Insurance Claims are unique types of cases that require a process that streamlines the handling of the cases in a cost effective manner that benefits both the Insurance Companies and the claimants.
 
Smith-Kearns Mediation is aware of the cost of processing a claim in terms of manpower and money. Invariably insurance claims whether personal injury and\or property damage have a fixed value. However, often these claims take years to the settle because the parties can not negotiate the fixed value. Both parties become entrenched with “their" fair value of the claim. This antiquated process of waiting until the "eve of trial" for both parties to reasonably negotiate the fair value of a claim overburdens the Courts with cases. In fact, these cases could have been settled years prior if both parties had the ability to remove the fear of leaving money on the table.
 
Smith Kearns Mediation has the technology to eliminate the fear of leaving money on the table with a patented measuring device with Conflict Resolution being the by product.
 
Please contact Smith Kearns Mediation for a presentation of this new emerging technology that will bring negotiating Insurance Claims into the 21st Century.

Summary of the Three-Step Process

Step 1: One party (a “First Party”) uses the System to specify, in confidence, an amount of money (“x”), providing the System with a binding proposal to settle the claim for x by a fixed deadline (for example, within 30 days).

The System will not disclose the value specified by the First Party unless the System determines that the other party (the “Second Party”) has agreed to settle for x by the deadline. (This allows the First Party to propose a reasonable value for x without fear of prejudice, e.g., without fear that it will simply become a starting point for further demands if the matter does not settle.)

Step 2: The System provides the Second Party with an opportunity to confidentially specify an amount of money (“y“) and agree to settle for x if x is equal to or more favorable to the Second Party than y. If it is, then the matter settles for x. If not, then the Second Party can continue revising y up until the deadline. The System will not disclose even that the Second Party has used the System unless the matter settles for x. (In combination with other features, these features deprive the Second Party of any incentive or excuse for failing to use the System to propose a reasonable value for y prior to the deadline.)

Step 3: If the matter does not settle for x, then the System will offer a party that has specified a value for x or y an affidavit confirming that value (but not revealing any value specified by the other party), and attesting to the fact that the other party had lost an opportunity to settle for that amount at that time. (In combination with other features, this makes proposing a reasonable value the most sensible strategy for each party, regardless of whether the other party follows that strategy.)