I think any information that continues to be revealed is beneficial to the cause. 

I would also hope it helps people to understand that this is not just an issue with Menu and ingredients from China.  Test results and pet illness has proven that.
Donna C

Trudy, as much as I hate to admit it in a forum like this one, I worked for the liability claims handler for P&G when the pet food issue broke. I was not a claims handler--I was in sales. My boss had to cancel a meeting I had with prospects because he had to fly to Cincy to talk to P&G about how they were going to handle things the day before it all went public.

The problem is that pets are classified as 'property' under the law. Which limits one's recompense if that property is compromised. (Yes, that's how it is worded in claims). You may have a case if you have records showing what you paid for the animal, and perhaps if you have records regarding what you paid to show it, data regarding stud fees, etc. But it's a hard case.

I think, and I may be wrong as I was not actively involved, that this was a class action suit, meaning an average payout was determined and paid to all claimants. Is that consistent with your experience? I know there were discussions with P&G around overall business impact. I told my boss flat-out (and he was dog owner too) that if P&G killed my dog, they could bet their asses that I would NEVER buy another P&G product again in my life. I'd take whatever means were necessary to ensure that. Which would cost a lot more to them than whatever they felt they should pay for a pet. Not sure where that ended up as I was not part of the claims team. But I can assure you, my company made a lot of money from this CAT (our industry lingo for a catastrophe). Insurance carriers and claims handlers were the only ones who did.

Even though it is incredibly painful to the pet families, all liability cases are handled in the same manner, human or pet. A man who is steadily employed, killed or maimed in the prime of his life, gets a higher payout than a child or a woman st home with her kids, because there are external ways to quantify his worth. It's just sick, isn't it?   A dead claimant is worth less than a live but maimed claimant. It is really enough to make you vomit and then want to hurt someone. Welcome to the world of insurance claims. It's a mean, nasty place in many ways.

Even with Worker's Compensation--in many states, my leg is worth more than a laborer's leg if lost. Why? Because my weekly wage is higher. Yes, I can do my job with NO legs, and the laborer obviously can not, but I would be paid more in many states because I earn more, even though that loss of leg impacts my earning potential in less significant ways.

I don't even know where to start in an attempt to change the system. There are many, many flaws.  With human and animal loss.

JustMe, the typical path to sales of claims adjustment services is to have started as a claims rep. Which I did. I was  Workers' Compensation claims handler, then an account manager, and then sales VP. I also sold Liability claims services, although I never adjusted liability claims. Occasionally, in WC, you have a Liability claim as well. The classic example of this would be the employee who suffers an automobile accident on the job.  You have to adjust the WC claim, but you are in frequent contact with the Liability rep, who is handling the auto claim.

It's really very difficult to sell claims services if you do not understand them, do not understand the laws that manage them, and do not understand client concerns. That's why most salespeople were once claims reps themselves. And I'll be honest: I think you are are somehow trying to 'call me out' on something you don't understand. I'm trying to HELP the community, and I get the sense that you are trying to accuse me of something nefarious. Am I right? I work for TPA so I am the devil?  Perhaps I am overreacting, but that's the vibe I am getting...


And for those who are really confused about why you would sell claims services, but not insurance:

Most of us, in our personal insurance dealings, are aware of claims when something goes wrong. For health, home, and auto, we buy what is called 'risk transfer' insurance.  We may have a small deductible, but the insurance company is expected, and contracted, to pay the bulk of the claim. with Risk Transfer insurance, your insurance company provides the claims handling services.

However, in business insurance-Workers Comp, Liability, etc., some companies opt to pay the bulk of each loss themselves. They are either Self Insured or have a High Deductible Program. In Self-Insurance, the company pays all of every loss that occurs. They set up an escrow fund for these anticipated losses.  High Deductible Programs are just what they sound like. Your deductible on your car insurance might be 500 bucks. Well, HIgh Deductible programs begin with deductibles of $250 K and can go as high as the company can afford. $2M is not a crazy number.

Why would a company do that, you may ask?

Well, the less burden they pass to the insurance carrier, the lower their premiums will be from the insurance carrier. Just like you get a premium break with a car deductible of $1000 vs. $250.

Risk Transfer insurance usually means that the insurance carrier will give you claims service, whether you want it or not.

When you get into Self-Insurance and High Deductible Programs, companies get picky about how the claims are handled. They want to choose the claims handling firm.  That's where my career comes in. Third Party Administrators. You buy the insurance--the money to pay the loss, separately from the people who make the decisions about what gets paid and what doesn't--the TPA, the claims adjusters. I have always worked for TPA's.

I'm trying to explain the system to the community. Thought it might help. But if that makes me a pariah, then I'll just go, quietly. My intention was not to upset anyone or anger anyone. Just to let you know how it works, how the law works, and how to make your case. Perhaps that was a mistake.




 

JustMe, great. You and I both know what we are talking about.

So why are you basically accusing me of something? Because I've generally been disruptive here? Because I am a problem to the site in general? I don't get why you are sending this vibe that I am some sort of liar. Just  don't  get   it. 

I'm going to step away for a bit. If I am such a problem, ban me.

I'll check back in a few days. Best of luck to you in the meantime. You do good work here, and I mean that. But I am not the 'enemy'. 

 

I didn't read anything into your question (unless there are some other threads I am unaware of).  JessiesGirl, I never read your posts as disruptive (however, I am one to allow anyone their say - as long as they allow me the same courtesy).

JMHO - I do think this was a tad overreactive,  was surprised at the response from Justme's post.

Maybe I overreacted, and if I did, I am sorry for that. But JustMe did imply that I was being less than truthful about my position when she said I seemed to know too much for someone in sales. I find that problematic. I'd prefer not to have that discussion on the boards, but she didn't respond to my PM about it.  So I'm going to just leave it be.  It is what it is...

Working for an insurance-related industry is often similar to telling people you are an attorney--there's a knee-jerk reaction. But it gets me out of jury duty,so there is some upside. 

 

JJ, I think you are asking the right question. Yes, often the most effective salespeople do know the products and attendant service inside and out. In some industries you can bring an 'expert' in your product/service along with you to a customer meeting once you know that customer is interested in your product, but to write an effective proposal, you do generally have to be intimately familiar what you are offeringm and are able to offer to the client in terms of customization.

I understand why the insurance industry frustrates people to no end, and why in the case of our pets, who are family, it's simply maddening. But please folks, don't kill the messenger! As JJ said, I was just trying to offer some insight into how these types of claims are handled.  If you know how they are handled, you may be able to work the system to your advantage. And if you can't, then you know what laws are holding you in check from obtaining the results that you feel would be appropriate.

I still think that in the case of the conglomerates that own pet food companies, boycotting ALL of their products, and letting them know that you are doing so, is the most effective short-term strategy. But looking at the laws that define companion animals as 'property' is also necessary for any real change to be effected.