PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Claims Software / NAIC Hears Renewed Calls for Regulation of Automated Claims Tools

NAIC Hears Renewed Calls for Regulation of Automated Claims Tools

January 23, 2013 by Kristin Ann Shepard

On December 1, 2012, for the second time this year, the Market Regulation and Consumer Affairs (D) Committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners heard presentations about insurers’ use of computerized systems to assist in the adjustment of bodily injury and property claims.  The hearing concentrated on three products:  Computer Science Corporation’s “Colossus,” ISO’s “Claims Outcome Advisor” and Xactware Solutions, Inc.’s “Xactimate.”

The Committee’s interest in this issue was prompted, in part, by a report criticizing Colossus that was issued last June by the Consumer Federation of America.  The report discusses issues that were addressed in a multi-state examination of Allstate’s use of Colossus, which resulted in a 2010 Regulatory Agreement and in a class action over Colossus that was filed in Miller County, Arkansas, in February 2005.  That case, Hensley v. Computer Science Corp. et al., included over 500 insurers as defendants and was resolved by a series of settlements over the course of several years.  (Full disclosure:  A Jorden Burt attorney worked on the Hensley case on behalf of one of the insurer defendants.)

The Committee heard presentations from the developers of the three tools, as well as presentations by consumer advocacy groups.  The Committee reported that other vendors of computerized claims systems were invited to present, but declined to do so.

Colossus uses customer-specific data to generate a range of values, consistent with the user’s past settlements, on the general damages component (e.g., pain and suffering) of a claim for bodily injury. The Committee heard that it is currently in use by 23 insurers in the United States.  The “Injury Advisor” component of Claims Outcome Advisor is a similar system that uses three different models to produce an assessment of general damages.

Xactimate is a tool for estimating the cost of repairs to damaged property.  The Committee heard that “hundreds” of insurers use Xactimate – approximately 70% of all insurers that use automated systems for property claims.  In addition, about 50 insurers – including three of the top ten US property-casualty insurers – use Xactware’s “360Value” tool for underwriting and rating of risks.

The Committee also heard from representatives of the Consumer Federation of America and United Policyholders, which have published reports regarding, respectively, the use of Colossus and the use of Xactware software.  These groups assert that state insurance commissioners should regulate the use of computerized claims systems and conduct periodic market conduct examinations regarding insurers’ use of these systems.

With respect to Colossus, the advocacy groups propose that market conduct examinations go beyond issues of “tuning” (roughly speaking, selecting and organizing data about past settlements to establish a baseline for future claims) to consider (1) whether the data that Colossus uses to generate values for general damages includes information about medical bills that have already been reduced by other automated systems, such as DecisionPoint, and (2) whether adjusters are encouraged to account for the claimant’s comparative negligence or fault by inputting unduly optimistic codes for the claimant’s final prognosis.

With regard to Xactimate, the groups expressed concern that the software is used primarily by insurers and adjusters, but not contractors and builders.  They suggest that market conduct examinations monitor the differences between estimates produced by the software and actual repair costs.

The advocacy groups have also questioned whether regulators could designate the vendors of computerized claims tools as insurance advisory organizations and regulate them on this basis.  Consumer advocates would like insurers to disclose the use of computerized software to assess an insured’s claim, as well as to provide the insured with the claims software report, if requested.

Near the end of the meeting, Committee Vice Chair Stephen Robertson of Indiana asked a representative of America’s Health Insurance Plans (“AHIP”) about health insurers’ use of computerized claims systems; health insurers reportedly use a variety of different claims software products with varying features.  The AHIP representative indicated that many of these claims systems have been examined by state insurance regulators.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

No, SIR: The Self-Insured Retains a Duty of Self-Defense

Next Article »

What’s in a Proper Name? Coverage Opinions Take Different Approaches

About Kristin Ann Shepard

Related Articles

  1. Cybersecurity as a Regulatory Issue: The NAIC Considers The Anthem Breach And Weighs a “Cybersecurity Bill of Rights”
  2. NAIC Exposes Revised Draft Model Cybersecurity Law for Insurers for Public Comment
  3. Cybersecurity Awareness Month: Visits From the Ghosts of Claims Past and Claims Future
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim
  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing