What Claims Leaders Told Us: 5 Lessons From Claims Convos

Claims Convos is an on-the-record interview series with US P&C claims leaders, each talking about one specific thing working in their shop. Here are five lessons from the series so far, one per guest, each linked to the full episode.

‍

Five claims leaders, five things that worked

‍

Claims Convos is a short interview series for US property and casualty claims leaders. Each episode is an on-the-record conversation with a VP, Director or Head of Claims. The subject is always one specific thing working in their shop right now.

‍

The format is deliberately narrow. Every guest answers the same opening question: what is working, specifically? No frameworks, no theory. Then they translate it into something an adjuster could try on a real file the following Monday.

‍

Below are five lessons from the series so far, one per guest, each linked to the full episode.

‍

The context behind most of these conversations is severity. Marathon Strategies counted nearly 200 jury verdicts of at least $10 million against corporate defendants in 2025. That is a 40.7% increase over 2024, totaling $25.6 billion (Corporate Verdicts Go Thermonuclear: 2026 Edition). Every guest below was asked what actually moves that number.

‍

1. Read the file from the other side of the table

‍

Kim Moody, VP and Head of Claims, Golden Bear Insurance Company (episode 9)

‍

"The biggest enemy of recognizing exposure is our own biases."

‍

Moody's point is that adjusters and leaders naturally read a file from the carrier's side. That is exactly how exposure hides in plain sight.

‍

Her fix is to flip the perspective. Ask what story the plaintiff's attorney will tell a jury, using these facts, this handling and these notes. Read the file that way and the gaps appear early, while there is still leverage to act.

‍

She applies the same skepticism to litigation strategy. When a case is in suit, she expects defense counsel to have a plan for resolving it, not just for continuing it. Her question to counsel is direct: what does this next step change about our valuation, and what is our path to resolution?

‍

She also sets real 30, 60 and 90-day checkpoints on active litigation rather than rubber-stamping status updates. Each one asks whether the valuation has changed and what will specifically be different by the next checkpoint.

‍

Try this. Take your three largest open litigated files. Write, in a paragraph each, the story the plaintiff's attorney would tell. If that paragraph is more persuasive than your defense plan, you have found your next action.

‍

2. Write every note as if it will be read aloud

‍

Mike LaFond, Assistant Vice President of Claims, Pekin Insurance (episode 5)

‍

"Take notes like it's gonna be read aloud in court."

‍

This is not a hypothetical standard for LaFond. He has been deposed because a log note said one thing and the actions in the field said another.

‍

His file-level answer to nuclear verdict exposure is clean claim handling. Accurate log notes. Clear, consistent communication with the insured. The discipline to track every action and every decision.

‍

Handled that way, a file avoids the traps that escalate it: policy-limit demands, time-limit demands and documentation failures. Most of those situations stay tamped down before they become a litigation problem.

‍

LaFond also makes a structural argument that sits above the desk. Reinsurance changes which cases a carrier can afford to try. He describes a commercial auto case with 50/50 liability where the jury pool put the value at $15 million. Without reinsurance a carrier has to settle. With it, the carrier has the freedom to try the case.

‍

Try this. Pull a file you would not want read aloud. Find the gap between what the notes say and what the handling actually did, and fix the record going forward.

‍

3. Align everyone before positions harden

‍

Briana Ford, AVP and Head of Excess Claims, Xceedance (episode 7)

‍

"I'm not really sure that there's one single thing that's a difference maker," she says, "but I always preach to my team the importance of collaboration early and often."

‍

Ford is the only guest who declines to name a single fix, which makes her answer more useful. Claims that go nuclear usually show signs early, in her experience.

‍

Her approach is to get the adjuster, defense counsel, coverage counsel, any appellate counsel and the client aligned before positions become entrenched. She credits a mentor with advice she still uses. You have to pick and choose the hills you are going to die on. It is never good to pick all of them.

‍

She also argues for proactive communication with the claimant or their counsel. Many assume the other side will not talk or listen. She would rather try, and says opening that line early has resolved cases sooner than expected. Silence, in her view, lets both sides build assumptions.

‍

Try this. The recap describes one question Ford asks on every file. If this case resulted in a nuclear verdict tomorrow, what did we miss? Then pick one action, whether a liability investigation, an early mediation discussion, more expert work or a reserve review.

‍

4. Spend the time technology frees on human contact

‍

Michelle Raue, Founder and Advisor, Raue Strategic Advisory (episode 3)

‍

"Use AI to get the manual labor off so claims professionals can actually talk to people."

‍

Raue has held Chief Claims Officer roles from regional carriers to tier-one nationals. Her through-line is that reaching the claimant before the plaintiff attorney does is the whole game.

‍

She points out that the plaintiff bar has industrialized, with intake technology, marketing infrastructure and a simple message aimed at every injured claimant. Meanwhile the carrier side moved the other way. When she started, the standard was to sit down with the claimant in person within five days of opening a file. That standard disappeared as file volumes grew.

‍

Her position on AI follows from that. Technology should take the manual work off claims professionals so they have capacity to contact people. The caveat is the important part. If the freed time goes to outreach, the dynamic changes. If it goes to cutting the team, the contact problem gets worse.

‍

The capacity pressure behind her point is measurable. The Bureau of Labor Statistics puts employment of claims adjusters, examiners and investigators at 376,100 in 2025. It projects a 6% decline by 2035 (Occupational Outlook Handbook). Fewer people will handle the contact she is describing.

‍

Try this. Measure first contact. Not whether a letter went out, but whether a human being spoke to the claimant, and how many days after the file opened.

‍

5. Treat a closed claim as the goal

‍

Awais Farooq, Chief Claims Officer, Venbrook (episode 4)

‍

"A good claim is a closed claim."

‍

Farooq's team works to the motto Solve Fast, Move Forward. Two things drive outcomes in his view: communication and decisioning. Decisioning means having everything at your fingertips to make a call and move on.

‍

He names a specific failure mode. An adjuster picks up a complex file, is overwhelmed by the volume of information, and sets it aside. They go for the easier wins. The difficult claim sits there while people call and complain.

‍

His standard is that anybody can pick up any file, know where it is, and move it closer to the goalpost. He describes wanting an assistant that reviews a 500-page demand letter and whispers in the adjuster's ear before a negotiation. He was describing a capability he wants, not a product he uses.

‍

On nuclear verdicts, he is blunt about cause. Claimants get frustrated with the process, so they seek another avenue. Advocating for policyholders and making sure they receive everything due under the policy avoids a lot of that.

‍

Try this. Find the files nobody has meaningfully touched in 30 days. That list is usually the complex ones, and it is where severity compounds.

‍

What the five have in common

‍

Read together, a pattern emerges that none of the guests states outright.

‍

• Kim Moody. The lesson: Flip the perspective. What it is really about: Seeing the file the way the other side will.
• Mike LaFond. The lesson: Notes as trial evidence. What it is really about: Making the record match the handling.
• Briana Ford. The lesson: Collaborate early and often. What it is really about: Acting before positions harden.
• Michelle Raue. The lesson: Buy back time for contact. What it is really about: Reaching the claimant first.
• Awais Farooq. The lesson: Close the claim. What it is really about: Not letting hard files sit.

Four of the five are about timing. Recognizing exposure early, aligning parties early, contacting the claimant early, and not letting a complex file sit. The fifth, LaFond's, is about whether the record will survive being read by someone hostile.

‍

None of them is a technology answer. Raue is the only guest who raises AI directly, and her point is a constraint on it rather than an argument for it. Automation is worth having if the time it returns goes back into contact with people, and not if it does not.

‍

Where to watch

‍

All episodes are at Claims Convos. Each runs about 10 minutes. The series is hosted by Scott Francis, General Manager, US at amaise. Most episodes are filmed at industry events including CLM, NAMIC, RISE and CCLF.

‍

Guests are never asked to mention the sponsor, and no episode is conditional on a commercial relationship. The only filter is whether a claims leader has something specific that is working. None of the five above should be read as endorsing any product, including the sponsor's.

‍

The series takes guest pitches. It wants claims leaders who changed something that moved severity, cycle time or bodily injury outcomes in the last 12 months.

‍

A note on the common thread

‍

Four of the five lessons depend on getting through a claim file early enough to act on what is in it. That is a capacity problem before it is a technology one. It shows up across auto liability claims involving injury, workers' compensation claims handling and excess layers alike. Tooling such as structured medical intelligence for injury claims shortens the read. It does not supply the judgment, which in every episode above stayed with the claims professional.

‍

Key takeaways

‍

• Kim Moody of Golden Bear Insurance reads every file from the plaintiff's side first, because "the biggest enemy of recognizing exposure is our own biases."
• Mike LaFond of Pekin Insurance sets one documentation standard: take notes like they will be read aloud in court. He has been deposed over a log note that contradicted the field handling.
• Briana Ford of Xceedance aligns adjuster, defense counsel, coverage counsel and client before positions harden, and asks of every file what a nuclear verdict tomorrow would reveal was missed.
• Michelle Raue of Raue Strategic Advisory argues automation only helps if the time it returns goes into human contact with claimants, not into cutting the team.
• Awais Farooq of Venbrook works to one principle, that a good claim is a closed claim, and targets the complex files adjusters set aside.

‍