Thread regarding Allstate Corp. layoffs

LDU dishonest liability decisions

This is a question to anyone working in LDU. How do you feel about the dishonest liability decisions management pushes you to make? Are you totally fine putting 100% on the claimant even though the PR and the claimant statement show that Allstate caused thr accident? Do you have to put full liability on the claimant just because Allstate's insured says they are innocent? Do you often feel slimy or icky after following these orders?

by
| 1001 views | | 7 replies (last November 25, 2024) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1vurCDyB

7 replies (most recent on top)

It’s called bad faith. Don’t play along. You’re impacting innocent people who need their claims paid.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bbqx+1vurCDyB

The push for questionable comp neg has NOTHING to do with quality. It’s all about saving money. Common sense is out the window with the current claims regime. They want us to argue ridiculous narratives with claimants. Sorry but all those calls are going to a CSL because they don’t pay enough for that

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @8xdc+1vurCDyB

Management is aware of the "problem" and it's by design. Sloppy claim handling and the fact the insured says they didn't cause the loss means we don't really need to investigate further. Can always claim that we "support the insureds version" even if it makes no sense and is probably a lie
Allstate saves money by not paying TPC and we have a shot of getting insured their deductible back. Why let the truth stand in the way? More money for the company so the higher ups are only too happy to turn a blind eye

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @4nbx+1vurCDyB

Well when it gets to subrogation we won't be able to collect when the liability is clearly incorrect then it gets transferred to Arbitration or Litigation ( because subro can't change liability) the truth comes out. Either Arbitration rules against Allstate or Staff Counsel shuts it down and sends it back with a hateful note for wasting their time. Either way we waste a huge amount of time and money.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3sfq+1vurCDyB

It's called defending our insured. You know we are unable to consider unfavorable evidence if the insured is adamant they did not cause the wreck

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1sod+1vurCDyB

Im ok with it bcos it means we getting the insured back there deductible and where doing best thing for are insured. Also i hav a good csl so as long as we do what she says everone is happy

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1wdf+1vurCDyB

These tactics are wasteful and delay outcomes resulting in additional expenses and arb panel hearings

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1arc+1vurCDyB

Post a reply

: