IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ira/wpaper/200807.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Forecasting the maximum compensation offer in the automobile BI claims negotiation proces

Author

Listed:
  • Mercedes Ayuso

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Barcelona)

  • Miguel Santolino

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Barcelona)

Abstract

Most motor bodily injury (BI) claims are settled by negotiation, with fewer than 5% of cases going to court. A well-defined negotiation strategy is thus very useful for insurance companies. In this paper we assume that the monetary compensation awarded in court is the upper amount to be offered by the insurer in the negotiation process. Using a real database, a log-linear model is implemented to estimate the maximal offer. Non-spherical disturbances are detected. Correlation occurs when various claims are settled in the same judicial verdict. Groupwise heteroscedasticity is due to the influence of the forensic valuation on the final compensation amount. An alternative approximation based on generalized inference theory is applied to estimate confidence intervals on variance components, since classical interval estimates may be unreliable for datasets with unbalanced structures.

Suggested Citation

  • Mercedes Ayuso & Miguel Santolino, 2008. "Forecasting the maximum compensation offer in the automobile BI claims negotiation proces," IREA Working Papers 200807, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised May 2008.
    • Handle: RePEc:ira:wpaper:200807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2008/200807.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viaene, Stijn & Ayuso, Mercedes & Guillen, Montserrat & Van Gheel, Dirk & Dedene, Guido, 2007. "Strategies for detecting fraudulent claims in the automobile insurance industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 565-583, January.
    2. Richard Lewis, 2006. "How Important are Insurers in Compensating Claims for Personal Injury in the U.K.?*," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 31(2), pages 323-339, April.
    3. Ayuso, Mercedes & Santolino, Miguel, 2007. "Predicting automobile claims bodily injury severity with sequential ordered logit models," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 71-83, July.
    4. Nelson, William Jr., 2002. "Equity or intention: it is the thought that counts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 423-430, August.
    5. David S. Loughran, 2005. "Deterring Fraud: The Role of General Damage Awards in Automobile Insurance Settlements," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 72(4), pages 551-575, December.
    6. Crocker, Keith J & Tennyson, Sharon, 2002. "Insurance Fraud and Optimal Claims Settlement Strategies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 469-507, October.
    7. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mercedes Ayuso(universitat de Barcelona) & Miguel Santolino(Universitat de Barcelona), 2009. "Individual prediction of automobile bodily injury claims liabilities," Working Papers in Economics 220, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    2. Miguel Santolino & Jean-Philippe Boucher, 2009. "Modelling the disability severity score in motor insurance claims: an application to the Spanish case," IREA Working Papers 200902, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jan 2009.
    3. Katja Müller & Hato Schmeiser & Joël Wagner, 2016. "The impact of auditing strategies on insurers’ profitability," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 17(1), pages 46-79, January.
    4. Scalera Domenico & Zazzaro Alberto, 2007. "The Unpleasant Effects of Price Deregulation in the European Third-Party Motor Insurance Market: A Theoretical Framework," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-30, October.
    5. Tajudeen Olalekan Yusuf & Sunday Stephen Ajemunigbohun & Gbenga Noah Alli, 2017. "A Critical Review of Insurance Claims Management: A Study of Selected Insurance Companies in Nigeria," SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, University of Piraeus, vol. 67(2), pages 69-84, April-Jun.
    6. Jing Ai & Patrick L. Brockett & Linda L. Golden & Montserrat Guillén, 2013. "A Robust Unsupervised Method for Fraud Rate Estimation," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 80(1), pages 121-143, March.
    7. Brian Richman & Sharon Tennyson, 2022. "The effects of state legal environments on automobile insurance claims and compensation: Evidence from the Royal Globe doctrine," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 25(4), pages 491-513, December.
    8. Lu Li & Richard Peter, 2021. "Should we do more when we know less? The effect of technology risk on optimal effort," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(3), pages 695-725, September.
    9. Mercedes Ayuso & Lluís Bermúdez & Miguel Santolino, 2011. "“Influence of the claimant’s behavioural features on motor compensation outcomes”," IREA Working Papers 201108, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jun 2011.
    10. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    11. Stanca, Luca, 2010. "How to be kind? Outcomes versus intentions as determinants of fairness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 19-21, January.
    12. Eling, Martin & Jia, Ruo, 2018. "Business failure, efficiency, and volatility: Evidence from the European insurance industry," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 58-76.
    13. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & Pierre Picard, 2014. "Fraudulent Claims and Nitpicky Insurers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(9), pages 2900-2917, September.
    14. von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2009. "Bargaining under incomplete information, fairness, and the hold-up problem," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 486-494, August.
    15. Bogliacino, Francesco & Rodríguez González, Nicolás, 2020. "Two-worker competition in gift-exchange: assessing intention-based reciprocity and inequity aversion," MPRA Paper 99055, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Declerck, Carolyn H. & Kiyonari, Toko & Boone, Christophe, 2009. "Why do responders reject unequal offers in the Ultimatum Game? An experimental study on the role of perceiving interdependence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 335-343, June.
    17. Nicola Gennaioli & Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2022. "Trust and Insurance Contracts," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(12), pages 5287-5333.
    18. Bénédicte Coestier & Nathalie Fombaron, 2003. "L'audit en assurance," THEMA Working Papers 2003-41, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    19. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    20. Georges Dionne & Florence Giuliano & Pierre Picard, 2009. "Optimal Auditing with Scoring: Theory and Application to Insurance Fraud," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 58-70, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bodily injury claims compensation; negotiation process; generalized confidence intervals.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
    • G22 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ira:wpaper:200807. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alicia García (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feubaes.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.