Made with FlowPaper - Flipbook Maker
< Previous8 CLM MAGAZINE MARCH / APRIL 2026 Brian.Behan @esquiresolutions.com Katerina.Garavito @esquiresolutions.com Lisa.Goldstein @esquiresolutions.com Built for Insurance. Proven at Scale. Esquire delivers deposition, records retrieval, and translation solutions designed specifically for carriers and TPAs. With decades of nationwide claims litigation expertise, we support panel and staff counsel with enterprise-grade security, direct claim-number billing, and seamless e-billing integration. Adjusters and litigation teams benefit from centralized 24/7 transcript access, custom reporting and analytics, a platform built for high-volume matters, and real-human support from a dedicated account director. Secure. Scalable. Insurance-focused. ecsscheduling@esquiresolutions.com | www.esquiresolutions.com | 800.211.DEPO duration (i.e., waiting for payment) has gone up when compared to 2020 results. For non-associates, it is 32% more painful; for all attorneys, it is 20% more painful. It appears to hurt a lot more now than it did four years ago. It is certainly not getting better.” Asked to rate the issue on a scale of one to 10 in the Defense Counsel Study, the mean “pain” score among respondents in 2020 was 5.6, and the median score was 5.3. In the 2024 Defense Counsel Study, the mean score rose to 6.7, while the median score rose to seven out of 10. Snapshot Survey More recently, CLM conducted an informal, online “snapshot survey” of its members in January to gauge where that pain score is today and what it might mean in practical terms. In other words, with McGlinchey citing this issue as one of the reasons it is shutting its doors, do other insurance defense firms feel this kind of pressure on their own operations? Nearly 53% of respondents say the timing of legal invoice payments related to insurance defense work has become longer over the past three years. Nearly 65% of respondents say their average accounts receivable duration is 60 days or more, with nearly 9% saying it is 91 days or more. As for a pain score, the median response was seven out of 10, while the mean score was about 5.9. Over 73% of respondents to the snapshot survey indicated that they have considered exiting the insurance defense practice (either “occasionally” or “with increasing frequency”) because of the timing of payments. CLM reached out to some members to see if the snapshot survey results align with their experiences. Regarding the number of respondents who have considered exiting the practice, JD Keister, attorney, McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC (MGC), says, “While…73%...is higher than what I would expect and hear on this specific issue, I do know that many lawyers or even firms are facing such significant cash flow issues that it is leading to an all-time [high] frustration level.” He adds, “From my discussions, I think this is an even bigger pain point with smaller and mid-size firms who are facing daunting pressures to stay in the industry.” Donna Markus, chief operating officer, The Kopka Law Group, adds that although her firm has not considered exiting, “diversifying our practice areas has been strongly considered so the impact is minimized.” Markus agreed with the pain scale score in the snapshot survey, noting, “The combination of quarterly billing on top of average days to pay after CLM has tracked this issue over the years in its Defense Counsel Study, and the takeaway over time is that the problem has been an increasing source of pain for defense firms. LITIGATION MANAGEMENT >>>Carolyn Crawford Director, Construction Defect Claims on being named a fi nalist for the CLM 2026 Claims Management Professional of the Year Award. Nationwide and the Nationwide N and Eagle are service marks of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. © 2026 Nationwide CMO-2351AO (03/26) Nationwide ® is proud to congratulate10 CLM MAGAZINE MARCH / APRIL 2026 Recover More with Expert Subrogation Solutions Our Services Why Choose CIR? Auto Physical Damage, Including Loss of Use Specialized Vehicle Fire Investigation and Loss Recovery Property Loss, Including Large Loss Workers’ Compensation Nationwide Litigation Management Arbitration and Mediation Proven Results Clients achieve greater recoveries and better guidance partnering with CIR. Cost-Effective Solutions Contingent-based model—no recovery, no fee. Data Security & Compliance Industry-standard practices ensure confidentiality and protection. Client Centric Service Dedicated client relationship managers and tailored reporting with YOY comparisons and detailed claim analysis. Complete Visibility Gain 24/7 access to status updates, notes, claim documents, and closure notifications through our secure, password-protected client portal. Litigation Management Local counsel relationships across all 50 states for Property, Auto, and Workers’ Compensation claims. Cadex Solutionswww.cadexsolutions.com/solutions/insurance-recovery/linkedin.com/company/cadex-solutions/ invoicing is painful. Our firm average is 50 days to [receive payment] (from our top 120 clients) after invoicing. Waiting three months to invoice many of our clients and another six to seven weeks thereafter to get paid is very painful.” She adds, “Our employees are paid twice a month, [and] our expenses are monthly. When we hire a new attorney, we have to pay them right away but need to wait almost 18 weeks to see any cash revenue from their employment.” Markus says, “We are a business with cash needs. The most important element of running a firm is cash. Delaying payments hurts our operations.” Another CLM member offered, “From bill to paid, it’s more than 90 days for our firm. From billing by attorneys (meaning entering billing into the system) to…[final] payment is often 180 days or more.” That member stated the pain scale rating would be a nine for them, saying, “The demands upon defense counsel are suffocating. What is expected of defense counsel is unreasonable. Adding insult to injury is that we do not get paid for the value of our work, sacrifice, or commitment to achieving results for carriers and insureds. Not only are our bills improperly reduced, but we are expected to be financial lenders with fronting fees that should be carrier responsibilities. “In no other industry are people expected to work this long and hard and then have their clients decide after the fact that they are not going to be paid for all that work based on some arbitrary standard of what is billable and what is not billable....The industry is facing a major crisis, as it does not adequately reward the hard work of counsel.” Keister notes that the snapshot survey results convey the “frustrations that firms are feeling about the billing process overall, which has become a significant barrier for many firms.” He adds, “These obstacles are not just administrative headaches; they can significantly impact a firm’s cash flow, profitability, and…morale….” Keister concludes, “I think the overall desire of the industry is to focus on the joint defense of these claims and not expend so much energy and frustration on the billing process. Solutions do exist if the parties work together.” K Nearly 53% of respondents say the timing of legal invoice payments related to insurance defense work has become longer over the past three years. LITIGATION MANAGEMENT >>>12 CLM MAGAZINE MARCH / APRIL 2026 W hen is the last time you saw a plaintiff’s billboard bragging about a $15,000 settlement or verdict? Probably never. In this age of Nuclear Verdicts and runaway juries, the focus is on big flashy verdicts: millions and billions of dollars. While cases with lots of damages at stake and the potential for a big verdict require a lot of attention, the hardest case to defend is sometimes the one with the lowest amount of dollars at play: state minimum-limits policies. Why are these cases so difficult to defend? And what can insurers and outside counsel do to avoid the risks that come with these verdicts? It is important to define that state minimum policies are automobile insurance policies providing the lowest amount of insurance coverage allowed by law. State motor vehicle financial responsibility laws require that drivers carry auto insurance to operate a vehicle, and the limits are often low: Some states are as low as $15,000 per person for bodily injury. While the concept of minimum limits dates back over 100 years, many of these amounts were set decades ago and do not adjust for inflation. These policies are usually attractive to either low-income or high-risk drivers who cannot afford Minimum Limits, Maximum Difficulty The Hardest Case to Defend By Phillip Raine and Andrew Blackwood COVERAGE >>> Phillip Raine is a partner at Chartwell Law. praine@chartwelllaw.com Andrew Blackwood is claims counsel at Root Insurance. aeb910@yahoo.comwestfieldspecialty.com Westfield Specialty congratulates Krista Glenn, EVP & Chief Claims Officer, Westfield Specialty, for receiving the CLM Lifetime Achievement Award!14 CLM MAGAZINE MARCH / APRIL 2026 the higher premiums on policies that provide more robust coverage. The failure of these policies to keep up with current costs and dollar values is problematic when handling these policies. With current prices, $15,000 can be as little as an emergency room visit and a few follow-ups, plus pain and suffering. Multiple claimants with serious injuries? Good luck. Many of these policies provide only part of the amount needed to fully compensate an injured claimant when fault is clear. This makes these cases difficult to defend for several reasons: • First, the amount of coverage is often insufficient to cover a potential jury verdict. • Second, plaintiff’s attorneys, once aware of the low limits, will try to find assets beyond the limits whenever possible. Because many of these drivers have few or no personal assets that could be used to satisfy a judgment, plaintiff’s attorneys often go after the “deep pocket” insurance company to make up the difference. At times, plaintiff’s attorneys will use any procedural tactic possible to create a bad faith trap for the insurance company in hopes that someone at the insurance company will make a mistake and commit bad faith claims handling. • Third, because both the financial interests of the insured and the insurer are at stake, there will be inherent conflicts that require the retention of multiple attorneys to evaluate the claim. STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS For insurance companies that sell state minimum-limit policies, the defense of these claims should start when the claim is reported. Insurers should set realistic expectations with all parties from the first notice of loss. Clear communication about who is handling the claim, what is needed from each party, and when it should be provided is a priority. A thorough recorded statement of the insured vetting the facts of loss along with any inconsistencies or potential coverage concerns will aid in setting the direction for the claim. Reaching insureds can often be a tedious task, but utilizing While the concept of minimum limits dates back over 100 years, many of these amounts were set decades ago and do not adjust for inflation. COVERAGE >>>THECLM.ORG/MAGAZINE CLM MAGAZINE 15 Proud Platinum Sponsor - CLM 2026 | www.callahanfusco.com Insurance Defense Built on Data and Results. TRUST . ACCOUNTABILITY. EXCELLENCE. multiple channels of communication and vendor tools such as a TLO can guide the investigation. Maintaining a frequent diary and follow-up schedule often lends to speedier claims handling. The company should move quickly to make a coverage and liability decision. Outside counsel defending the insureds have an ethical duty to represent the interest of the insured, and that often means working to obtain a resolution that does not jeopardize the personal assets of the insured and that does not involve the insured in drawn-out litigation. There is a duty to resolve claims fairly, and this may mean that not every case is worth the policy limits, even for a state minimum policy. However, if early indications are that the case is worth near or above the policy limits, the defense attorney must protect the interest of the insured. The first step is to advise the insured of the realities of the low limits and how this will impact the ability to resolve any claim. Second, identify or confirm that the insured does not have significant personal assets or other insurance policies. If they do, advise them of the potential risk to those assets and assist them in reporting the accident to the other insurance policy. Importantly, do not wade into coverage issues: that is an issue for coverage counsel. Finally, seek to learn what the plaintiff’s attorney will want to resolve the case for the policy limits (if appropriate). This may be an affidavit of no other assets or cooperation in making claims on other policies and patience while those other insurers determine if there is coverage. Counsel for the insurer should act quickly, as state laws often do not allow significant time for tendering limits if there is a lingering conflict. If there are disputes about whether coverage applies, those issues will need to be resolved quickly and a decisive answer reached. If there is any ambiguity, the time constraints may force the insurer to err on the side of providing coverage. If a tender of limits or interpleader action is needed, the decision needs to be made timely. If state law and time allows for a settlement conference or tender via letter, this can also be handled by counsel for the insurer. There are many more difficulties in defending and insuring state- minimum policy limits. What plaintiff’s attorneys do not always advertise is the collectability of those verdicts, and that a state-minimum policy defended well does not pay out millions of dollars: it pays out the state minimum limits. Plaintiff’s attorneys know that and will generally not push to trial a case that has been handled appropriately. Handle these policies successfully, and you’ll avoid your judgment becoming the next plaintiff’s billboard. K16 CLM MAGAZINE MARCH / APRIL 2026 S ettling workers’ compensation, personal injury, or auto/no-fault claims involving Medicare beneficiaries carries a unique layer of complexity due to obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act. The MSP Act, enacted to protect Medicare’s financial interests, requires that Medicare not pay for medical treatment when another payer—such as a liability insurer, workers’ compensation carrier, or no-fault insurer— is responsible. While compliance with the MSP Act may seem daunting, particularly as Medicare continues to push on additional obligations to further enforce the MSP Act, settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries do not have to be slow, contentious, or unpredictable. When all parties—including the injured individual, their attorney, and the insurance payer— collaborate early and proactively, MSP compliance can be addressed efficiently, allowing settlements to move forward with confidence and ease. UNDERSTANDING THE MSP CHALLENGE At the heart of MSP compliance is Medicare’s right to reimbursement for “conditional payments” it made related to the injury. Before settlement funds are disbursed, Medicare must be repaid, and its future interests should be reasonably considered. Failure to do so can result in delays, post-settlement demands, or even penalties. Historically, MSP obligations at times have been treated as a back- end problem, addressed only after settlement terms were finalized. This reactive approach often leads to frustration, extended timelines, and unnecessary risk for all involved. However, as the MSP Act further matures and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) continues to push further MSP obligations, such as Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) reporting, we are seeing settling parties with Medicare beneficiaries becoming more proactive Weighing Your Options Unique Strategies for Settling Medicare Beneficiary Claims Subject to the MSP Act By Heather Sanderson and Greg Gitter COMPLIANCE >>> Heather Sanderson is CEO of Sanderson Firm. heather@sandersoncomp.com Greg Gitter is president of Legacy Claim Solutions. ggitter@legacyclaims.com Visit us for a pin exchange at BIG CITY RESULTS, SMALL TOWN CONNECTIONS We’re proud to be your SPECIALIZING IN: COMMITTED TO • Independent medical examinations • Expert consultations • Record reviews • Secure record retrieval services accuracy, efficiency, and integrity Claims & Litigation SERVICE PARTNER. imedview.com • 888.747.1090Next >