This is hysterical:
Hello Mr. Miller:
My name is Mary [deleted], and I’m working with Allstate Insurance to ensure they are being accurately and effectively represented online.
I was reading your article “I Support Allstate” at https://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/i_support_allstate_1.html and noticed that while you discuss Allstate (thank you for your interesting thoughts) there is no link to Allstate’s website for your readers to click on.
I wanted to provide you with Allstate’s site in the hopes that you would include a link within your piece. Allstate’s website is located at http://www.allstate.com/. Please let me know if you require more information in order to make this edit possible.
Thanks so much for your consideration.
On Behalf of Allstate Insurance
111 E. Wacker, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Allstate is now getting hip to the 21st-century marketing tactics. But they have been hip for a long time to finding creative ways to try to pay victims less than they deserve. Ground zero in this mission is the method used to undervalue claims. It is a computer program named Colossus that Allstate uses to evaluate medical injury claims.
Colossus was birthed from Allstate’s desperation in the early 1990’s to pay less than they were currently paying because interest rates have dropped. The bought into the advice of McKinsey & Company to redefine how they look at claims. From this, came Allstate’s Core Claim Process Review (“CCPR”) program. The gist of this new plan was to force its own adjusters to push down the value of claims in accordance with pre-determined percentage reductions. What was the goal? The goal was to increase profits. Always follow the money.
CCPR’s baby was Colossus, a computer software program that evaluates personal injury claims and spits out an “acceptable” range of settlement value of the case. So the days of adjusters paying what they thought was fair was over. Allstate watched individual claims adjusters’ settlements like hawks to determine the percentage of variance in relation to the evaluation consultant’s authority (and bonused the adjuster accordingly).
I totally understand why Allstate felt compelled to do something about inconsistent claims practices. Without having some uniform system to evaluate claims, Allstate adjusters had too much discretion to settle the claim however they liked which led to inconsistent results. The problem I have with CCPR and Colossus is they are not only designed to cure the problem of inconsistent payouts for the same claim but they are also designed to play victims less than fair value whenever possible. The big bone of contention in this regard that led to a ton of litigation was Colossus devaluing claims of Allstate’s own insured which trigged bad faith questions.