My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Finance Highlights 2006 1004
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Finance Committee
>
Finance Highlights 2006 1004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2007 4:01:51 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 3:13:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
10/4/2006
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2006 1106
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2006\Packet 2006 1106
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />II. Liability Claims Handling Review Details <br /> <br />The liability claims handling review results are presented in Exhibits II-I, "Claims <br />Handling Summary," and II-2, "Claims Handling Review Summary Chart." Overall, <br />performance is assessed at 90% for George Hills and 94% for claims handled In-House, <br />Commendable results. There is overlap in grading performance except for three <br />components; subrogation, litigation management and reporting to excess carriers. <br /> <br />OUf performance assessment is based upon the grading criteria and recommended <br />performance evaluation shown in Tables II-I and ll-2. <br /> <br />Table II~ 1 <br />Grading Criteria <br /> <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />3 <br />2 <br /> <br />The highest grade is given for compliance with industry best practices, state <br />law and Cit rocedures. <br />Designates minor deficiencies. <br /> <br />Signifies various accepted claims handling procedures are not evident. <br />Notes a lack of compliance resulting in a negative financial impact or is likely <br />to do so. <br /> <br />Table 1I~2 <br />Recommendation for Performance Evaluation <br /> <br /> <br />Superior Above 3.80 Above 95% <br />Commendable 3.68 to 3.80 89% to 95% <br />Acceptable 3.38 to 3.68 85% to 88% <br />Needs Improvement Below 3.38 Below 85% <br /> <br />Sections following provide our detailed findings. The list of claims reviewed is shown in <br />Appendix A. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />ARM <br /> <br />Tee h <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.