New Case Closing Techniques for Claim Handlers


Eight Tools for Controlling Costs and Closing Cases
Working with claim handlers and plaintiffs in actual claim files, First Court provides eight hours of individual, one-on-one training for claim handlers in how to constructively open communications with difficult claimants and plaintiff attorneys, reduce the time a file is kept open, and avoid litigation when a file reaches impasse.  

Who Should Participate? 
We encourage carriers to enroll a variety of claim handlers for this training.  Seeing the results achieved by claim handling professionals from diverse backgrounds and widely varying years of claim experience will allow management superior insight into the kinds of people best suited for future trainings.

Costs and Guarantee

  • Training fee:  $1,200 / Claim Handler
  • Guarantee:  Using your own statistics and measurement tools, this training will reduce litigation costs by 25%.
  • If you do not believe you have or will achieve these savings, you may reduce or eliminate the fee for this training.

Service Level Agreement OVERVIEW

  • Eight hours of individualized training spread over 40 days. Easy on the schedule!
  • One-on-one coaching, role-playing & "War Gaming" in the latest case-closing methods and technologies.
  • Eight practical closing tools mastered.
  • 16 different claim challenges resolved, ranging from “The honest liability dispute” to “The non-responsive plaintiff lawyer” to “A battle of the experts” See listing below.
  • Requires the visible support of upper and middle management.

Claim Challenges Covered
Claim handlers “war-game” and role play the facts, personalities and attitudes in sixteen of their open files.  They learn, in detail, how to best respond to these sixteen claim handling challenges:

1.    Opposing attorney is ignoring requests for information
2.    Opposing counsel is weak or inexperienced
3.    The parties have an honest disagreement over liability
4.    Injured party needs or wants to emotionally “vent”
5.    Trial venue is unknown or potentially bad 
6.    The settlement gap between the parties is enormous
7.    The dispute boils down to a “battle of the experts”
8.    Opposing counsel is arrogant—“God’s gift to the legal world”
9.    Causation is disputed
10.  Opposing side is too emotional to see the case clearly
11.  One or more parties will not invest in a traditional mediation.
12.  Adjusters disagree with defense counsel on value of case
13. A co-defendant refuses to accept ANY responsibility
14.  The case is not moving because a trial date is years away
15.  A non-party is leading the opposing side astray on value 
16.  Opposing side is dishonest and cannot be trusted.