 |
|
|
2008 ALUCA TurksLegal Scholarship
ABOUT THE SCHOLARSHIP
SCHOLARSHIP – 2008 QUESTIONS
WHO CAN ENTER?
HOW TO ENTER
JUDGING PANEL & CRITERIA
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE WINNER
MEDIA
PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIPS
CONTACTS
ABOUT THE SCHOLARSHIP
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ALUCA TurksLegal Scholarship is designed to support the professional growth of ALUCA’s members and the educational and professional development profile of ALUCA by providing a significant career development opportunity for claims professionals working in Australia’s life insurance industry.
The ALUCA TurksLegal Scholarship winner will be awarded with an overseas package valued up to AU$8000. It includes return travel, accommodation, $1000 spending money, and registration to one of the following overseas conferences:
Eastern Claims Conference, New York City, 1 – 3 March 2009
LOMA – Life Insurance Conference, Orlando, 30 March – 1 April 2009
DI & LTC Insurers Forum, (2009 date and location TBC)
The Scholarship 1st runner-up will be awarded a $1000 Red Balloon Day gift certificate valid for 12 months.
The Scholarship 2nd runner-up will be awarded a $250 restaurant voucher.
SCHOLARSHIP – 2008 QUESTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1: Towards Greater Certainty in TPD Definitions
Over recent years the courts, SCT and FOS have dealt with an ever increasing volume of disputes in relation to TPD claims. The outcomes have often been contradictory and have left critical issues in standard definitions of TPD in doubt. Most recently, this has happened in relation to the date at which permanent incapacity for work should be assessed. Uncertainty about how claims should be assessed is not good for any of the stakeholders including, most importantly, customers.
We would like you to analyse the areas where doubts and inconsistencies have arisen in the common definitions of TPD and present some practical solutions for the industry to consider. Your response should address whether you think critical parts of the definition could be better drafted, and if so how drafting approaches can be improved. Your response should also consider whether it is time to adopt common industry standard definitions. In this context you should comment on other countries where common definitions have been tried and whether they have produced greater certainty in claims decisions. Do you consider a standard definition would stifle competition and innovation? If so, would any improvements in certainty come at too high a price?
Question 2: The Life Company’s Role in Rehabilitation
Has rehabilitation worked for your customers and ultimately for your organisation? If so, how have you implemented rehabilitation solutions in your claims management strategy and made them effective? How does rehabilitation play a part in addressing the needs of the customer and the organisation in managing claims and ensuring that insurance ultimately remains affordable to the widest possible number of Australians?
Your response should address whether active involvement in a rehabilitation program can prevent short-term claims becoming long-term. Please include specific recommendations about how to effectively implement rehabilitation as part of a claims management strategy and include some practical suggestions about how claims people can become more involved in setting up, monitoring and evaluating the results of rehabilitation strategies for customers without trespassing on existing treatment relationships.
Question 3: The Claims Department – What is the Best Model?
Here is your chance to build the ideal claims department. Describe the best practice model for a claims department’s structure and how you would implement it. There are a host of practical issues for you to address. For instance, how would you ensure a consistent and professional approach to claims management throughout your team? What structures and processes would you adopt to promote this? How would your processes and team structure promote fair and equitable claims decisions?
Your response should address what the operational units should look like. You should tell us how your model claims department would be staffed in terms of skill sets and experience. How would you build training and developing new staff into the structure? How would you motivate your team? Please include in your response some specific ideas on how work would flow through the team and your views about whether special claims teams focused on particular injuries or diseases or whether divisions based on claims duration are beneficial and if so, why?
Question 4: The Ratings Game
Rating houses increasingly play an important role in the way new products are designed and promoted in the market. Please evaluate the role of ratings houses in the industry and in particular the effect they have had on the evolution of life insurance products and the ability of insurers to meet the real needs of their customers.
Your response should include comments upon how the performance of the rating houses themselves ought to be evaluated, benchmarked, and reported on. Please comment on the ways in which you think ratings houses could improve in terms of transparency and the value of information they provide to customers. If you think rating houses could provide more meaningful information, please provide specific examples and constructive suggestions. We would also like you to comment upon whether there is a role for rating houses in evaluating a company’s claims performance. Is this a way of demonstrating how a company stands behind its promises or a worthless and ultimately misleading exercise? If you think there is a role for rating houses in this space, how should they go about it?
Question 5: Trauma Insurance
The cover provided by current trauma products in relation to many medical conditions is often technically complex and may be hard for laypeople to interpret. This may mean that on occasions some claims sit at the margins. How do you think the process of managing customer expectations and ultimately reaching fair and equitable claims decisions in relation to these claims can be improved?
Your response should generally consider how the industry may be able to improve trauma products to make what they cover as clear and comprehensible as possible. How can the industry increase the level of professionalism and transparency in the process of arriving at fair and equitable claims decisions? In particular, you should include a commentary on issues such as whether claims assessors should have access to other information such as the product actuary’s pricing decisions and a knowledge of the data categories used in the pricing. If so, what are the potential pitfalls in terms of litigated claims disputes and product disclosure?
How and when should companies use independent medical experts in assessing these claims? To what extent should companies engage with treating doctors in reaching their decision and if so, how should they go about doing this? How much can be done to clarify what products cover through improved drafting techniques?
BACK TO TOP
WHO CAN ENTER?
---------------------------------------------------------------
This Scholarship is open to all Australian resident members of ALUCA. Each entrant must be a current financial member of ALUCA. Entrants must directly work in a capacity connected with claims or underwriting in the life insurance industry.
Lawyers, accountants or medico-legal consultants who meet the above criteria are eligible to enter provided they are direct employees of life insurance companies, life reinsurance companies, superannuation trustees or superannuation administrators.
HOW TO ENTER
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrants must submit an application form (available 1 September 2008) together with an essay with a maximum 2000 words, answering one question.
Entry period: 1 September to 24 October 2008 (applications close 5pm)
To download the application form please click on the PDF link at the top right of this page.
JUDGING PANEL & CRITERIA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 2008 Scholarship judging panel is as follows:
Alph Edwards (TurksLegal, Partner)
Allan Griffiths (Aviva, Chief Executive Officer)
Jim Minto (TOWER Australia, Managing Director)
John Myatt (TurksLegal, Partner)
Tony O’Leary (ALUCA, Committee Member)
Tracey Peters (ALUCA, President)
John Salamito (MLC, Chief Operating Officer)
Simon Swanson (CommInsure, Managing Director)
Entrants will be evaluated on:
Understanding of the chosen topic
Research foundation and conclusions supported by sound evidence
Clarity of thought
Commercial acumen
Presentation
BACK TO TOP
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE WINNER
---------------------------------------------------------------
The winner, 1st and 2nd runners-up will be announced at the Sydney ALUCA Christmas Party in December 2008.
MEDIA
---------------------------------------------------------------
2008 ALUCA TurksLegal Scholarship press releases:
12/08/08: PRESS RELEASE - September 1 start day for the 2008 ALUCA TurksLegal Scholarship
2008 ALUCA TurksLegal Scholarship media coverage:
August 2008: RiskeBusiness 2008 Scholarship announcement
PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIPS
---------------------------------------------------------------
2007 ALUCA TurksLegal Scholarship.
CONTACTS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Pink
Manager
Business Development & Marketing
02 8257 5750
zoe.pink@turkslegal.com.au
BACK TO TOP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
about us 
COMMERCIAL DISPUTES & INSOLVENCY 
