplement
  • Endorsement → amendment
  • Underwriting → pricing risk
  • Excess lines, surplus lines, subrogation, capitation, inland marine (inland marine!) → something that is meaningful to the customer….
  • What else? (I’d welcome thoughts in the comments section here or on LinkedIn, where this will also be posted.)

I realize that jargon can make us seem like we have inside knowledge. When my closest childhood friend went to medical school, he told me that running straight down the middle of our torsos is a narrow bit of fibrous tissue that looks like a white line. “It’s called the linea alba,” he said. “You know what that means in English? The direction translation is, ‘white line.’ But you sound smarter when you say it in Latin.”

I also realize that those in the industry understand all the terms and thus feel no need to change. But if we’re really to get outside our own heads and see the world from the customer point of view, then fixing our language would be a great place to start.

Stay safe.

Paul

P.S. Here are the six articles I’d like to highlight from the past week:

The Next Wave of Insurtech

With automated claims processing, the turnaround time for settlement will be measured in minutes rather than days or weeks.

Insurance 2030: Implications for Today

How employees will be recruited, trained and retained will be quite different – and organizations need to start on that journey today.

Rise of ‘Product-ism,’ Fall of ‘Project-ism’

Firms struggle because they view AI initiatives as small projects rather than a product requiring continuing maintenance and investment.

2020 Catastrophes; Preview for 2021

If this spring La Nina holds together, the central plains could get back to seeing severe weather that was lacking last year.

Life Insurance Is Ripe for Change in 2021

Under the incoming administration, the focus on consumer protection regulation will rise for financial services, including insurance.

Increasing Regulation on Climate Change

In 2021, climate-change actions by U.S. regulators will create both challenges and opportunities for insurers.

Reconnecting With Customers Via Claims

While every carrier manages claims operations in a slightly different way, there are three consistent technology setups currently in practice: Green Screen, Home-Grown and Modern. The back-end operational workflows for each of these practices are generally the same: The adjuster manually enters notes, manually sends emails or makes calls and manually ties documents from the document management systems to the claim systems. The challenge here is that the adjuster is the centrally intelligent component. Relying on an adjuster to connect various systems mires the adjuster in overly manual steps, leaving claims processing vulnerable to reduced speed, mistakes and inefficiencies – all of which lessen customer satisfaction.

Green Screen

While more common overseas and in smaller markets, green screen systems are still found in many claims operations today. The green screen is a simple claim database that only accepts user inputs from a text-based screen with minimal capabilities to integrate into any other systems. Adjusters are forced to use a separate document management system to store files and photos and use a separate email system for outward communications.

Carriers relying on green screen systems see inefficiency with data transfer. Adjusters have to hunt for documents that are not tied to a claim number, annotate the decisions they have made in the green screen system and communicate in a separate system to the customer. Most of the mindshare of the organization is spent on teaching the humans the rules of the claim and how to document their thoughts in the system.

See also: Visual Technology Is Changing Claims  

Home-Grown

Some organizations have managed to build their own systems internally over the years. In these systems, various IT projects over the years have been spliced together with complicated business rules that aim to reduce the human error and ensure legal compliance. Carriers with a home-grown system face significant IT spending to maintain their complex infrastructure. Even with a large IT staff, it is nearly impossible to launch new technology initiatives because change affects rules buried deep in the system. The result is a system that is expensive, inflexible, complex and generally oblivious to the customer experience.

Modern

Recently, carriers have consolidated their legacy systems into one modern platform. These setups require a large engagement with a third-party system integrator and many years of thoughtful planning and data migration. However, the output is rarely a truly consolidated system. Carriers with modern systems are bound to long-term, third-party support contracts and face many of the issues that home-grown carriers face. Complicated business logic is embedded in the software to try to avoid human errors, but it leads to complexity and rigidity that ensure internal compliance while ignoring the customer experience.

Carriers and Customers

As customer needs are changing, carriers’ technology should be changing, too. Today’s customers expect a seamless tech experience with clear communication, automation and the ability to input via apps, photos, phones and inboxes. There are several new tech solutions that aim to ease a challenge of current carrier tech configurations. At Snapsheet, we have already built software that eases nearly all of these customer expectations.

Here are the capabilities that are critical to advanced claims technology – all of which will help meet customer needs:

  • Cloud-Based Architecture: This feature is important for a flexible design, which eases the implementation. There is no data migration, no system integration and no multi-year project plan. Claims software is launched stand-alone around existing systems or as a full-on replacement. It enables carriers to track, with real-time precision, all of the customer interactions, how the customer engages with the claims process and how the adjuster is engaging with the customer. Immediate insights are gained and can be operationalized.
  • Intelligent Claims Files: Instead of relying on the adjuster to tie systems together and shepherd the customer through the claims process, the Snapsheet platform has advanced capabilities that understand the expectations of each step in the claims process and guide the customer through the appropriate actions. An intelligent engine coordinates the communications and documentation needs for each file and advises the adjuster when to take action. If all of the requested information is provided, the engine may choose to automatically move the work to the next stage.
  • Real-time metrics and operational transparency: It enables the carriers to track, with real-time precision, all of the customer interactions, how the customer engages with the claims process, and how the adjuster is engaging with the customer. Immediate insights are gained and can be operationalized. The result is an enhanced customer claims experience, led by automation and real-time customer engagement to provide a tailored journey through any claim in any language in any country.
  • Customized roll-out: Customization is key. Even with a single consistent platform, such as Snapsheet’s, it is important to customize implementation for whatever legacy IT configuration exists. This adds flexibility and ease-of-use to each project. Snapsheet’s recent strategic collaboration with Zurich is an example of taking a new software approach by putting the customer experience first. Various county entities in Zurich use each of the three software setups mentioned above. Snapsheet software can be leveraged across any configuration, activating software modules that smooth or plug efficiency gaps in the current process, or completely replace existing claims systems.

See also: How to Use AI in Claims Management  

As we kick off 2019 and insurtech continues to expand, the industry will see even greater advancement in the technology space for carriers and claims processes. Automated systems are important to guide the customer through the correct claims journey and ultimately allow carriers more time to innovate.

Telematics: A Claims Adjuster’s New BFF

Nobody can have too many BFFs (that’s best friends forever in today’s texting-driven vernacular).  That statement goes double for claims adjusters who are frequently seen as “bad guys” because of all the difficult-to-understand complexities of the adjusting process. The reality is that claims adjusters do not get enough recognition for the many times they go the far distant extra mile to help a customer after an auto accident. Claims adjusters need all the tools they can possibly get to deliver customer service at the high levels they want to deliver. And telematics is here to the rescue!

Many insurers see telematics only as a new way to rate auto insurance coverages, perhaps even replacing traditional rating criteria as some InsurTech innovators are doing. Other insurers only see telematics as a new way to underwrite auto policies, replacing traditional and sometimes complicated criteria with usage-based facts. These are all real situations. But what most insurers do not yet see is that telematics can be a way to give claims adjusters a customer service tool that, incidentally, improves claims financial outcomes. And who doesn’t love a win-win!

See also: Telematics: Moving Out of the Dark Ages?  

A new claims adjuster, right after getting a company ID badge and signing up for company benefits with HR, learns that the sooner the company is advised of a claim, the better the odds are the company can assure a successful outcome and control costs. That’s Claims Adjusting 101. Many insurers have addressed this by directing the first notice of loss from the consumer through a company contact center or service provider. More recently, companies have developed FNOL apps for mobile devices so that claims reporting can kick off shortly after paperwork is exchanged at the site of the accident. But, what if the FNOL could be generated as the accident happens? As a matter of fact, state-of-the-art telematics can actually do this.

Leading telematics technology can generate the FNOL from the actual impact dynamics. Appropriately implemented, this means that an emergency medical response could be automatically initiated if the impact details warrant it. In the event of a serious crash, this could make a critical difference in treatment outcomes. Towing services could also be initiated, getting the vehicle off the roadway sooner. Body shops and storage facilities could also be looped in as appropriate. Being the technology-enabled “first on the scene,” and providing much-needed assistance at a stressful time puts any claims adjuster on the fast track to BFF status. And, returning to Claims Adjusting 101, it helps with the positive management of claims costs.

The benefits of telematics in auto claims adjusting don’t stop there. Telematics can provide factual details that sometimes elude those involved in the event. When asked what happened, those involved in the accident very frequently respond with “it all happened so fast.” Telematics facts can replace post-loss perceptions of the event, thus helping the adjuster move the claim along faster. The telematics-defined dynamics of an accident can also aid in injury assessment, again, moving the claim process along.

There’s more. Vehicle repair can be an arduous process, particularly if the damage renders a vehicle unusable. Not having a car is clearly a source of frustration for most individuals. Simply getting all the assessment details can hinge on visual inspections, reports, and sending photos. Telematics can provide impact details and dynamics that can speed this process along, leap-frogging traditional claims processes to reunite vehicle and driver sooner. Another BFF moment!

In my role, I have spoken to a great number of claims executives. I have yet to meet any who did not see themselves and their organization as a key driver, if not the number one driver, of customer satisfaction. There are a good number of tools that claims organizations possess to deliver excellent customer service. And you can never have too many customer service capabilities (just as you can never have too many BFFs). Insurers should assess their existing or newly planned telematics initiatives and expand the opportunities for value and customer service beyond rating and underwriting to claims operations. Many technologies benefit one product line, or one discipline, or one process. It is, indeed, a top priority technology initiative that can span the organization at many levels, improving customer service and bottom-line results simultaneously. Telematics should be on the short list.

See also: Lessons From New Telematics Firm  

For additional thoughts on how telematics can be a successful component of an anti-fraud strategy, please read our blog Fraud is Not a Cost of Doing Business – And Emerging Tech is Here to Prove It!

medical

New Tool for Settling Open Medical Claims

The almighty dollar is often just one component of a successful workers’ compensation settlement. Savvy negotiators recognize that they have several tools at their disposal when it comes to bridging the gap between the payer’s offer and the plaintiff’s demand, many of which dictate how and when the settlement dollars can be used.

On both sides of the negotiating table, many are adept at minimizing or maximizing the medical cost projection or the amount that goes into a Medicare Set Aside (MSA). Many in the industry also understand how a structured settlement (annuity) can unlock value and allow for the pacing of stable income for the claimant.

Now, a small but growing number in the industry are beginning to understand how offering professional administration (PA) of the claimant’s future medical funds can help facilitate a settlement. PA provides the claimant with a dedicated support team after he settles the case, along with technology to ensure he saves money when he actually spend the settlement dollars on healthcare.

What settlement issues can you use PA to help address?

The most often cited concerns of injured workers when they face the prospect of settling are regarding: 1) access to their medical treatment and 2) how long it takes to get a response from their adjuster, attorneys or the board as they go through settlement process. Examples of these concerns are easily found by reading the comments directly from injured workers in a survey by the New York Workers’ Compensation Board. Issues like “denied treatment” and “delayed processes” are at the core of nearly every complaint.

PA is effective in addressing these concerns because PA services do not restrict the claimant’s access to medical treatment via utilization review or a medical provider network (MPN); PA services provide expanded choices for treatment. In addition, many PA services have call centers that offer support to their clients, the injured workers. CareGuard, for instance, offers 24/7 coverage to its members and prospective members to answer any questions they may have as they navigate the complex healthcare maze after settlement.

Through the life of their claim, many injured workers simply lose trust in the attorneys, judges or system in general. This is often because the settlement process sets the parties up at a table for purposes of a one-time transaction, but then each group walks their own separate way.

There is sparing research done on injured workers’ attitudes toward settling their case, but a survey in Minnesota in 2013 scratched the surface of what a daunting undertaking settling is for the injured individual. The study found that about one-third of injured workers did not fully understand their settlement. Further, it revealed that around three-quarters of injured workers did NOT believe they achieved a “fair” settlement. The sample used were folks who actually overcame their concerns and settled regardless of the negative sentiment the process evoked. Many claimants do not have the courage to push forward with settlement and instead decide to leave their future medical claim, if not their entire claim, open.

PA can be a valuable tool, whether for adjusters, defense attorneys or plaintiff attorneys, to inject trust and solutions into a contentious situation. A team becomes available to address claimants’ concerns about their future medical treatment. PA also introduces a party to the settlement negotiation whose interests are aligned with the claimant’s, because the PA provider will be the only party continuing to provide service to the claimant after settlement. This can give the claimant much-needed peace of mind that a partner is looking out for his best interests, and it is this peace of mind that helps reluctant claimants see that settling could in fact be their best decision. PA services give claimants comfort and confidence that life after settlement can be a rewarding and hassle free experience.

How can you leverage PA in a settlement?

To leverage PA effectively, negotiators on either side of the table should introduce the service early on in the process and clearly explain its benefits to the claimant. Often times, it’s useful to connect the PA provider directly with the claimant or her attorney so that a relationship is established and the service is well-understood. After all, the agreement between the PA provider and the claimant will exist for years beyond the settlement; it’s better to begin that relationship early on rather than try to throw it in last minute.

The PA provider can serve as a neutral party that helps explain to the claimant what she can expect after settlement. Some PA providers, like CareGuard, can go further to provide cost analyses of what treatments will cost on their platform and demos of how their service works. PA providers understand that they do not get paid until the case settles, so they are a source of information and guidance toward settlement for all parties involved.

Jurors and Questions on Insurance Coverage

For most potential jurors, questions of insurance coverage do not usually arise in common conversation. Seldom cut and dried, usually subject to numerous definitions and intricacies, coverage issues can be boring and puzzling for even an experienced adjuster. Asking a lay person to try to classify an “occurrence” as defined by a policy, or whether a third party is covered as an additional insured, may prompt, at best, glazed-over eyes or, even worse, a negative commentary about insurance companies. While it may be best in some situations for a judge to determine the issue of insurance coverage, this is not always possible. Sometimes, coverage questions arise in litigation, and those interpreting policy language and determining the outcome are jurors. If jurors are deciding the issues, certain challenges then arise, such as how to clarify policy language, present a clear and concise argument and overcome negative preconceptions about the insurance industry.

Can the Judge Decide Coverage Issues?

In Louisiana, general rules regarding issues that are triable by a jury are set forth in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 1731 – 1736. These establish the general rule that a demand for a trial by jury will result in a trial by jury of all issues. However, exceptions to the general rule exist when: (a) the parties stipulate that the jury trial shall be as to certain issues only; (b) a party in his demand specifies the issues to be tried by a jury; or (c) the right to trial by jury as to certain issues does not exist. Where a jury trial has been demanded by one or both parties, the case must be tried by a jury unless both parties consent to trial without a jury or the trial court finds that a right to a trial by jury does not exist.

More particularly, La. C.C. P. art. 1562(D) specifically codified the general principle found in La. C.C. P. art. 1736 requiring a stipulation between or the consent of the parties before the trial judge can order that insurance coverage issues be tried separately, with the “court alone” deciding the issue of insurance coverage.

La. C.C.P. art. 1562(D) states:

“If it would simplify the proceedings or would permit a more orderly disposition of the case or otherwise would be in the interest of justice, at any time prior to trial on the merits, the court may order, with the consent of all parties, a separate trial on the issue of insurance coverage, unless a factual dispute that is material to the insurance coverage issue duplicates an issue relative to liability or damages. The issue of insurance coverage shall be decided by the court alone, whether or not there is to be a jury trial on the issue of liability or damages.”

The leading case on the subject is Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc., 95-1574 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/3/96), 678 So.2d 936, writ granted, remanded, 96-2000 (La. 11/15/96), 682 So.2d 746 and 96-2007 (La. 11/15/96), 682 So.2d 747. There, the court stated that La. C.C.P. art 1562(D) provided that, if principals of judicial efficiency or justice would be served then the court may order a separate trial on the issue of insurance coverage. However, the trial judge’s discretion is not unfettered. The judge’s ability to take the issue away from the jury is severely restricted because, under the article, all of the following conditions must exist: (1) it would simplify the proceedings, permit a more orderly disposition of the case, or be in the interest of justice; (2) the consent of all parties; (3) the non-existence of a factual dispute material to the coverage issue that duplicates an issue relative to liability or damages; and (4) the order must be rendered before trial on the merits.

Therefore, the requirements set forth in the article effectively leave the judge with no discretion, as it requires the consent of all parties. The court further noted that, while the issue of insurance coverage under an insurance policy is a narrow issue of the law between the alleged insured and the insurer, a jury is not prohibited, by statute or otherwise, from deciding this issue. Further, there is no exception to the right to trial by jury for issues that the trial judge may think are too technical or too complex for the jury to understand. Even if the trial judge believes that he is more capable than the jury of deciding the issue of coverage, he cannot take this issue away from the jury once the issue is included within the scope of issues for which a jury trial was requested, unless the conditions of La. C.C.P. art. 1562(D) are met.

As such, if a trial by jury has been requested, but an insurer is presenting technical questions of coverage and believes that a judge would be best suited to decide the coverage issue, a stipulation or the consent of all parties would be necessary before the judge could take the coverage issue away from the jury. Unfortunately, often the consent of all parties to separately try the coverage issue cannot be obtained, and the insurer is left with a jury to decide intricate and potentially costly coverage issues.

Selecting the Best Jury for Your Coverage Case

If coverage issues must be decided by a jury, the persons who make up that jury can make a difference in the outcome of the case. Questioning prospective jurors in voir dire about their current insurance policies and other contracts can provide some insight into how they view insurance companies and the potential for coverage. People often believe that they are “fully covered” under their insurance policies, and that insurers are large, prosperous companies that should be able to “help out” individuals. However, further questioning can reveal that potential jurors do understand that there are limitations as to what is covered under certain policies and what has been negotiated.

Questioning a potential juror about a policy he may currently have in place, whether that policy has a limit and if he understands that the insurance company would not be required to pay more than that limit, can show that the potential juror does understand some limitations to coverage. Additional questions may involve who the current policies provide coverage to and the limitations on that coverage. Even simple, and almost obvious, questions can help illustrate a potential juror’s understanding of coverage limitations. For example, discussing how an automobile policy might provide coverage for certain damage to an owned vehicle but would not cover general maintenance, oil changes or a monthly car payment can help provide insight into whether an individual may be able to understand the issues and be a constructive juror.

Additionally, general questions regarding the potential jurors’ opinion of insurance companies in general, personal claims experiences or inferences regarding insurers that the potential juror has taken from the media can provide insight into whether the potential juror might be favorable or undesirable from the insurer’s standpoint.

Presentation at Trial – Concise and Comprehensible

After a jury has been selected, helping jurors understand and follow the language and logic of the coverage argument is vital. The following tips may help simplify the coverage case and overcome obstacles when faced with presenting coverage issues to a jury.

1. Walk Jurors Through the Basics

Although often complex, insurance policies are simply contracts. They define a relationship between parties and outline who will do what, when and under what circumstances. Presenting the insurance policy as a simple contract, by identifying the promise between the parties and what each may receive in exchange for their promise, may help jurors be less apprehensive when approaching coverage issues.

A good place to start is with the basics of the policy and how it is structured. Discussing the declarations, insuring agreement, exclusions, definitions, conditions and endorsements allows jurors to get comfortable with the policy. After the policy and its purpose are explained, the specific provisions at issue can be addressed. An effective way to do this is by using demonstrative evidence, such as blowups of certain pages or Power Point presentations illustrating specific language and what it means. Presenting the policy through large exhibits helps break down the technicality for jurors and show that it is a logical and consistent contract.

Further, preparing an exhibit naming and listing the experience of all of the individuals who are involved in creating the policy, the claim investigation, adjustment and the coverage decision shows that time and thought of real individuals went into creating a well-organized document and making a well-thought-out coverage decision.

2. Humanize the Issues

Jurors often bring their own experiences to the courtroom and, sometimes, a bad impression of insurance companies. Further, oftentimes coverage disputes are coupled with bad faith claims, exacerbating the notion that insurance companies are malicious. To overcome these perceived notions and prejudices, it is key to humanize the insurer’s operations and show the jurors that real people have drafted the policies and handled the claims. Showing that the insurer is not just a large, faceless corporation, but individuals making decisions and doing their jobs, will help negate the insured’s presented image of an uncaring, profit-seeking business entity. While testimony from a vice president may be impressive, the agent who issued the policy or the adjuster who handled the claim may help put a more relatable face to the company.

Additionally, many insurers have adopted vision statements outlining a code of ethics or a commitment to the community. Using this at trial, and showing how the company is committed to its values or involved in the community, helps dispel negative ideas of an uncaring corporation.

Lastly, insurers should be careful about attacking the insured’s credibility or positions. While it may be necessary, the way this is presented to the jury can have a big impact and can erroneously further the negative ideas about the insurance company.

3. Show All Negotiations

Jurors will generally understand the concept of “you get what you pay for.” They know that if they contracted with their cable company and pay for only the basic channels, they do not get premium channels, such as HBO. It follows that jurors should understand that if underwriting documents or other evidence show what was discussed and understood between the parties, and this is reflected in the contract, this should be what governs. If evidence of negotiations is available, this should be presented to the jury. This concept may be particularly helpful in litigating commercial policies, where there is usually more negotiation, and in showing the application of policy exclusions.

4. Keep It Simple

As a general rule, the simpler the better. It is important to keep the insurance policy language from sounding too technical. Avoid overuse of legal terms and phrases, as this will only confuse jurors and may cause them to fall back on the generally accepted legal principle that “any ambiguity must be construed against the insurer.” A straightforward presentation, relying on only one or two strong coverage arguments, should be used. Presenting every argument possible is not always the best strategy, as this could bog down the jury and cause them to lose focus. When one or two key arguments are made, the case is tight and allows jurors to concentrate on the big picture, rather than trying to follow several moving parts.

Another tactic that may help bring the issues to a comfortable level is to compare the policy to other contracts jurors may have entered into. Outlining the limits and duties imposed by contracts that jurors may be more familiar with, such as a purchase agreement for a car, or a lease agreement for an apartment, may also help jurors realize that there are also limitations and duties imposed by insurance contracts, just like the contracts with which they are more familiar.

Additionally, working backward from the result being sought provides a road map for a streamlined argument and helps create a unifying theme throughout the litigation. Starting from the verdict form or jury instructions helps to keep concentration on the elements that need to be established or explained.

5. Apply Basic Jury Concepts

Basic concepts of persuasion, which apply to all jury litigation, can also be used effectively in a coverage case. Fairness must be stressed and run as a theme throughout the presentation of the coverage case. Jurors want to be fair and will try their best to do so. Additionally, any obvious weaknesses in the case should be addressed. Holes in the case, if not admitted to or explained, will create doubt.

Presenting a coverage case to a jury is sometimes unavoidable, but need not be too difficult or incomprehensible for jurors. Carefully questioning and selecting potential jurors, along with presenting a simple yet logical argument, while humanizing the insurance company, can help achieve a successful presentation of the case in the courtroom and, with that, a successful result.