Insurance adjusting services
Sales Assessment Results

"We already have an in-house team for our insurance adjustments, so why should we outsource this?"

There is less liability and better response times without the added costs of benefits for W2 employees and systems.

The response addresses the concern about having an in-house team by highlighting the benefits of outsourcing, such as reduced liability and improved response times. However, it lacks depth in exploring the value proposition further—specifically, it could have included examples or metrics to support the claims made. Additionally, there is no engagement or curiosity shown towards the prospect's current in-house team's capabilities or challenges, which would demonstrate active listening and foster a more collaborative approach. It would be beneficial to ask questions to better understand their situation and potentially uncover areas where your services can add value. Overall, the tone is appropriate, but the response could benefit from a more solution-focused and exploratory approach. Score: 5

"The last time we used an insurance adjusting service, the experience was poor. How can you guarantee better results?"

Why was the experience poor? 90% of complaints and be reduced by quick responses time and constant communication. We in corporate required response times for our team and required constant update to you and your customers. We include our direct office contact information in all customer communications so if a customer is having a poor experience they can contact leadership quickly to get it resolved.

The response starts strong by asking a clarifying question about the previous poor experience, which shows curiosity and a willingness to understand the prospect's perspective. However, it could be more effective if it provided specific examples or data showcasing how the company's approach has improved the experience compared to competitors. The mention of communication and quick response times is valuable, but it should be framed more as a guarantee of future performance rather than just a description of processes. Additionally, a closing statement that reinforces the commitment to better service or invites further discussion would help to strengthen the engagement. Overall, the tone is professional but could benefit from more empathy and assurance to build rapport. Score: 6

"Your rates seem higher compared to others we’ve looked at. Can you explain why?"

What are you comparing the rates too, Staff with benefits, other adjusting firms? Our rates are based on using experience adjusters with a minimum of 5 years of verified experience. Many firms now have move to recruiting new/inexperienced adjusters and cut the overall rates to the carriers and percentages going at low as 50% of the rates per claim. We pay our adjusters 65% min to retain them even in large catastrophic events. We are also able to recruit the most qualified adjusters for particular losses when tend to save long term for our clients as when a file is approved we have seen no to little litigation requests and have no litigation losses to date due to this file quality. Is there a particular fee you have an issue with?

The response does address the objection regarding rates by explaining the value of experienced adjusters and the potential long-term savings. However, it lacks clarity and could be more concise. It’s also quite defensive and doesn't effectively engage the prospect with open-ended questions that invite further discussion. Instead of just asking if there's a particular fee of concern, a more collaborative approach would include asking about what the prospect needs or values most in their decision-making process. Additionally, while the emphasis on quality is good, presenting it in a more structured way would enhance understanding. Overall, the tone feels a bit rushed and could benefit from a more conversational style to build rapport. Score: 5

"We’re not currently facing any claims that require adjusting services, so this isn’t a priority for us right now."

Do you anticipate having the need for adjusting services in the future? Would you be open to hearing more about Finish Line Adjuster so when the need arises you’ll know who you can count on?

The response effectively addresses the objection by asking a thoughtful follow-up question about future needs for adjusting services. It maintains a clear and professional tone suitable for the insurance industry. However, it lacks a strong closing technique – while it invites the prospect to consider them for future needs, it doesn't create urgency or a compelling reason to engage immediately. The response could benefit from exploring the value of being prepared and perhaps sharing a relevant success story or statistic to reinforce the importance of having adjusting services on hand, even when claims are not currently active. Overall, it does show curiosity and an understanding of the prospect's situation, but it needs more emphasis on value exploration and a collaborative approach to further engage the prospect. Score: 7

"I’ve heard mixed reviews about your company. What can you tell me about your track record?"

I’d be happy to tell you about our track record! We have an experienced adjuster roster list with over 2500 adjusters to tap into. We meet or exceed every KPI requirement of our current clients for: time to contact, time to upload and reopen rate. Do you mind sharing where you found our reviews? You’ll see a lower public review such as on google due to one of our clients customers not liking the outcome of their claim or a disgruntle adjuster after a claim was reassigned due to their handling of the claim. I’d be happy to share some carrier referrals you can inquire with our actual track record as it applies to a carrier like yourself.

The response provides a solid foundation by addressing the track record and the experience of the adjusters, which is relevant to the prospect's concern. The mention of KPIs is a strong point as it demonstrates a metrics-driven approach to service delivery. However, the response could benefit from clearer communication and a more concise structure. The tone is professional but could be warmer to build rapport and trust. While the salesperson asks for clarification on where the mixed reviews were found, it lacks a more probing or inquisitive nature that could further uncover the prospect's specific concerns. Additionally, offering carrier referrals is a good step toward building credibility, but it could be enhanced by directly relating those referrals to the prospect's needs or industry context. Overall, the answer is solution-focused but could improve in active listening and collaborative engagement with the prospect. Score: 6/10 for addressing the objection and providing value, but lacking in warmth and deeper engagement.

"Our budget is tight this quarter, and we can’t commit to additional services right now."

You can’t not commit right now? It would be a breach of good faith to sit on claims without sending an adjuster, do you current send your claims to another firm? We always recommend having more than 1 firm to reduce you exposure. What if I could guarantee better service for the same price?

This response attempts to challenge the objection by emphasizing the importance of timely claims adjustment and suggesting that the prospect might be underestimating the consequences of inaction. However, it lacks a clear understanding of the prospect's situation and may come off as confrontational, particularly with the phrase "You can't not commit right now?". It doesn't effectively acknowledge the prospect's budget constraints or explore how they could still potentially work together within those limits. The closing technique is weak as it doesn't directly address the budget issue or provide a solution-focused approach. Additionally, it lacks curiosity and discovery about the prospect's current situation and needs. It would be more effective to empathize with their budget concerns, ask questions to uncover their priorities, and propose flexible solutions. Overall, it misses the mark on active listening and building rapport. Score: 3/10

"How quickly can we see results from your services? We need to resolve claims faster than our current timeline."

With a week from our first batch of claims you see the 90% (non-long term) results but within the first 48 you have visibility into the first set of KPIs such as contacted and inspected.

The response addresses the concern effectively by providing a specific timeline for results, which is essential in the insurance adjusting services industry where speed is crucial. However, it could benefit from a more structured explanation to enhance clarity. Phrasing like, 'You'll see 90% of results within a week for non-long-term claims, and within 48 hours, you can track key KPIs such as contacted and inspected,' would improve communication. The tone is appropriate, but adding a touch of reassurance about ongoing support could enhance engagement. There is no closing technique employed, and it lacks a curiosity-driven question to further explore the prospect's needs. Overall, the response could be more solution-focused by discussing how your services adapt to expedite claims resolutions based on their specific timelines. A collaborative approach could be emphasized by inviting them to discuss their current challenges in more detail. Score: 6/10 for addressing the concern but needing improvement in clarity, engagement, and exploration of value.

"What happens if we’re unhappy with the adjustments made by your team? Is there a guarantee or refund policy?"

We pride ourselves on our work and handle all complaints directly. We will ensure your approval of our work.

The response addresses the concern but lacks detail and reassurance. While stating that complaints are handled directly shows commitment to customer service, it doesn't specifically address the prospect's request for a guarantee or refund policy. A more effective response would clearly outline any satisfaction guarantees or the process for addressing dissatisfaction. Additionally, asking the prospect about their expectations for adjustments could have opened a dialogue and demonstrated curiosity and active listening. The tone is appropriate for the industry, but the response could benefit from more value exploration and a collaborative approach. Overall, it touches on some important points but misses the opportunity to fully engage the prospect and clarify their concerns. Score: 5

"Can you explain how your services can specifically help us reduce our overall costs long-term?"

By using experience adjusters, we see less claims go to litigation and fewer customer complaints compared to our competitors. Long-term, our clients have shared that their litigation cost have decreased by 20% more than the increase rate.

The response effectively addresses the objection by highlighting the benefits of using experienced adjusters and providing a tangible statistic about reduced litigation costs. However, it could improve by directly connecting these benefits to the specific client's situation or needs. Additionally, the communication could be clearer by explicitly stating how these factors contribute to long-term cost reduction, perhaps by asking a follow-up question to explore the client's current challenges. Overall, the tone is appropriate for the insurance industry, and there's a good focus on solution and value exploration. A minor suggestion would be to invite the prospect to share more about their current cost issues to foster a more collaborative dialogue.

"Other companies are offering similar services at a lower price. What makes your solution different?"

We only use experienced adjusters that have full MCM experience and are able to make informed claim decisions

The response partially addresses the concern by emphasizing the experience and expertise of the adjusters. However, it lacks a clear differentiation that would resonate with the prospect's objection about price. There is no exploration of value beyond just stating experience, and it misses an opportunity to engage the prospect with questions or to build rapport. A more effective response would highlight specific benefits of the experienced adjusters in relation to the claim process, potential cost savings, or a unique feature of your service that justifies the price. Also, inviting the prospect to share more about their needs could foster a collaborative atmosphere. Overall, the response is too brief and doesn't fully engage with the objection. Score: 5/10.