Fit to Print

Poor Organization

When a person reads a claim document, he expects it to get to the point and lay out the message in an easy-to-grasp, predictable format that takes the reader comfortably from beginning to end.

Unless claim professionals have been trained in organizing informative and persuasive documents, they may find themselves reinventing the wheel with each new letter, taking the reader not to a destination but on a cruise to nowhere. Oh sure, the facts are all there, but they do not adhere to a natural progression or thought process, leading the policyholder to wonder, "Why did he write this to me?"

The result? The claimant needs to get clarification as to just what is expected of him from a rambling missive that never makes its point clear. So the policyholder calls the adjuster and is put on hold, where he listens to things like "Your call is very important to us," and snippets of music that further fray the nerves. The claim person is at lunch. The policyholder calls back, and pretty soon he is enraged at the time spent trying to understand what should have been clearly stated in the letter. Now, the relationship is adversarial, and when people feel adversarial, they may go to your manager and sound off.

Poor Phrasing

How would you react if you received the following in a claims letter? "During a recent review of our records, it has come to our attention that your mode of payment is out of synch. Your policy effective date is Sept. 20, 1999, showing an annual mode of payment, paying the policy to Oct. 20, 2007. An annual mode of payment must coincide with the effective date of our policy. Therefore, your annual mode must show a date of Sept. 20, 2007."

At first, the reader might think that something must be wrong with him because the paragraph does not make sense. Eventually, he realizes that it doesn't make sense because the writer wasn't explicit, threw around jargon like "out of sync," and "mode," and never really made clear what was needed.

Here are several other examples of poor phrasing taken from actual claims letters:

• "In regards to .... " The word you want is regard, not regards.
• "The settlement reached for this claim has $30,000; however $5,000 was deducted to cover Jones Farms' deductible, which has not been eroded." It's unclear as to what "eroded" refers.
• "After speaking with Mr. Lowell, he stated that he was backing out of the parking space while you were pulling into a parking space, hitting your vehicle." Huh?
• "Based on the coverage form, there is no coverage for vehicles that you hire for collision with another object." My favorite!

The result is anger, frustration, and antipathy. "Are they playing me for a fool by talking over my head or being unclear?" the reader asks. "Well, maybe it's time to get a lawyer to deal with these people." No ledger can record the cost of this type of highly alienating prose, but the cost is high and it's cumulative.

Inappropriate Tone

How would you react if you read the following in a claim letter?

• "Let me remind you that it is your job to provide us with evidence of damages to warrant any more payments."
• "As you well know, it is impossible to determine appropriate and necessary medical expenses if you persist in delaying telling us which services Dr. Oman rendered."
• "Please respond accurately and quickly."

Many readers would consciously or subconsciously recognize that these writers are beating them up, putting them down, and making them feel a lot less than okay. If tone is the writer's attitude toward readers, then readers may feel that a nasty, negative, or abrupt tone is the hallmark of their insurance carriers as well as their adjusters.

The result of having an inappropriate tone is that some readers will get miffed enough to think, "Who does this character think he is?" The next time the insured calls his insurance company, he may just register a complaint with the adjuster or the examiner's manager. That can snowball into a range of negative outcomes. Customers pick up on tone, and it is natural for them to push back.

"Weasel Words" or Hedging

The following snippets have been taken from actual claims:

• "I will try to discuss these issues in this letter."
• "It is my understanding that ...."
• "Although I cannot confirm the extent of the project, it appears ...."
• "Assuming the above to be accurate ...."
• "I am advised that ...."
• "To the extent that these events did occur ...."
• "It appears the bathroom could be repaired for $100."
• "I have no knowledge as to why it is alleged to have warped."
• "Thus it is hard to comment upon whether this would be covered."
• "I believe the above covers all of the damage I am aware of."

All of these comments were taken from the same letter. How many of your professionals sound as if they are far from sure about what they are writing? If they are unsure, then readers are even less sure that they are hearing certainty, not circumlocution.

A single use of the word "may" in a claim letter convinced at least one court that "ambiguous language" contributed to bad faith. The payout? $840,000. "May" is a weasel word and judges know it. Too many vague phrases in a document can undermine its authority and accuracy.

The result? You don't need to be an attorney to sense that a claim writer is using too much wiggle room in his report. Challenging a carrier's sense of indefiniteness has won a lot of lawsuits for plaintiff attorneys. Writing-specific training should assist claim professionals with checking for weasel words in their writing with the same certainty that a spell checker uncovers misspellings.

Poor Punctuation and Grammar

Just in case you think that the grammar check on your computer makes you immune from punctuation and grammatical errors, think again. Most checkers catch only about 10 to 15 percent of the most blatant errors.

If only five letters were written daily by each of the largest 2,000 insurance carriers, TPAs, and independent agents, then that would amount to 100,000 letters. From my experience teaching claim professionals, about 60 percent of those letters will have punctuation or grammar mistakes. When insureds see these mistakes, they may not know exactly what is going wrong, but their instinct is that it "doesn't sound right." Some will actually read the letter through and correct the errors. In either case, the company gains a reputation for a lack of professionalism.

If your company has suffered from too many basic writing errors, the result may be felt in surveys that show how agents or insureds feel about their interactions with the carrier. Perhaps you can't put your finger on what's wrong, but your instinct tells you that the message is subtly being mangled. That shows carelessness. Do readers want to have their car, home, farm, life, or company insured by a carrier that neglects the basics of punctuation, grammar, spelling, capitalization, abbreviation, or format?

Wordiness

Readers appreciate conciseness, but how many adjusters recognize when they are using too many words to get an idea across? Here are a few examples taken from wordy letters:

• "According to Ms. Green's past medical history, she has been totally disabled since 1994 due to various illness conditions."
• "Return the properly signed forms back to Acme Mutual."
• "It reveals several occurrences alleged to have occurred."

The result of verbosity? Like ice under a moving car, it slows up the adjustment process. Even if extra words account for adding only five percent more time to the settling of each claim, that five percent can result in the silent bleeding-away of millions of dollars in lost productivity.

The process of learning to write effectively is ongoing. No single class can root out all of the potential problems embedded in a claim department's hundreds of form and free-form letters that are sent to thousands of customers annually. To assess your own company's letters, pick one up and ask yourself, "How would I react if this letter were sent to me?" Read the letter aloud. You'll be confronted with how easy it is to get complacent about how you are communicating with insureds.