October 2, 2023 • 39 mins
In this episode, ADJUSTED welcomes Carl Van, President & CEO of International Insurance Institute. Carl discusses some strategies and techniques to effectively negotiate throughout the life of a claim.
Season 6 is brought to you by Berkley Industrial Comp. This episode is hosted by Greg Hamlin and guest co-host Mike Gilmartin, Area Vice President, Sales & Distribution, for Key Risk.
Visit the Berkley Industrial Comp blog for more!
Got questions? Send them to marketing@berkindcomp.com
For music inquiries, contact Cameron Runyan at camrunyan9@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Greg Hamlin (00:11):
Hello everyone and welcome to adjusted. I'm your
host Greg Hanlon coming at youfrom Sweet Home Alabama and
Berkeley industrial comp. Andwith me is my co host today,
Mike Gilmartin. Mike, you wantto introduce yourself?
Mike Gilmartin (00:25):
Yeah. Hello everybody. My good Martin with
Kiera is based out ofGreensboro, North Carolina and
Greg, this is the nicest weatherday we've had the entire year.
It's like 75 and sunny. So I'm alittle sad and sad, but happy to
be here.
Greg Hamlin (00:37):
Yeah, it's been miserably hot in Alabama. So
we're ready for fall for sure.
With us today, our specialguests is Carl Van. And he is
the CEO of the internationalinsurance institute and author
of the book negotiation skillsfor claims professionals. Carl,
how are you doing?
Carl Van (00:56):
Do great. Thank you for inviting me today.
Greg Hamlin (00:58):
And you're out of New Orleans,
Carl Van (01:00):
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Greg Hamlin (01:02):
So you're probably ready for the fall as well.
Carl Van (01:05):
It's been a little hot here. But fortunately, we've had
100% humidity, which makes itnice. All right.
Greg Hamlin (01:12):
That's great. Well, Carl, we're excited to have you
with us. We had you on ourpodcast a couple of years ago,
talking about the eightcharacteristics of an awesome
adjuster. And I still use yourbook with every one of our new
employees. I felt like it's agreat a great jumping off point.
But the way I first ran into youwas a seminar you did for a
(01:33):
former employer of mine onnegotiations. And so I thought
it would be really great to divea little deeper in that. And we
haven't necessarily spent a lotof time on that on the podcast
ever. So we're excited to haveyou talk to us a little bit
about this. Before we get downthat road. For those who maybe
didn't catch the first episode.
How did you end up in theindustry, Carl?
Carl Van (01:56):
Well, I knew I was going to be in the industry my
whole life. Seven years old, Iused to pray my little adjuster
bet. Great claims person. Well,I'll tell you, I even though my
degrees in insurance, I did kindof fall into it. Like the rest
of us at the time, my wife was aphone operator at 20th century
insurance. Now it's 21st. Butthen 20. And for the sake of
(02:19):
being able to drive into worktogether, I applied for a job at
20th century, I didn't have mydegree then it took me nine
years at night to get my degreeso they wouldn't, wouldn't hire
me as an adjusted but they didhire me as a photocopy operator.
So my first job in plannings wasto operate the photocopy machine
in the classroom. So very proudof that. And that's that's how
it all got started.
Greg Hamlin (02:38):
You know, I love that. And that's one of the
things I think I'm trying toteach my kids, I've got one in
college and on five more forsome crazy. But one of the
things that I think I've noticedwith some of the recent college
grads is their assumption isthat they're going to graduate
and be like the CEO within threeyears. And sometimes it starts
(03:01):
out in the copy room. And youknow, look at where you are now.
Carl Van (03:04):
Yeah, it really did. I mean, I'm just I'm glad they
gave me that opportunity. And,you know, I'm glad they saw some
potential in me after why ittook a while. But something
that's so yeah, that's great.
Greg Hamlin (03:15):
Well, outside of settlements, where else is
negotiations critical on claims?
I think we always jump to thatlet's place we start thinking
when we think settlement, we'rethinking about the end of the
claim. But I think there'sprobably some other areas where
negotiations critical in theclaims process, no matter what
kind of claims you're handling?
Yeah,
Carl Van (03:33):
for sure. When we teach on negotiation classes,
I'll ask him, when does thenegotiation process start and
stuff he will say when to makean offer. And we have to talk
about that as well actually, itstarts at the very first
conversation, all yourinteraction with your customer
throughout the claim is going toaffect your credibility, you
know, when it comes time tosettle, it's not a fact, by the
time you tell the president,here's how much we're paying,
we're gonna pay this much money,all of your opportunity to gain
(03:56):
the trust is already over. Sowhen we talk about as we talked
about, using negotiation skillsthroughout the claim, and
probably the number one would bejust gaining cooperation, you
ask somebody, Hey, I need you tofill out a medical authorization
form. And they say, No, I'm notfilling it out. And usually
responses are not paying youover the head with the claims
hammer. And so what we talkabout is, but there's
(04:17):
negotiation there, there's anaspect of negotiation there,
when you ask them to dosomething, and they don't want
to convince them to change theirmind. And so the same skills
that apply to selling a claimapplying to influencing someone
to change their mind. And matterof fact, we use the exact same
steps. So there's five steps innegotiation process, and we show
(04:37):
justice how to use those fivesteps in a number of situations,
not only to settle the claim,but like I said, sometimes just
asking people to do somethingthey don't want to do. The point
of negotiation is to changesomeone's mind and influence
someone. And that's what'sreally about without them making
feel like you push them around.
And that's that's an importantelement because claims person
thinks to get cooperation whenthey say that if you don't sign
(04:57):
we won't pay you and then when aperson says only says final sign
the stupid form, they'll thinkthey have cooperation. But
that's not cooperation that'spushing people around, that's
getting to do what you want themto do. Cooperation is where you
actually change their mind andget them to agree that it was
the right thing to do. So thoseskills transfer, you know, in a
number of ways, interpersonalskills ways, for any claims
(05:17):
person.
Mike Gilmartin (05:19):
Yeah, I think that's a great point. I think
it's something Greg talks abouta ton. It's something that I
when I had claims, folks, wetalk all the time, if you're not
going to develop a relationship,or at least get an understanding
of where somebody's coming from,and develop that rapport.
Everything else in the claimsprocess is harder. I mean, it
just it to your point, you'renot getting cooperation, you're
basically asking people to dothings I don't wanna say under
(05:42):
duress, but it makes a bigdifference. And it's the same in
any relationship, right? I mean,if you develop a solid
relationship with somebody, andthey trust you, and they feel
like you have their bestinterests at heart, it makes
things like negotiating a loteasier. And the biggest thing
that I've also found, and I alsotook your your course, when I
was at my prior employer, whichwas the same as Greg's, so you
came to see us, butunderstanding the motivations of
(06:05):
people as well. And you canlearn that throughout the life
of your claim of what'simportant to them, what matters
to them, what motivates them,because all of those things play
an important part, going off ofthat, what is the importance of
planning prior to havingnegotiations with someone, when
you get to that step of a claim?
Yeah.
Carl Van (06:21):
Because that really is an important part, too, like you
just said, to know what angleyou're going to take right now
is this person, you know, a veryemotional person, because upset
about what happened to them?
Well, then maybe, you know, letme plan up the fact that I'm
going to talk about a littleempathy, and I'm very sorry,
that's happened to you. And thatkind of thing. You know, if you
know, someone's only interestedin the dollar amount, then maybe
lay out your case a little bitmore of exactly how you got to
(06:42):
this particular figure,negotiating with attorneys, we
get into that quite a bit. Thevery best claims negotiators
I've ever met or monitored, areones where they actually plan
out what they're going to say,they'll actually write it out.
Here's what I'm going to say, tomake my point about this issue.
You know, here's what I'm gonnasay about this. And they
actually write it out word forword, they kind of almost have
(07:02):
that conversation in their mindin advance. So with with high
level negotiations, likeattorneys, the more planning the
better with, you know,individual injured people,
injured workers, you know,anybody, you know, even if
you're selling a total US car orsomething like that, the best
thing to do is is to plan outhow you how you're going to
start with this, this is this isall business or, you know, some
(07:23):
empathy required, you know,something along those lines.
Greg Hamlin (07:27):
Yeah. And I've seen that a lot crawl on the opposite
end, where we figure out whatour authority is, we give it to
our attorney, and then you know,we move on. And we haven't
really put together a plan ofwhere are we starting with this?
Because if we don't know wherewe're starting, we don't know
where we're ending up. And if wedon't talk about the reasons why
we're supporting the case we'remaking for whatever it is we
(07:50):
want to negotiate. That makes itchallenging. I know that's one
of the things that you're big onis asking why to yourself, and
also to them in the negotiationprocess. Can you talk a little
bit about that?
Carl Van (08:02):
Yeah. One of the Maxim's we teach is that people
will consider what you have tosay, to the exact degree you
demonstrate you understand wherethey're coming from? And what
does that really understandwhere can people come from It's
empathy. And claims people mightunincluded, I feel guilty when
when I was selling claims thatwe tend to want to argue with
people, we tend to want to showthem that they're wrong. Let me
(08:23):
show you, you're incorrect. Andwhat we've learned now over the
years is, you're actually betteroff just showing could be
understand them. So the verysimple example I just gave you
with someone just want to sign aform. You ask them when we sign
the form, they say no. And theysay, you ask why Why don't want
to send the form. And they say,because my neighbor these in a
second law school said don'tsign another person will do is
(08:46):
argue, well, you know, what doesyour neighbor know? And why did
he tell you that? Well, wetalked about taking the time to
acknowledge that, you know what,if you talk to your neighbor,
you respect his opinion, and hegave you the advice not to sign
anything, I can understand whyyou would want it, that's
perfectly reasonable. Now,here's why we need this form
sign, here's what it is. Andhere's what it says. And the
idea there is that people willtend to pay attention a little
(09:07):
bit more, once you've shown themyou understand their point of
view, but you can't show themyou understand the point of
view. If you don't ask them why.
So in any situation, we're goingto pay you $90,000 It's not
enough. Can you tell me why?
Knowing that you're going to askwhy. And knowing that whatever
they say you're gonnaacknowledge that you understand
it, not that you agree with it.
Not that they're right. But youunderstand where they're coming
from, gives them the opportunityto change the mind without them
(09:29):
feeling stupid. And that'sreally the point you want to
want to influence someone tochange the mind without them
having to pay any penalty to doso. But when you argue with
people, you making them admitthat they're wrong, change their
mind. And so we show them thatyou can bypass that you don't
have to prove anyone wrong. Youonly have to prove yourself
right. So asking why is thefirst step in any negotiation
process because you can't showpeople you understand where
(09:52):
they're coming from if you don'task them where they're coming
from.
Mike Gilmartin (09:56):
Or oh, this is I need to apply this to my home
life because I I've taken yourclass and I wrote your book. But
for somehow I skip this step,when I'm arguing with my wife, I
just want to be right versusasking why I'm showing empathy.
But I'm reminded of that fact,because I negotiate for a
living. But you know, I seem toskip that on personal levels,
which, again, I agree with you,100%. It's all about empathy. If
(10:17):
people feel heard, and they feelseen, and they feel like you
understand where they're comingfrom, you're gonna be in a much
better place, which is a hugedeal that I think we all need to
remind ourselves of sometimes.
Speaking of that, right? I mean,people, people think of
negotiations as an argument, andto a point, it is an argument,
but that word has a little bitof negative connotation to it.
But a lot of the things youmentioned earlier, Carl come in
(10:38):
is there's a lot of emotioninvolved. There's a lot of
emotion involved, and work compclaims. There's a lot of emotion
involved in how people aretreated. And a lot of times
negotiations, people argue withreasons or emotions versus
arguing with facts. And so, youknow, I just wanted to kind of
get your idea of what is the bigdifference when it comes to
negotiation arguing with kind ofa reason or an emotion versus
(10:58):
arguing with facts? And what howimportant that is?
Carl Van (11:03):
Sure. And by the way, just so you know, I get accused
of being a marriage counselor inevery class, I teach people. I'm
not a marriage counselor, butthey do understand some of the
concepts are overlapping.
Mike Gilmartin (11:13):
It does apply if you listen. Yeah.
Carl Van (11:16):
Yeah. The The difference is, when you ask
someone, why is this figure I'mgiving you enough land, we're
gonna pay you 68,000? Why isn'tenough? Okay? Whatever reason
they give you try not to arguewith it, acknowledge it. We
don't really say argue with thefacts, we say, argue the facts.
So what we're trying to say is,rather than argue with with
their reasons, you want topresent the facts of the case.
(11:39):
So you ask them like, Hey, we'regonna pay you, you know,
$40,000. That's not enough. Canyou tell me why? Yeah, because
they got nowhere else got$100,000. And he only had a
stubbed toe. Rather than arguingWell, what kind of injury was
it? What was his disabilityrating? How long was he off
work? And and now that if you dothat, now, the two of you both
talking about a claim, neitherone of you know anything about,
(12:00):
just acknowledge it and get backto the issue. And so say, you
know, what, if the person in thewarehouse got 100,000? For step
two, I can certainly understandyour point of view, that does
make sense. Would you agree thatit probably makes more sense for
us to talk about your claim andyour injury and how this
affected you, and not getdistracted by the person in the
warehouse? We agree with that?
Sure. Okay. Let me explain toyou how I got to my figure. And
so you're not arguing with thefacts, you're arguing or
(12:23):
executing, you're not arguingwith the reasons you're arguing
the facts. So it just meanspresenting the facts, as opposed
to presenting why someone'swrong about something.
Greg Hamlin (12:34):
I think that's huge. And I think you hit on a
few things there that I reallyvalue, and use all the time. And
one is just remembering not toget pulled in to the emotions of
the situation. And I think oneof the things I've learned
through my time in claims andbeing a parent of six kids,
which is crazy, is slowing downtoo. And just remembering to
(12:56):
slow down. And think before Isay something, because a lot of
times when we get down theserabbit holes, it's because we
just we didn't slow down, or wedidn't take time to listen to
what they really had to say,before we got pulled in. I know
one of the things you arereally, really big on is gaining
cooperation. And we've alreadytalked about that a little bit
(13:19):
that the negotiations actuallystart at they want first time
you talk to them. Talk to us alittle bit about gaining
cooperation a little bit more.
Sure.
Carl Van (13:27):
It's part of the five steps that we teach. So again,
the first step is asking whyagain, something very simple.
Hey, I need you to send inreceipts, okay? Something if you
want reimbursement on receiptstogether send receipts. And you
ask them, will you please sendme the receipts? If they say
yes, negotiations over? Say no,you got to ask why can you tell
me why you don't want to sendreceipts? The person says,
(13:48):
because you're just going to useit against me, something's crazy
like that. What are typicalresponse would be is why would
we do that? And we startarguments person. And all we
want to do is just turn itaround a little bit. Look, if
you don't want to send themreceipts, because you're
concerned, we're going to usethem against you, I can
understand that. That makessense. The purpose of us getting
the receipts is to verifyexactly what you spent so you
can get every single pennyyou're entitled to. So again,
(14:09):
it's just you know, I understandyour point of view. Let's get
back to the issue at hand.
Another example I've heardrecently, an adjuster asked a
customer to sign a medicalauthorization form. And these
workers said no, I'm not doingthat. Why not? Because I was
told I wouldn't have to signanything. Of course, what the
adjuster asked, well, who toldyou that? And now, who told them
that it takes them 15 minutes totrack down this person named
(14:31):
Stephanie? And then comes up toStephanie says, Hey, did you
tell this guy who wouldn't havetaken assigned anything? Well,
guess what? Stephanie says no.
So now it just gets back on thephone calls up the customer and
says, Well, I talked toStephanie, she said she didn't
say that. And now you just callthe guy. I would bypass all that
time. I would just say you knowwhat, if you got told that you
(14:51):
weren't going to have to signanything, then I can understand
why you would want to that makesperfect sense. You expect us to
keep our promises. I want toapologize. You got the wrong
information. I'm very sorry.
About that this form isrequired. There's no way for us
to get your medical recordswithout it's some I'm sorry, you
got the wrong information. Ifyou sign it, send it to me. I'll
work hard to make sure you get afair settlement. But I'm
certainly sorry, you got thewrong information. And that's
what I would probably do, I'dprobably do that, instead of
(15:14):
running around trying to provethat no one actually told the
customer that you can't prove tosomeone they heard something
wrong.
Mike Gilmartin (15:22):
Yeah, that's very true. And I really, really
like we all spend way too muchtime trying to prove each other
wrong and be right versus justhave moving on with the
situation, because the way youdescribed is just so much easier
on so many levels. One of thebiggest things, obviously, in
building rapport and developingrelationship and just
communication with human beingsis being able to see how the
(15:43):
other person is reacting to whatyou're telling them, right.
Like, I tell people all thetime, there's someone say to me,
like they're mad at me. I said,Well, how do you know that?
They're like, what's it, I canread it in the text? And like,
we have no clue what that personmeant by what they said, because
it's something they wrote toyou, right? And so a lot of our
negotiations happen over thephone or happening in a setting
where we can't see the personwe're talking to? Do you have
(16:06):
any recommendations? Or is thereany way to pick up on nonverbal
communication? While you're notbeing able to see the person? Is
there anything you can do betterin order to maybe pick up on
some of the nonverbal?
Carl Van (16:17):
That's real hard? The number one, of course, always is
tone? So when they answer thatquestion, you say, Would you
would you give me Would you letme ask you some questions, and
they say, Sure. That's it. Idon't know about this, I don't
trust you. I'm gonna go alonguntil you start to deceive me.
So tone is always the numberone, the number two, one would
(16:39):
be pauses that people have tothink about what you're asking,
Well, did you show up on time towork that day of the accident,
and you get a big long pause?
They're thinking they're tryingto right now, should I tell the
truth? So why should I? Why isthis person gonna ask him is
what would be really important?
And so pauses? Before verysimple questions is a clue.
(16:59):
Another clue is if they keeprepeating questions for very
simple, okay. Do you normallywork Monday to Fridays? And they
say, Do I normally work Mondayto Friday? Yes, that's feeding
very simple questions. They'revery concerned that they're
there. They're either thinkingabout lying, or they're worried
that you're going to trap themin something. So that's a clue.
(17:21):
And also, when people's tone ofvoice always goes up at the end
of the sentence, some peoplethat just do that, but if it's
not normal for them, if you'reasking somebody questions, were
you injured? When How long wereyou that the doctors you know
what happened? And this and theyanswer questions normally, but
then you start asking questionslike, Okay, well, did you look
at the gauge before you turn iton? And then they start their
(17:42):
tone changes, maybe their tonegoes up at the end of the
sentence or something? You know,that's an indication, again,
maybe maybe they're concerned orthey lying, or they think you're
lying to them. So tone again,tone is always the big one. The
second one would be pauses. Andthen the third would be always
repeating questions that arevery simple questions that
you're asked.
Greg Hamlin (18:03):
I think those are all healthcare tools. And it is
challenging, because in today'sworld, we do so much of our work
on the phone. And I wonder, withthe changes that are happening
with technology, if we will seemore video, video chats, you
know, but I think we're stillprobably a little ways away for
that from that time. I know inthe negotiation process, there
are lots of things that gettalked about a lot. We have a
(18:25):
wide audience, some of them arevery experienced, others maybe
haven't done very muchnegotiating at all. One of the
things we hear about a lot isbidding against yourself. And so
could you explain what that is?
And then maybe talk about isthere ever a time that is okay.
Carl Van (18:40):
Yeah, bidding against yourself is where you increase
your settlement figure withoutthe other person coming down. So
you're saying I'm going to pay60,100, and you go to 70, and
they don't come down, and thenyou go to 80k, or you go to 75,
so you're not bidding againstyourself. So it's a very, very
good rule of thumb. There's oneexception, which most people
don't know, the exception is ifyou can stay in your
conversation. So what that meansis, if you can get the other
(19:03):
person to talk about yournumber, rather than their
number, it's perfectly okay tobid against yourself. So if I
say I'm gonna pay you 75,000,they say, Well, I want 100 will
tell me why 75,000 isn't right.
Well, $75,000 isn't right,because this, this and this,
okay, I'll tell you what, basedon what we just talked about,
I'll increase my 70 to 85. No,85 still isn't enough because
this and this, okay, let mealter it to 90 I can increase my
(19:24):
settlement figures as long asthe other person isn't bringing
up their number anymore. Okay.
And that's called staying inyour conversation. So if you can
get the other person to stoptalking about them number and
only talk about your number youcan bid against yourself all day
long. Matter of fact, I wouldrather I would rather bet
against myself rather than sitthere and try and bring somebody
(19:45):
down. If I'm at 50 and 300. Youknow, I don't want to try to
bring them down from 350. Okay,I don't have that. I don't have
300. But I got more than 50. Soif I can get them to talk about
50 Even if they're complainingabout even if The same $50,000
isn't nearly enough, I'm stillwinning, because they're talking
about 15. And I'm talking about300. So if they give that up, if
(20:07):
they stop talking about 50, andyou go to 60, and you complain
about that, you go to 65, andyou're still not happy, believe
it or not, you're still winning,because they're not thinking
about 300 Anything. So notbidding against yourself, it's a
very, very good rule of thumb.
With one exception, if you canstand your conversation and get
the other person to stop talkingabout the number, you can bid
against yourself all day longmethod, I wouldn't want to
(20:28):
remind the person oh, by theway, I went up to 60. So you
have to come down from 300. Youknow, why would I? Why would I
want to remind the person thatthat's where they were at
Mike Gilmartin (20:37):
least a lot of times meaning this goes in our
next question a little bit. ButI mean, demands from folks
generally aren't based in facts.
They're just based. And I think,oh, this or this is what I want.
And so it's really a number toyour point, that's not even
worth acknowledging or talkingabout, because it's not based in
the facts of the case, or whatwhat you're looking at. So that
goes into my next question. Andit's something that people
always say, Well, I don't wantto start negotiations until I
(20:58):
request the demand and see wherethey're at. But what are your
thoughts about requesting ademand before going into
settlement negotiations?
Carl Van (21:07):
Well, one of the things we do try to teach the
judges you depending on thedemand, depending on someone
else to tell you that guy thatclaim, and by the way, they
haven't put in nearly the effortyou put into it that's kind of
just making up a number. So whatdifference make as a matter of
fact, what we teach what here'sa typical call adjuster calls
up, an attorney says, Okay,let's sell your case. And the
attorney says you get our demand440,000. And it just there's no
(21:31):
way this thing's worth 400,000No, yeah, why not? And then they
spent a half hour talking about$400,000. And then at the end of
a half hour, the adjustedfunding says, Well, look, we can
only pay 50. The problem is youjust spent a half hour talking
about someone else's number,which is not your conversation.
So the right way to deal withthat would be hey, let's sell
your clients case. Did you getour demand for 40,000? Yeah, I
got demand. But we need to talkabout the value of the case and
(21:52):
the value 50,000? Here's why.
It's literally Why are you goingto talk some about another thing
meet up when you can be talkingabout a number that you've
actually spent time evaluating.
And so a lot of the very bestnegotiators, I'll tell you, I
got lots of advice on them. Sotreat the word demand like a
tennis ball, you have a tennisball, you throw it against the
wall, what happens it comesback, is it every single time
the attorney says demand you sayvalue, or demands 400? I know
(22:16):
but I want to talk about thevalue here. Well, we lower our
demand, you keep talking aboutdemands, I'm trying to talk
about the value, every singletime the attorney says demand,
you say value back, it lets theattorney know, okay, I'm not
going to be fooled by somereally ridiculous number. So
going to your question now isI'm not a big fan of asking
attorneys for the demand,because it almost implies that
the demand has something to dowith the value of your case. And
(22:38):
that you're going to use that inthat value. Well, you shouldn't
be doing that you should beevaluating the case, right?
separately. Now, a lot ofattorneys won't give you the
information, you need toevaluate the case until the
demand comes in. So that's okay.
But I'm not a big fan of askingthere. It's been an attorney of
what their number is. I mean, itjust it shouldn't affect how you
evaluate this case. And all itdoes is give them the upper
(22:58):
edge.
Mike Gilmartin (23:00):
No, I completely agree to something that as with
newer adjusters I was worked on,because a lot of times, you
know, it's why I needed demandto see where they are. And to
your point, it doesn't matterwhere they are, it matters what
the value of your case is. Andbased on the facts that you
have, and the information youhave and what you know about the
claim. And I also find thatevery once awhile when somebody
gets a demand, and if they're anewer adjuster, they're already
(23:21):
flustered because oh, wellshoot, we have the value of the
claim at 25,000. They're sayingthey want 200 I like we're this
is never going to happen, asopposed to focusing on the value
of the case and the value ofwhat it's worth versus just a
random number. That's yourpoint. Somebody probably took
five minutes to say, Yeah, 200.
Sounds good. Let's go with that.
So I want to 100% agree withyou. I think Greg would, too, on
(23:43):
that.
Carl Van (23:43):
Well, and I think that's why attorneys do that,
because it does work. BecauseI've had a justice working for
me asking for authority for50,000. We went through it all
together. Okay, great. Write up.
Yes. 50,000. Great, you got it.
And then they come back to us,they are going to have to get
more authority. Look, I got ademand from nine dogs. And
nothing's changed. Absolutely noinformation has changed other
than this number that came in.
So I'm not a big fan of this.
(24:05):
But I'll tell you, even thoughsome adjusters say, Oh, I don't
pay attention to the number, Idon't pay attention. I was
worked as a consultant with onecompany, you know what they
started doing? Before they justgot the demand letter, the
manager would blank out how muchthe demand was for they got all
the other information. But theadjustment wasn't allowed to
know what the demand was. Andthey started freaking out. At
(24:27):
the same it just to say auto payattention to that were like,
Well, I gotta go to the end iswhy you're the one who said you
don't pay attention. And it juststarted freaking out. So we
secretly depend on it a littlebit more. It's almost like we're
hoping it's going to come in atsomething reasonable, but you
know, never, never really does.
So I'll tell you, I'm a big fan.
If I've got everything I need.
If I got all the information Ineed, right the records,
(24:49):
employment records, the doctor'srecords, I've got everything I
need. I'm fine with calling upan attorney and saying here's
our settlement fee to give me ademand. I don't need your
number. I even had attorneyswill send you the demand. And
I'll tell them I don't I don'tneed to demand just sending
direct. So I'm a real big fan.
And you know, I've actually hadto just say, well, but what if
the attorney would have acceptedless? Yeah, like, that's a big
(25:09):
mystery, your big attorney wouldhave accepted less? Had you not
offered this figure? I think yougive me a
Mike Gilmartin (25:14):
break. That is the argument here. Well, what if
they were gonna demand less?
When? What in the real world isthat ever occurred to anybody?
Exactly. That's the good.
Greg Hamlin (25:22):
And the reality is, we want to do the right thing.
So if we owe it, we should payit. And you know, and so part in
my mind, I often think aboutthat, like, you know, if we're
sticking to the numbers of whatthis is valued, and it's rooted
in facts, then why should we bewaiting? You know, if they were
going to take less okay, butyou're gonna win? Is that ever
gonna happen? You're exactlyright on that it's not
Carl Van (25:43):
gambling. That's a concern. But that's what's
keeps. Some people say, like,Well, I gotta know, because what
if people are thinking like,yeah, sure, sure. So what? We're
not going to cheat anybody? Sowhat if we would have taken less
because the value of the claimlooks bad?
Greg Hamlin (25:54):
That's exactly right. That's exactly right. So
going down that path a littlefurther, I think you've hit on
this on several of the examplesthat you've given. But Are there
words that you would avoidnegotiating? I think you said
demands one of them. But Butwhat other others out there that
you're like, you know, probablystay away from these,
Carl Van (26:10):
a lot of people will will use the word offer all the
time. But most experts say don'tuse the word offer, because too
many people the word offer,we're going to offer you
$60,000. To many people thatimplies here's our starting
point. So they'll tell you touse the word, the value of your
claim, the settlement value ofyour claim is $82,000. And we
want to pay you the entirething. First, that would rather
than we want to offer you 80,000Because that one word right
(26:32):
there tells Ted not everybody,but too many people that implies
Okay, well, this is this wastheir starting point. But you
don't want to do that innegotiation. You don't want to
give them that now with anattorney, you know, we all know
offer demand, not nonsense. Butwhen someone is unrepresented,
you want to stay away from that,we want to hear the phrase, we
took a look at your file, dearMrs. Smith, I took a look at
your file. Think about look atit. Too many people that will
(26:54):
imply that you just glanced atit. I mean, you didn't work this
file, you took a look at it.
Think about this, you know, wework hard and clench. So I'll
tell people, you know, takecredit for the work you're
doing. Don't tell a customer,you took a look at their file, I
want to let you know Ithoroughly evaluated this case,
I double check the numbers, Ireread the doctor's reports, and
I have a very fair settlementfigure I'd like to discuss with
you. There don't say took a lookat it. Another one came up with
(27:17):
alright, we came up with 82,000Docs. To many people, the word
the phrase came up with quiteliterally means we made it up
here. We made it up. There,right. And so we talked about,
you know, know that we did acareful evaluation. And I want
to share with you the results ofthat evaluation. Another word or
phrase sometimes just use allthe time not meaning to offend
(27:38):
anybody but to say, Oh, I had achance to review your file had a
chance to I had an opportunityto review your file. And think
about that you had anopportunity amongst what other
more important work you have.
When you tell someone I had achance to review your file,
you're admitting you almostdidn't get to imagine I almost
didn't get to your file. That'show important you are. That's
(28:00):
how people will take that. Whatif you didn't have a chance?
What if you didn't have a slowweek, I wouldn't get any money.
So when you tell someone I had achance to review your file, I
had an opportunity you'retelling the person you almost
did, that's how unimportant youare. So I would say the exact
opposite. I would say Jacob, youknow what, I have nothing more
important on my desk to makesure that you're fairly
compensated. So I want to listento I thoroughly reviewed this
(28:23):
case, I carefully went over thenumbers. I reread the doctor's
reports, and I have a very clearseven figure I'd like to discuss
with you. And that's how it saidI certainly wouldn't say I had
an opportunity to do it. Icertainly couldn't do that. So
those are just some of thecommon ones.
Mike Gilmartin (28:37):
What all I mean, it all goes back to empathy and
a relationship, right? I mean,those things to your point, we
don't always take time to stepback and think about the words
that we say and how other peoplewill receive them. And I think
that's one of the biggestthings. And one of the biggest
themes of everything you'retalking about today is getting
cooperation and gaining trustand understanding of being
empathetic is all of the thingsthat we're doing. It's how we
(29:00):
say what we say it's what wesay, that is also important. I
just think it's it's such a hugedeal. And it's something I'm
guilty of, and I'm sure Greg istoo I'm just gonna throw him in
the same bus as me like, I dothings like that. I do things
like that, when I'm talking toour agents, or when I'm talking
to somebody without eventhinking about it, right. It's
almost second nature to say, oh,yeah, I just second look at it.
Here's what we're doing. Andwhen you take a step back, and
(29:21):
you think about I had a secondto look at it and what that
means to somebody else. It'spretty damning, honestly. So
it's a very, very good reminder.
Greg, any thoughts on that part?
Greg Hamlin (29:32):
No, I completely agree. I mean, I had a situation
not necessarily a negotiationsituation. But this was just
last week. We had a employee ofours, who's been with our
company for 15 years, and she'sdecided to retire. And we were
talking about when her datewould be that huge, valuable
member of our team. And I wastalking to the HR department
about, you know, next steps andwe hadn't figured out the actual
(29:56):
day at that point. That would beher last day. You know, of
course we'd like to keep her forforever. But, you know, we were
talking to her about workingthrough that. And I talked to
our HR department, I said, well,we need to start working on the
new position. And she said,Well, wait a minute, you want to
post the position, but you don'thave a date yet that you've
agreed upon with her, when herlast day is how do you think
that might make her feel? And Iwas like, You know what, that is
(30:19):
a really good point. I said, Youare spot on. And I talked to
this individual about it. And Isaid, Hey, you know, sometimes
I'm so busy, and I'm trying tomove things along. And I want
things to run smoothly, that Iget going, and I need to slow
down. And I shared that withher. And she said, You know
what, I'm glad that you didthat, you know, if you had
posted that position, before wehad figured out my retirement
(30:41):
date, it would have felt likethat you were just you already
had a plan, you're ready to seeme go. So I think we do that to
ourselves sometimes. And that'san example maybe outside of
negotiation, but we don't thinkabout how we say, or what we're
doing could be interpreted bysomebody else. And slowing down
is a big deal. So I love that
Carl Van (31:01):
this interpreting partner happens all the time.
Just recently, I was listeningto an adjuster call with an
injured worker and say, Hey, Ineed you to fill out this
medical authorization form. Andyou know, this package, and the
person says, I don't want to dothat. And the adjuster said, why
it's not complicated. Now, theadjuster, the this, the judge
did not mean to say I thinkyou're stupid person. That's not
what he meant. But that's howthe person took it. And so if
(31:25):
people can take something thewrong way, maybe we need to be a
little bit careful of how wephrase things.
Mike Gilmartin (31:29):
Well, and I think not to not to go down a
rabbit hole a little bit. Butpeople are so reliant now on
email and text communication.
And there's other roles if thereisn't ease to it, and everything
else. But I would have adjustersconstantly come to me and say I
forged an email, look at this.
What do you think they meant bythis? Or they're mad at me? Or
this is not? And I said, haveyou talked to them? Have you
(31:50):
picked up the phone and callthem and understood where
they're coming from? Or heardthe tone of their voice or
anything? Well, no. I said, sohow do you know what they're
feeling or what they're tryingto convey to you in an email?
And I think it goes back to whatyou're talking about. I mean,
you can't infer what somebody'strying to hurt. You can certain
(32:11):
times but it is it there's overreliance on what are they I
think they're mad, or what dothey mean by this? And it's as
simple as, hey, let's just havea conversation, pick up the
phone and talk to them andlisten to them. And listen to
what they have to say and beempathetic. I just think it gets
missed. That's just great. Notinterrupt, I was just thrown out
there.
Greg Hamlin (32:30):
I completely agree.
So far. One of the other thingsthat you've talked about as a
potential tool is that sometimesyou do need an extra step to get
you there. And you call this thebridge. Can you talk to us a
little bit about that? If you'rein the negotiations, you've gone
through the steps, but you'restill stuck?
Carl Van (32:48):
Yeah, a bridge is a reason to give somebody to give
up what they believe in, comejoin you. So why should they
give this up? You're asking, youknow, it's usually it's usually
a misunderstanding. So if I'mtalking to, you know, Natalie,
Natalie animal, I use her help,she doesn't mind. Me say now
that, you know, we're going topay this $92,000, whatever. And
she says, well, but you know,I'm going to have this future
medical bills. So you're talkingabout the $484,380, that your
(33:12):
doctor said, you might have tohave that operation? Yes. Okay.
Well, that's not included. I'veactually included that that's
part of this figure here. Soright now I'm giving the person
a bridge, I'm giving them areason to give up why they
should believe that it's worthmore because it's actually
aren't included. Sometimes themisunderstanding is there, they
think they're entitled somethingthat they're not so Alright, so
again, Natalie, how about this90,000? Does that sound right?
(33:34):
Well, does that include my painand suffering? Okay, well, now
let you know what really isn'tcancer. And that's for personal
injury, it's not for workerscomp. So we really can't include
pain and suffering. In thissegment, we have to include all
the things you and I talkedabout, okay, which is the
disability rating and all that.
So we'd love to pay if we could,but we can't. Alright, so again,
the $90,000. So in both cases,I'm clearing up a
(33:55):
misunderstanding. Onemisunderstanding is she doesn't
realize that I've alreadyincluded those future medical
bills. Now they'remisunderstanding of something
she's not she thinks he'sentitled something she's not
going to get. So a bridge isgiving someone a reason, why
should they give up what theybelieve, in this particular
case, that that this changes thevalue of the case, and you have
to be on your toes? Sometimesyou just have to pay attention.
(34:18):
I heard one of your one, just tocall out and pick up the number
was they're gonna pay $100,000.
And the prisoner said, No, Iwant 200,000. And they just
said, Why do you want to own$1,000? And the customer said,
because I was told to doubleanything you offered me? Was it?
And so the adjuster just kind oflike well tell me what the
(34:38):
100,000 then went back and forthand back and forth. And it took
a long time. He just didn'tsettle the claim because he
didn't clear up themisunderstanding. The
misunderstanding this customerhad is you're gonna lowball me
say because he said it. I wastold to double anything your
offer. So the justice shouldhave said you know what, if you
want, you know, double becausethat's what you were told. I
just did that. That makes sense.
And you know what, maybe thathappens somewhere in the
industry. Maybe that happens,maybe there are insurance
(35:00):
companies throw out a lowfigure. So you could throw out a
high once and go back and forthand back and forth. And after
six hours, we'll come to theconclusion of what's right. Our
company choose not to do thatArcher, our company chooses to
pay a fair amount upfront forits customers. So what I'd like
to do is explain to you how Igot to this $90,000. So you can
feel comfortable to be treatedfairly and don't have to worry
about playing a numbers game. SoI'm absolutely the case, what's
(35:22):
the misunderstanding that wejust play numbers that clearly
standing, then we just thrownumbers back and forth until we
get tired. So I would clear thatmisunderstanding up before I
ever tried to negotiate. Sothat's what the bridges the
bridges is, is an opportunity tobring somebody over to your side
of the negotiation. That'sawesome.
Greg Hamlin (35:40):
I think that's a good a good reminder, Carl, I
know your time is valuable. Welove having you on this episode.
There are a lot of folks in theindustry who could use your
skills, I assume you do thesetypes of trainings for
corporations or insurancecompanies, if someone wanted to
reach out to you to have thiskind of training with their
staff? How would they do that?
Yeah, we
Carl Van (36:00):
go anywhere, the United States, Canada, UK and
Australia go anywhere to deliverdeliver claims training. So
while you're on site, or wedeliver it virtually through our
webinar programs, so either one,they can go to our website,
which is www dot insurance,institute.com. That's a long one
insurance institute.com. Or theycan send me an email directly
Carl Van, at insuranceinstitute.com. And either way,
(36:25):
they can order a catalog off ourwebsite, or they can email me
directly, I'd be more than happyto chat with anybody.
Mike Gilmartin (36:29):
We took your class, it had to have been, I
don't know how many years agonow I know, at least 10 years
ago, I've been a hero seven. Andit was while I was in Illinois.
But it was it's so valuable. Andit's it's I hate to say it's not
rocket science, but it's notthings you think about until
you're reminded and you you'reintentional about thinking about
(36:50):
them. And it's such goodconcepts to get yourself in a
good mind frame when you'redoing this. But it's also just
so valuable to life. Like Isaid, I made the joke earlier
about arguing with my wife, orarguing with my brother or
whoever. But these things applyanywhere you have a
conversation, like it applies toevery part of your life. And so
for what it's worth, it's a veryvaluable thing. And your work
(37:14):
has had an effect on me andhelped me be more successful. So
for that, I appreciate it.
Carl Van (37:18):
Right, I'm gonna have to raise my prices.
Greg Hamlin (37:21):
I echo everything Mike said. So that's one of the
reasons obviously I reached outis made an impact. And when
you're still rememberingsomething 10 years later, that's
a good thing. So definitelyencourage our listeners if this
is something that would behelpful to reach out to Carl and
his team because they do goodwork. One of the things that
we're doing this year as we wrapthings up, I would like to put
(37:42):
some good karma in the universe.
I feel like you put good outgood comes back this season, one
of the things we're doing isasking each of our guests just
something that makes them smile,something that when you think
about it makes you smile. SoCarl for you, when you have one
of those days, and you thinkabout something, it's just like,
You know what, that makes mehappy? What's that for you?
Carl Van (38:02):
Well, besides the obvious my grandkids work
related, it's definitely when Iget emails from people after
class saying this is reallygoing to help me I was
struggling, this is going tohelp me or after customer
service class have an injusticesay I had no idea I was actually
in the business of helpingpeople this is really going to
help me deal with you know,people getting angry at me at
times whatever. So I'm mostgrateful for having an impact in
(38:23):
people's lives. And and havinghaving a job where I get that
feedback in flames is aninjustice. Sometimes you do a
great job for a customer but younever hear from again, that
that's that's, you know, youknow, you did a good job, but
you might not hear it. But in mybusiness, I hear it a lot. And
still, that's probably the thingI'm most grateful for to have an
opportunity to help people andhear about it. That's awesome.
Greg Hamlin (38:45):
That's awesome.
Well, we appreciate your time,Carl, again, encourage folks to
reach out if they have questionsor they're interested in some of
your services, and remind ouraudience to do write think
differently, and don't forget tocare. And that's it for this
episode. Thanks, everybody.
Hello everyone and welcome to adjusted. I'm your
host Greg Hanlon coming at youfrom Sweet Home Alabama and
Berkeley industrial comp. Andwith me is my co host today,
Mike Gilmartin. Mike, you wantto introduce yourself?
Mike Gilmartin (00:25):
Yeah. Hello everybody. My good Martin with
Kiera is based out ofGreensboro, North Carolina and
Greg, this is the nicest weatherday we've had the entire year.
It's like 75 and sunny. So I'm alittle sad and sad, but happy to
be here.
Greg Hamlin (00:37):
Yeah, it's been miserably hot in Alabama. So
we're ready for fall for sure.
With us today, our specialguests is Carl Van. And he is
the CEO of the internationalinsurance institute and author
of the book negotiation skillsfor claims professionals. Carl,
how are you doing?
Carl Van (00:56):
Do great. Thank you for inviting me today.
Greg Hamlin (00:58):
And you're out of New Orleans,
Carl Van (01:00):
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Greg Hamlin (01:02):
So you're probably ready for the fall as well.
Carl Van (01:05):
It's been a little hot here. But fortunately, we've had
100% humidity, which makes itnice. All right.
Greg Hamlin (01:12):
That's great. Well, Carl, we're excited to have you
with us. We had you on ourpodcast a couple of years ago,
talking about the eightcharacteristics of an awesome
adjuster. And I still use yourbook with every one of our new
employees. I felt like it's agreat a great jumping off point.
But the way I first ran into youwas a seminar you did for a
(01:33):
former employer of mine onnegotiations. And so I thought
it would be really great to divea little deeper in that. And we
haven't necessarily spent a lotof time on that on the podcast
ever. So we're excited to haveyou talk to us a little bit
about this. Before we get downthat road. For those who maybe
didn't catch the first episode.
How did you end up in theindustry, Carl?
Carl Van (01:56):
Well, I knew I was going to be in the industry my
whole life. Seven years old, Iused to pray my little adjuster
bet. Great claims person. Well,I'll tell you, I even though my
degrees in insurance, I did kindof fall into it. Like the rest
of us at the time, my wife was aphone operator at 20th century
insurance. Now it's 21st. Butthen 20. And for the sake of
(02:19):
being able to drive into worktogether, I applied for a job at
20th century, I didn't have mydegree then it took me nine
years at night to get my degreeso they wouldn't, wouldn't hire
me as an adjusted but they didhire me as a photocopy operator.
So my first job in plannings wasto operate the photocopy machine
in the classroom. So very proudof that. And that's that's how
it all got started.
Greg Hamlin (02:38):
You know, I love that. And that's one of the
things I think I'm trying toteach my kids, I've got one in
college and on five more forsome crazy. But one of the
things that I think I've noticedwith some of the recent college
grads is their assumption isthat they're going to graduate
and be like the CEO within threeyears. And sometimes it starts
(03:01):
out in the copy room. And youknow, look at where you are now.
Carl Van (03:04):
Yeah, it really did. I mean, I'm just I'm glad they
gave me that opportunity. And,you know, I'm glad they saw some
potential in me after why ittook a while. But something
that's so yeah, that's great.
Greg Hamlin (03:15):
Well, outside of settlements, where else is
negotiations critical on claims?
I think we always jump to thatlet's place we start thinking
when we think settlement, we'rethinking about the end of the
claim. But I think there'sprobably some other areas where
negotiations critical in theclaims process, no matter what
kind of claims you're handling?
Yeah,
Carl Van (03:33):
for sure. When we teach on negotiation classes,
I'll ask him, when does thenegotiation process start and
stuff he will say when to makean offer. And we have to talk
about that as well actually, itstarts at the very first
conversation, all yourinteraction with your customer
throughout the claim is going toaffect your credibility, you
know, when it comes time tosettle, it's not a fact, by the
time you tell the president,here's how much we're paying,
we're gonna pay this much money,all of your opportunity to gain
(03:56):
the trust is already over. Sowhen we talk about as we talked
about, using negotiation skillsthroughout the claim, and
probably the number one would bejust gaining cooperation, you
ask somebody, Hey, I need you tofill out a medical authorization
form. And they say, No, I'm notfilling it out. And usually
responses are not paying youover the head with the claims
hammer. And so what we talkabout is, but there's
(04:17):
negotiation there, there's anaspect of negotiation there,
when you ask them to dosomething, and they don't want
to convince them to change theirmind. And so the same skills
that apply to selling a claimapplying to influencing someone
to change their mind. And matterof fact, we use the exact same
steps. So there's five steps innegotiation process, and we show
(04:37):
justice how to use those fivesteps in a number of situations,
not only to settle the claim,but like I said, sometimes just
asking people to do somethingthey don't want to do. The point
of negotiation is to changesomeone's mind and influence
someone. And that's what'sreally about without them making
feel like you push them around.
And that's that's an importantelement because claims person
thinks to get cooperation whenthey say that if you don't sign
(04:57):
we won't pay you and then when aperson says only says final sign
the stupid form, they'll thinkthey have cooperation. But
that's not cooperation that'spushing people around, that's
getting to do what you want themto do. Cooperation is where you
actually change their mind andget them to agree that it was
the right thing to do. So thoseskills transfer, you know, in a
number of ways, interpersonalskills ways, for any claims
(05:17):
person.
Mike Gilmartin (05:19):
Yeah, I think that's a great point. I think
it's something Greg talks abouta ton. It's something that I
when I had claims, folks, wetalk all the time, if you're not
going to develop a relationship,or at least get an understanding
of where somebody's coming from,and develop that rapport.
Everything else in the claimsprocess is harder. I mean, it
just it to your point, you'renot getting cooperation, you're
basically asking people to dothings I don't wanna say under
(05:42):
duress, but it makes a bigdifference. And it's the same in
any relationship, right? I mean,if you develop a solid
relationship with somebody, andthey trust you, and they feel
like you have their bestinterests at heart, it makes
things like negotiating a loteasier. And the biggest thing
that I've also found, and I alsotook your your course, when I
was at my prior employer, whichwas the same as Greg's, so you
came to see us, butunderstanding the motivations of
(06:05):
people as well. And you canlearn that throughout the life
of your claim of what'simportant to them, what matters
to them, what motivates them,because all of those things play
an important part, going off ofthat, what is the importance of
planning prior to havingnegotiations with someone, when
you get to that step of a claim?
Yeah.
Carl Van (06:21):
Because that really is an important part, too, like you
just said, to know what angleyou're going to take right now
is this person, you know, a veryemotional person, because upset
about what happened to them?
Well, then maybe, you know, letme plan up the fact that I'm
going to talk about a littleempathy, and I'm very sorry,
that's happened to you. And thatkind of thing. You know, if you
know, someone's only interestedin the dollar amount, then maybe
lay out your case a little bitmore of exactly how you got to
(06:42):
this particular figure,negotiating with attorneys, we
get into that quite a bit. Thevery best claims negotiators
I've ever met or monitored, areones where they actually plan
out what they're going to say,they'll actually write it out.
Here's what I'm going to say, tomake my point about this issue.
You know, here's what I'm gonnasay about this. And they
actually write it out word forword, they kind of almost have
(07:02):
that conversation in their mindin advance. So with with high
level negotiations, likeattorneys, the more planning the
better with, you know,individual injured people,
injured workers, you know,anybody, you know, even if
you're selling a total US car orsomething like that, the best
thing to do is is to plan outhow you how you're going to
start with this, this is this isall business or, you know, some
(07:23):
empathy required, you know,something along those lines.
Greg Hamlin (07:27):
Yeah. And I've seen that a lot crawl on the opposite
end, where we figure out whatour authority is, we give it to
our attorney, and then you know,we move on. And we haven't
really put together a plan ofwhere are we starting with this?
Because if we don't know wherewe're starting, we don't know
where we're ending up. And if wedon't talk about the reasons why
we're supporting the case we'remaking for whatever it is we
(07:50):
want to negotiate. That makes itchallenging. I know that's one
of the things that you're big onis asking why to yourself, and
also to them in the negotiationprocess. Can you talk a little
bit about that?
Carl Van (08:02):
Yeah. One of the Maxim's we teach is that people
will consider what you have tosay, to the exact degree you
demonstrate you understand wherethey're coming from? And what
does that really understandwhere can people come from It's
empathy. And claims people mightunincluded, I feel guilty when
when I was selling claims thatwe tend to want to argue with
people, we tend to want to showthem that they're wrong. Let me
(08:23):
show you, you're incorrect. Andwhat we've learned now over the
years is, you're actually betteroff just showing could be
understand them. So the verysimple example I just gave you
with someone just want to sign aform. You ask them when we sign
the form, they say no. And theysay, you ask why Why don't want
to send the form. And they say,because my neighbor these in a
second law school said don'tsign another person will do is
(08:46):
argue, well, you know, what doesyour neighbor know? And why did
he tell you that? Well, wetalked about taking the time to
acknowledge that, you know what,if you talk to your neighbor,
you respect his opinion, and hegave you the advice not to sign
anything, I can understand whyyou would want it, that's
perfectly reasonable. Now,here's why we need this form
sign, here's what it is. Andhere's what it says. And the
idea there is that people willtend to pay attention a little
(09:07):
bit more, once you've shown themyou understand their point of
view, but you can't show themyou understand the point of
view. If you don't ask them why.
So in any situation, we're goingto pay you $90,000 It's not
enough. Can you tell me why?
Knowing that you're going to askwhy. And knowing that whatever
they say you're gonnaacknowledge that you understand
it, not that you agree with it.
Not that they're right. But youunderstand where they're coming
from, gives them the opportunityto change the mind without them
(09:29):
feeling stupid. And that'sreally the point you want to
want to influence someone tochange the mind without them
having to pay any penalty to doso. But when you argue with
people, you making them admitthat they're wrong, change their
mind. And so we show them thatyou can bypass that you don't
have to prove anyone wrong. Youonly have to prove yourself
right. So asking why is thefirst step in any negotiation
process because you can't showpeople you understand where
(09:52):
they're coming from if you don'task them where they're coming
from.
Mike Gilmartin (09:56):
Or oh, this is I need to apply this to my home
life because I I've taken yourclass and I wrote your book. But
for somehow I skip this step,when I'm arguing with my wife, I
just want to be right versusasking why I'm showing empathy.
But I'm reminded of that fact,because I negotiate for a
living. But you know, I seem toskip that on personal levels,
which, again, I agree with you,100%. It's all about empathy. If
(10:17):
people feel heard, and they feelseen, and they feel like you
understand where they're comingfrom, you're gonna be in a much
better place, which is a hugedeal that I think we all need to
remind ourselves of sometimes.
Speaking of that, right? I mean,people, people think of
negotiations as an argument, andto a point, it is an argument,
but that word has a little bitof negative connotation to it.
But a lot of the things youmentioned earlier, Carl come in
(10:38):
is there's a lot of emotioninvolved. There's a lot of
emotion involved, and work compclaims. There's a lot of emotion
involved in how people aretreated. And a lot of times
negotiations, people argue withreasons or emotions versus
arguing with facts. And so, youknow, I just wanted to kind of
get your idea of what is the bigdifference when it comes to
negotiation arguing with kind ofa reason or an emotion versus
(10:58):
arguing with facts? And what howimportant that is?
Carl Van (11:03):
Sure. And by the way, just so you know, I get accused
of being a marriage counselor inevery class, I teach people. I'm
not a marriage counselor, butthey do understand some of the
concepts are overlapping.
Mike Gilmartin (11:13):
It does apply if you listen. Yeah.
Carl Van (11:16):
Yeah. The The difference is, when you ask
someone, why is this figure I'mgiving you enough land, we're
gonna pay you 68,000? Why isn'tenough? Okay? Whatever reason
they give you try not to arguewith it, acknowledge it. We
don't really say argue with thefacts, we say, argue the facts.
So what we're trying to say is,rather than argue with with
their reasons, you want topresent the facts of the case.
(11:39):
So you ask them like, Hey, we'regonna pay you, you know,
$40,000. That's not enough. Canyou tell me why? Yeah, because
they got nowhere else got$100,000. And he only had a
stubbed toe. Rather than arguingWell, what kind of injury was
it? What was his disabilityrating? How long was he off
work? And and now that if you dothat, now, the two of you both
talking about a claim, neitherone of you know anything about,
(12:00):
just acknowledge it and get backto the issue. And so say, you
know, what, if the person in thewarehouse got 100,000? For step
two, I can certainly understandyour point of view, that does
make sense. Would you agree thatit probably makes more sense for
us to talk about your claim andyour injury and how this
affected you, and not getdistracted by the person in the
warehouse? We agree with that?
Sure. Okay. Let me explain toyou how I got to my figure. And
so you're not arguing with thefacts, you're arguing or
(12:23):
executing, you're not arguingwith the reasons you're arguing
the facts. So it just meanspresenting the facts, as opposed
to presenting why someone'swrong about something.
Greg Hamlin (12:34):
I think that's huge. And I think you hit on a
few things there that I reallyvalue, and use all the time. And
one is just remembering not toget pulled in to the emotions of
the situation. And I think oneof the things I've learned
through my time in claims andbeing a parent of six kids,
which is crazy, is slowing downtoo. And just remembering to
(12:56):
slow down. And think before Isay something, because a lot of
times when we get down theserabbit holes, it's because we
just we didn't slow down, or wedidn't take time to listen to
what they really had to say,before we got pulled in. I know
one of the things you arereally, really big on is gaining
cooperation. And we've alreadytalked about that a little bit
(13:19):
that the negotiations actuallystart at they want first time
you talk to them. Talk to us alittle bit about gaining
cooperation a little bit more.
Sure.
Carl Van (13:27):
It's part of the five steps that we teach. So again,
the first step is asking whyagain, something very simple.
Hey, I need you to send inreceipts, okay? Something if you
want reimbursement on receiptstogether send receipts. And you
ask them, will you please sendme the receipts? If they say
yes, negotiations over? Say no,you got to ask why can you tell
me why you don't want to sendreceipts? The person says,
(13:48):
because you're just going to useit against me, something's crazy
like that. What are typicalresponse would be is why would
we do that? And we startarguments person. And all we
want to do is just turn itaround a little bit. Look, if
you don't want to send themreceipts, because you're
concerned, we're going to usethem against you, I can
understand that. That makessense. The purpose of us getting
the receipts is to verifyexactly what you spent so you
can get every single pennyyou're entitled to. So again,
(14:09):
it's just you know, I understandyour point of view. Let's get
back to the issue at hand.
Another example I've heardrecently, an adjuster asked a
customer to sign a medicalauthorization form. And these
workers said no, I'm not doingthat. Why not? Because I was
told I wouldn't have to signanything. Of course, what the
adjuster asked, well, who toldyou that? And now, who told them
that it takes them 15 minutes totrack down this person named
(14:31):
Stephanie? And then comes up toStephanie says, Hey, did you
tell this guy who wouldn't havetaken assigned anything? Well,
guess what? Stephanie says no.
So now it just gets back on thephone calls up the customer and
says, Well, I talked toStephanie, she said she didn't
say that. And now you just callthe guy. I would bypass all that
time. I would just say you knowwhat, if you got told that you
(14:51):
weren't going to have to signanything, then I can understand
why you would want to that makesperfect sense. You expect us to
keep our promises. I want toapologize. You got the wrong
information. I'm very sorry.
About that this form isrequired. There's no way for us
to get your medical recordswithout it's some I'm sorry, you
got the wrong information. Ifyou sign it, send it to me. I'll
work hard to make sure you get afair settlement. But I'm
certainly sorry, you got thewrong information. And that's
what I would probably do, I'dprobably do that, instead of
(15:14):
running around trying to provethat no one actually told the
customer that you can't prove tosomeone they heard something
wrong.
Mike Gilmartin (15:22):
Yeah, that's very true. And I really, really
like we all spend way too muchtime trying to prove each other
wrong and be right versus justhave moving on with the
situation, because the way youdescribed is just so much easier
on so many levels. One of thebiggest things, obviously, in
building rapport and developingrelationship and just
communication with human beingsis being able to see how the
(15:43):
other person is reacting to whatyou're telling them, right.
Like, I tell people all thetime, there's someone say to me,
like they're mad at me. I said,Well, how do you know that?
They're like, what's it, I canread it in the text? And like,
we have no clue what that personmeant by what they said, because
it's something they wrote toyou, right? And so a lot of our
negotiations happen over thephone or happening in a setting
where we can't see the personwe're talking to? Do you have
(16:06):
any recommendations? Or is thereany way to pick up on nonverbal
communication? While you're notbeing able to see the person? Is
there anything you can do betterin order to maybe pick up on
some of the nonverbal?
Carl Van (16:17):
That's real hard? The number one, of course, always is
tone? So when they answer thatquestion, you say, Would you
would you give me Would you letme ask you some questions, and
they say, Sure. That's it. Idon't know about this, I don't
trust you. I'm gonna go alonguntil you start to deceive me.
So tone is always the numberone, the number two, one would
(16:39):
be pauses that people have tothink about what you're asking,
Well, did you show up on time towork that day of the accident,
and you get a big long pause?
They're thinking they're tryingto right now, should I tell the
truth? So why should I? Why isthis person gonna ask him is
what would be really important?
And so pauses? Before verysimple questions is a clue.
(16:59):
Another clue is if they keeprepeating questions for very
simple, okay. Do you normallywork Monday to Fridays? And they
say, Do I normally work Mondayto Friday? Yes, that's feeding
very simple questions. They'revery concerned that they're
there. They're either thinkingabout lying, or they're worried
that you're going to trap themin something. So that's a clue.
(17:21):
And also, when people's tone ofvoice always goes up at the end
of the sentence, some peoplethat just do that, but if it's
not normal for them, if you'reasking somebody questions, were
you injured? When How long wereyou that the doctors you know
what happened? And this and theyanswer questions normally, but
then you start asking questionslike, Okay, well, did you look
at the gauge before you turn iton? And then they start their
(17:42):
tone changes, maybe their tonegoes up at the end of the
sentence or something? You know,that's an indication, again,
maybe maybe they're concerned orthey lying, or they think you're
lying to them. So tone again,tone is always the big one. The
second one would be pauses. Andthen the third would be always
repeating questions that arevery simple questions that
you're asked.
Greg Hamlin (18:03):
I think those are all healthcare tools. And it is
challenging, because in today'sworld, we do so much of our work
on the phone. And I wonder, withthe changes that are happening
with technology, if we will seemore video, video chats, you
know, but I think we're stillprobably a little ways away for
that from that time. I know inthe negotiation process, there
are lots of things that gettalked about a lot. We have a
(18:25):
wide audience, some of them arevery experienced, others maybe
haven't done very muchnegotiating at all. One of the
things we hear about a lot isbidding against yourself. And so
could you explain what that is?
And then maybe talk about isthere ever a time that is okay.
Carl Van (18:40):
Yeah, bidding against yourself is where you increase
your settlement figure withoutthe other person coming down. So
you're saying I'm going to pay60,100, and you go to 70, and
they don't come down, and thenyou go to 80k, or you go to 75,
so you're not bidding againstyourself. So it's a very, very
good rule of thumb. There's oneexception, which most people
don't know, the exception is ifyou can stay in your
conversation. So what that meansis, if you can get the other
(19:03):
person to talk about yournumber, rather than their
number, it's perfectly okay tobid against yourself. So if I
say I'm gonna pay you 75,000,they say, Well, I want 100 will
tell me why 75,000 isn't right.
Well, $75,000 isn't right,because this, this and this,
okay, I'll tell you what, basedon what we just talked about,
I'll increase my 70 to 85. No,85 still isn't enough because
this and this, okay, let mealter it to 90 I can increase my
(19:24):
settlement figures as long asthe other person isn't bringing
up their number anymore. Okay.
And that's called staying inyour conversation. So if you can
get the other person to stoptalking about them number and
only talk about your number youcan bid against yourself all day
long. Matter of fact, I wouldrather I would rather bet
against myself rather than sitthere and try and bring somebody
(19:45):
down. If I'm at 50 and 300. Youknow, I don't want to try to
bring them down from 350. Okay,I don't have that. I don't have
300. But I got more than 50. Soif I can get them to talk about
50 Even if they're complainingabout even if The same $50,000
isn't nearly enough, I'm stillwinning, because they're talking
about 15. And I'm talking about300. So if they give that up, if
(20:07):
they stop talking about 50, andyou go to 60, and you complain
about that, you go to 65, andyou're still not happy, believe
it or not, you're still winning,because they're not thinking
about 300 Anything. So notbidding against yourself, it's a
very, very good rule of thumb.
With one exception, if you canstand your conversation and get
the other person to stop talkingabout the number, you can bid
against yourself all day longmethod, I wouldn't want to
(20:28):
remind the person oh, by theway, I went up to 60. So you
have to come down from 300. Youknow, why would I? Why would I
want to remind the person thatthat's where they were at
Mike Gilmartin (20:37):
least a lot of times meaning this goes in our
next question a little bit. ButI mean, demands from folks
generally aren't based in facts.
They're just based. And I think,oh, this or this is what I want.
And so it's really a number toyour point, that's not even
worth acknowledging or talkingabout, because it's not based in
the facts of the case, or whatwhat you're looking at. So that
goes into my next question. Andit's something that people
always say, Well, I don't wantto start negotiations until I
(20:58):
request the demand and see wherethey're at. But what are your
thoughts about requesting ademand before going into
settlement negotiations?
Carl Van (21:07):
Well, one of the things we do try to teach the
judges you depending on thedemand, depending on someone
else to tell you that guy thatclaim, and by the way, they
haven't put in nearly the effortyou put into it that's kind of
just making up a number. So whatdifference make as a matter of
fact, what we teach what here'sa typical call adjuster calls
up, an attorney says, Okay,let's sell your case. And the
attorney says you get our demand440,000. And it just there's no
(21:31):
way this thing's worth 400,000No, yeah, why not? And then they
spent a half hour talking about$400,000. And then at the end of
a half hour, the adjustedfunding says, Well, look, we can
only pay 50. The problem is youjust spent a half hour talking
about someone else's number,which is not your conversation.
So the right way to deal withthat would be hey, let's sell
your clients case. Did you getour demand for 40,000? Yeah, I
got demand. But we need to talkabout the value of the case and
(21:52):
the value 50,000? Here's why.
It's literally Why are you goingto talk some about another thing
meet up when you can be talkingabout a number that you've
actually spent time evaluating.
And so a lot of the very bestnegotiators, I'll tell you, I
got lots of advice on them. Sotreat the word demand like a
tennis ball, you have a tennisball, you throw it against the
wall, what happens it comesback, is it every single time
the attorney says demand you sayvalue, or demands 400? I know
(22:16):
but I want to talk about thevalue here. Well, we lower our
demand, you keep talking aboutdemands, I'm trying to talk
about the value, every singletime the attorney says demand,
you say value back, it lets theattorney know, okay, I'm not
going to be fooled by somereally ridiculous number. So
going to your question now isI'm not a big fan of asking
attorneys for the demand,because it almost implies that
the demand has something to dowith the value of your case. And
(22:38):
that you're going to use that inthat value. Well, you shouldn't
be doing that you should beevaluating the case, right?
separately. Now, a lot ofattorneys won't give you the
information, you need toevaluate the case until the
demand comes in. So that's okay.
But I'm not a big fan of askingthere. It's been an attorney of
what their number is. I mean, itjust it shouldn't affect how you
evaluate this case. And all itdoes is give them the upper
(22:58):
edge.
Mike Gilmartin (23:00):
No, I completely agree to something that as with
newer adjusters I was worked on,because a lot of times, you
know, it's why I needed demandto see where they are. And to
your point, it doesn't matterwhere they are, it matters what
the value of your case is. Andbased on the facts that you
have, and the information youhave and what you know about the
claim. And I also find thatevery once awhile when somebody
gets a demand, and if they're anewer adjuster, they're already
(23:21):
flustered because oh, wellshoot, we have the value of the
claim at 25,000. They're sayingthey want 200 I like we're this
is never going to happen, asopposed to focusing on the value
of the case and the value ofwhat it's worth versus just a
random number. That's yourpoint. Somebody probably took
five minutes to say, Yeah, 200.
Sounds good. Let's go with that.
So I want to 100% agree withyou. I think Greg would, too, on
(23:43):
that.
Carl Van (23:43):
Well, and I think that's why attorneys do that,
because it does work. BecauseI've had a justice working for
me asking for authority for50,000. We went through it all
together. Okay, great. Write up.
Yes. 50,000. Great, you got it.
And then they come back to us,they are going to have to get
more authority. Look, I got ademand from nine dogs. And
nothing's changed. Absolutely noinformation has changed other
than this number that came in.
So I'm not a big fan of this.
(24:05):
But I'll tell you, even thoughsome adjusters say, Oh, I don't
pay attention to the number, Idon't pay attention. I was
worked as a consultant with onecompany, you know what they
started doing? Before they justgot the demand letter, the
manager would blank out how muchthe demand was for they got all
the other information. But theadjustment wasn't allowed to
know what the demand was. Andthey started freaking out. At
(24:27):
the same it just to say auto payattention to that were like,
Well, I gotta go to the end iswhy you're the one who said you
don't pay attention. And it juststarted freaking out. So we
secretly depend on it a littlebit more. It's almost like we're
hoping it's going to come in atsomething reasonable, but you
know, never, never really does.
So I'll tell you, I'm a big fan.
If I've got everything I need.
If I got all the information Ineed, right the records,
(24:49):
employment records, the doctor'srecords, I've got everything I
need. I'm fine with calling upan attorney and saying here's
our settlement fee to give me ademand. I don't need your
number. I even had attorneyswill send you the demand. And
I'll tell them I don't I don'tneed to demand just sending
direct. So I'm a real big fan.
And you know, I've actually hadto just say, well, but what if
the attorney would have acceptedless? Yeah, like, that's a big
(25:09):
mystery, your big attorney wouldhave accepted less? Had you not
offered this figure? I think yougive me a
Mike Gilmartin (25:14):
break. That is the argument here. Well, what if
they were gonna demand less?
When? What in the real world isthat ever occurred to anybody?
Exactly. That's the good.
Greg Hamlin (25:22):
And the reality is, we want to do the right thing.
So if we owe it, we should payit. And you know, and so part in
my mind, I often think aboutthat, like, you know, if we're
sticking to the numbers of whatthis is valued, and it's rooted
in facts, then why should we bewaiting? You know, if they were
going to take less okay, butyou're gonna win? Is that ever
gonna happen? You're exactlyright on that it's not
Carl Van (25:43):
gambling. That's a concern. But that's what's
keeps. Some people say, like,Well, I gotta know, because what
if people are thinking like,yeah, sure, sure. So what? We're
not going to cheat anybody? Sowhat if we would have taken less
because the value of the claimlooks bad?
Greg Hamlin (25:54):
That's exactly right. That's exactly right. So
going down that path a littlefurther, I think you've hit on
this on several of the examplesthat you've given. But Are there
words that you would avoidnegotiating? I think you said
demands one of them. But Butwhat other others out there that
you're like, you know, probablystay away from these,
Carl Van (26:10):
a lot of people will will use the word offer all the
time. But most experts say don'tuse the word offer, because too
many people the word offer,we're going to offer you
$60,000. To many people thatimplies here's our starting
point. So they'll tell you touse the word, the value of your
claim, the settlement value ofyour claim is $82,000. And we
want to pay you the entirething. First, that would rather
than we want to offer you 80,000Because that one word right
(26:32):
there tells Ted not everybody,but too many people that implies
Okay, well, this is this wastheir starting point. But you
don't want to do that innegotiation. You don't want to
give them that now with anattorney, you know, we all know
offer demand, not nonsense. Butwhen someone is unrepresented,
you want to stay away from that,we want to hear the phrase, we
took a look at your file, dearMrs. Smith, I took a look at
your file. Think about look atit. Too many people that will
(26:54):
imply that you just glanced atit. I mean, you didn't work this
file, you took a look at it.
Think about this, you know, wework hard and clench. So I'll
tell people, you know, takecredit for the work you're
doing. Don't tell a customer,you took a look at their file, I
want to let you know Ithoroughly evaluated this case,
I double check the numbers, Ireread the doctor's reports, and
I have a very fair settlementfigure I'd like to discuss with
you. There don't say took a lookat it. Another one came up with
(27:17):
alright, we came up with 82,000Docs. To many people, the word
the phrase came up with quiteliterally means we made it up
here. We made it up. There,right. And so we talked about,
you know, know that we did acareful evaluation. And I want
to share with you the results ofthat evaluation. Another word or
phrase sometimes just use allthe time not meaning to offend
(27:38):
anybody but to say, Oh, I had achance to review your file had a
chance to I had an opportunityto review your file. And think
about that you had anopportunity amongst what other
more important work you have.
When you tell someone I had achance to review your file,
you're admitting you almostdidn't get to imagine I almost
didn't get to your file. That'show important you are. That's
(28:00):
how people will take that. Whatif you didn't have a chance?
What if you didn't have a slowweek, I wouldn't get any money.
So when you tell someone I had achance to review your file, I
had an opportunity you'retelling the person you almost
did, that's how unimportant youare. So I would say the exact
opposite. I would say Jacob, youknow what, I have nothing more
important on my desk to makesure that you're fairly
compensated. So I want to listento I thoroughly reviewed this
(28:23):
case, I carefully went over thenumbers. I reread the doctor's
reports, and I have a very clearseven figure I'd like to discuss
with you. And that's how it saidI certainly wouldn't say I had
an opportunity to do it. Icertainly couldn't do that. So
those are just some of thecommon ones.
Mike Gilmartin (28:37):
What all I mean, it all goes back to empathy and
a relationship, right? I mean,those things to your point, we
don't always take time to stepback and think about the words
that we say and how other peoplewill receive them. And I think
that's one of the biggestthings. And one of the biggest
themes of everything you'retalking about today is getting
cooperation and gaining trustand understanding of being
empathetic is all of the thingsthat we're doing. It's how we
(29:00):
say what we say it's what wesay, that is also important. I
just think it's it's such a hugedeal. And it's something I'm
guilty of, and I'm sure Greg istoo I'm just gonna throw him in
the same bus as me like, I dothings like that. I do things
like that, when I'm talking toour agents, or when I'm talking
to somebody without eventhinking about it, right. It's
almost second nature to say, oh,yeah, I just second look at it.
Here's what we're doing. Andwhen you take a step back, and
(29:21):
you think about I had a secondto look at it and what that
means to somebody else. It'spretty damning, honestly. So
it's a very, very good reminder.
Greg, any thoughts on that part?
Greg Hamlin (29:32):
No, I completely agree. I mean, I had a situation
not necessarily a negotiationsituation. But this was just
last week. We had a employee ofours, who's been with our
company for 15 years, and she'sdecided to retire. And we were
talking about when her datewould be that huge, valuable
member of our team. And I wastalking to the HR department
about, you know, next steps andwe hadn't figured out the actual
(29:56):
day at that point. That would beher last day. You know, of
course we'd like to keep her forforever. But, you know, we were
talking to her about workingthrough that. And I talked to
our HR department, I said, well,we need to start working on the
new position. And she said,Well, wait a minute, you want to
post the position, but you don'thave a date yet that you've
agreed upon with her, when herlast day is how do you think
that might make her feel? And Iwas like, You know what, that is
(30:19):
a really good point. I said, Youare spot on. And I talked to
this individual about it. And Isaid, Hey, you know, sometimes
I'm so busy, and I'm trying tomove things along. And I want
things to run smoothly, that Iget going, and I need to slow
down. And I shared that withher. And she said, You know
what, I'm glad that you didthat, you know, if you had
posted that position, before wehad figured out my retirement
(30:41):
date, it would have felt likethat you were just you already
had a plan, you're ready to seeme go. So I think we do that to
ourselves sometimes. And that'san example maybe outside of
negotiation, but we don't thinkabout how we say, or what we're
doing could be interpreted bysomebody else. And slowing down
is a big deal. So I love that
Carl Van (31:01):
this interpreting partner happens all the time.
Just recently, I was listeningto an adjuster call with an
injured worker and say, Hey, Ineed you to fill out this
medical authorization form. Andyou know, this package, and the
person says, I don't want to dothat. And the adjuster said, why
it's not complicated. Now, theadjuster, the this, the judge
did not mean to say I thinkyou're stupid person. That's not
what he meant. But that's howthe person took it. And so if
(31:25):
people can take something thewrong way, maybe we need to be a
little bit careful of how wephrase things.
Mike Gilmartin (31:29):
Well, and I think not to not to go down a
rabbit hole a little bit. Butpeople are so reliant now on
email and text communication.
And there's other roles if thereisn't ease to it, and everything
else. But I would have adjustersconstantly come to me and say I
forged an email, look at this.
What do you think they meant bythis? Or they're mad at me? Or
this is not? And I said, haveyou talked to them? Have you
(31:50):
picked up the phone and callthem and understood where
they're coming from? Or heardthe tone of their voice or
anything? Well, no. I said, sohow do you know what they're
feeling or what they're tryingto convey to you in an email?
And I think it goes back to whatyou're talking about. I mean,
you can't infer what somebody'strying to hurt. You can certain
(32:11):
times but it is it there's overreliance on what are they I
think they're mad, or what dothey mean by this? And it's as
simple as, hey, let's just havea conversation, pick up the
phone and talk to them andlisten to them. And listen to
what they have to say and beempathetic. I just think it gets
missed. That's just great. Notinterrupt, I was just thrown out
there.
Greg Hamlin (32:30):
I completely agree.
So far. One of the other thingsthat you've talked about as a
potential tool is that sometimesyou do need an extra step to get
you there. And you call this thebridge. Can you talk to us a
little bit about that? If you'rein the negotiations, you've gone
through the steps, but you'restill stuck?
Carl Van (32:48):
Yeah, a bridge is a reason to give somebody to give
up what they believe in, comejoin you. So why should they
give this up? You're asking, youknow, it's usually it's usually
a misunderstanding. So if I'mtalking to, you know, Natalie,
Natalie animal, I use her help,she doesn't mind. Me say now
that, you know, we're going topay this $92,000, whatever. And
she says, well, but you know,I'm going to have this future
medical bills. So you're talkingabout the $484,380, that your
(33:12):
doctor said, you might have tohave that operation? Yes. Okay.
Well, that's not included. I'veactually included that that's
part of this figure here. Soright now I'm giving the person
a bridge, I'm giving them areason to give up why they
should believe that it's worthmore because it's actually
aren't included. Sometimes themisunderstanding is there, they
think they're entitled somethingthat they're not so Alright, so
again, Natalie, how about this90,000? Does that sound right?
(33:34):
Well, does that include my painand suffering? Okay, well, now
let you know what really isn'tcancer. And that's for personal
injury, it's not for workerscomp. So we really can't include
pain and suffering. In thissegment, we have to include all
the things you and I talkedabout, okay, which is the
disability rating and all that.
So we'd love to pay if we could,but we can't. Alright, so again,
the $90,000. So in both cases,I'm clearing up a
(33:55):
misunderstanding. Onemisunderstanding is she doesn't
realize that I've alreadyincluded those future medical
bills. Now they'remisunderstanding of something
she's not she thinks he'sentitled something she's not
going to get. So a bridge isgiving someone a reason, why
should they give up what theybelieve, in this particular
case, that that this changes thevalue of the case, and you have
to be on your toes? Sometimesyou just have to pay attention.
(34:18):
I heard one of your one, just tocall out and pick up the number
was they're gonna pay $100,000.
And the prisoner said, No, Iwant 200,000. And they just
said, Why do you want to own$1,000? And the customer said,
because I was told to doubleanything you offered me? Was it?
And so the adjuster just kind oflike well tell me what the
(34:38):
100,000 then went back and forthand back and forth. And it took
a long time. He just didn'tsettle the claim because he
didn't clear up themisunderstanding. The
misunderstanding this customerhad is you're gonna lowball me
say because he said it. I wastold to double anything your
offer. So the justice shouldhave said you know what, if you
want, you know, double becausethat's what you were told. I
just did that. That makes sense.
And you know what, maybe thathappens somewhere in the
industry. Maybe that happens,maybe there are insurance
(35:00):
companies throw out a lowfigure. So you could throw out a
high once and go back and forthand back and forth. And after
six hours, we'll come to theconclusion of what's right. Our
company choose not to do thatArcher, our company chooses to
pay a fair amount upfront forits customers. So what I'd like
to do is explain to you how Igot to this $90,000. So you can
feel comfortable to be treatedfairly and don't have to worry
about playing a numbers game. SoI'm absolutely the case, what's
(35:22):
the misunderstanding that wejust play numbers that clearly
standing, then we just thrownumbers back and forth until we
get tired. So I would clear thatmisunderstanding up before I
ever tried to negotiate. Sothat's what the bridges the
bridges is, is an opportunity tobring somebody over to your side
of the negotiation. That'sawesome.
Greg Hamlin (35:40):
I think that's a good a good reminder, Carl, I
know your time is valuable. Welove having you on this episode.
There are a lot of folks in theindustry who could use your
skills, I assume you do thesetypes of trainings for
corporations or insurancecompanies, if someone wanted to
reach out to you to have thiskind of training with their
staff? How would they do that?
Yeah, we
Carl Van (36:00):
go anywhere, the United States, Canada, UK and
Australia go anywhere to deliverdeliver claims training. So
while you're on site, or wedeliver it virtually through our
webinar programs, so either one,they can go to our website,
which is www dot insurance,institute.com. That's a long one
insurance institute.com. Or theycan send me an email directly
Carl Van, at insuranceinstitute.com. And either way,
(36:25):
they can order a catalog off ourwebsite, or they can email me
directly, I'd be more than happyto chat with anybody.
Mike Gilmartin (36:29):
We took your class, it had to have been, I
don't know how many years agonow I know, at least 10 years
ago, I've been a hero seven. Andit was while I was in Illinois.
But it was it's so valuable. Andit's it's I hate to say it's not
rocket science, but it's notthings you think about until
you're reminded and you you'reintentional about thinking about
(36:50):
them. And it's such goodconcepts to get yourself in a
good mind frame when you'redoing this. But it's also just
so valuable to life. Like Isaid, I made the joke earlier
about arguing with my wife, orarguing with my brother or
whoever. But these things applyanywhere you have a
conversation, like it applies toevery part of your life. And so
for what it's worth, it's a veryvaluable thing. And your work
(37:14):
has had an effect on me andhelped me be more successful. So
for that, I appreciate it.
Carl Van (37:18):
Right, I'm gonna have to raise my prices.
Greg Hamlin (37:21):
I echo everything Mike said. So that's one of the
reasons obviously I reached outis made an impact. And when
you're still rememberingsomething 10 years later, that's
a good thing. So definitelyencourage our listeners if this
is something that would behelpful to reach out to Carl and
his team because they do goodwork. One of the things that
we're doing this year as we wrapthings up, I would like to put
(37:42):
some good karma in the universe.
I feel like you put good outgood comes back this season, one
of the things we're doing isasking each of our guests just
something that makes them smile,something that when you think
about it makes you smile. SoCarl for you, when you have one
of those days, and you thinkabout something, it's just like,
You know what, that makes mehappy? What's that for you?
Carl Van (38:02):
Well, besides the obvious my grandkids work
related, it's definitely when Iget emails from people after
class saying this is reallygoing to help me I was
struggling, this is going tohelp me or after customer
service class have an injusticesay I had no idea I was actually
in the business of helpingpeople this is really going to
help me deal with you know,people getting angry at me at
times whatever. So I'm mostgrateful for having an impact in
(38:23):
people's lives. And and havinghaving a job where I get that
feedback in flames is aninjustice. Sometimes you do a
great job for a customer but younever hear from again, that
that's that's, you know, youknow, you did a good job, but
you might not hear it. But in mybusiness, I hear it a lot. And
still, that's probably the thingI'm most grateful for to have an
opportunity to help people andhear about it. That's awesome.
Greg Hamlin (38:45):
That's awesome.
Well, we appreciate your time,Carl, again, encourage folks to
reach out if they have questionsor they're interested in some of
your services, and remind ouraudience to do write think
differently, and don't forget tocare. And that's it for this
episode. Thanks, everybody.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.