July 2017 E-Bulletin for Arbitrators

This month's E-Bulletin topics include:

  1. Clerical Error Update
  2. Spot the Error
  3. Upcoming Arbitrator QwikShare — "Clerical Error" Redefined
  4. Member Feedback... Thank You, Arbitrators!

Clerical Error Update

AF is always listening to our members regarding our products and services, making sure they provide the highest possible quality and member satisfaction.

Based on member feedback, the following change to the definition of Clerical Error (noted by underline) will be effective for all cases heard on and after July 1, 2017, with the exception of cases filed in the NYPIP forum.

"Clerical Error — A mistake made by Arbitration Forums' staff or the arbitrator(s). Examples of AF staff error include not providing proper notice of the Materials Due Date or not assigning a requested three-person panel. Arbitrator errors include mathematical errors; switching the parties when recording the liability decision; referencing the lack of or need for evidence that was, in fact, submitted; applying, on his/her own, a state regulation or statute from a state other than the loss state; or misapplying an AF Rule or procedure. It is at AF's sole discretion to determine whether a correctible error was made."

Top of this bulletin

Spot the Error

Woman looking through magnifying glassCan you spot the arbitrator error in the following decisions? We've bolded key information to help.

Case 1

Total Company Claim Amount: $3,949.61
Deductible Paid by Insured: $500.00
Payment Accepted: $2,460.07
(Applicant seeks remaining balance of $1,989.54)

Amount Paid to Applicant Company: $2,538.07 (two payments made/cleared: $2,460.07 and $78.00)

Credit for Prior Payments: $2,460.07
Total Award Against: $877.14

Case 2

Total Company Claim Amount: $16,281.90
Deductible Paid by Insured: $500.00
Payment Accepted: $0.00

Amount Paid to Applicant Company: $16,047.51 (proof that payment cleared)

Credit for Prior Payments: $0.00
Total Award Against: $16,547.51

In both cases, the Respondent provided proof that its payment(s) to the Applicant had cleared; however, the arbitrator failed to apply the Credit for Prior Payment correctly.

Remember to account for prior payments, especially when the "Amount Paid to Applicant Company" figure entered by the Respondent differs from the "Payment Accepted" figure entered by the Applicant.

Top of this bulletin

Upcoming Arbitrator QwikShare — "Clerical Error" Redefined

Qwickshare WebinarEnroll today for our upcoming Arbitrator QwikShare! Our QwikShares are 20-minute, topic-specific webinars that focus on post-decision corrections and issues that frequently generate questions from arbitrators. During these instructor-led webinars, attendees may ask questions via Chat. We know your time is valuable. We hope you'll appreciate and take advantage of the opportunity for AF to quickly share important feedback and tips without a significant investment of your time.

Enroll in "Clerical Error" Redefined — Learn about the upcoming revisions to the term "clerical error." Specific examples of clerical errors will be discussed with the goal of preventing these errors before they occur. Attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions via Chat.

Top of this bulletin

Member Feedback... Thank You, Arbitrators!

Thank you graphicThe following is recent member feedback on decisions. Kudos to all on providing the high-quality decisions our membership values and appreciates.

"The detail in which she described how she rendered the decision. It was very detailed and easy to follow."
Thank you, Arbitrator Portia Richardson!

"It looks like the arbitrator reviewed all the material and based her decision on the facts. She didn't write a huge, long paragraph. It was short and sweet as to why she made her decision."
Thank you, Arbitrator Beth Ferraro!

"The arbitrator used common sense instead of just looking at the police report — and I'm the person who submitted the police report. Even though I lost, the arbitrator did the right thing."
Thank you, Arbitrator Wade Nuffer!

"The arbitrator thoroughly read the write-ups from both parties. Underneath the damages decision was a lengthy response as to why the decision was what it was, using the evidence that was submitted."
Thank you, Arbitrator Michael Marshall!

"The decision shows that she looked at all the factors involved, actually looked at the evidence that was submitted. She commented on what they received from both sides, so I feel that she did an outstanding job by reviewing all the evidence that was received. It just seems like she was an experienced adjuster, which is good. I like to see experienced adjusters hearing the cases."
Thank you, Arbitrator Heather Neal!

"It appeared that the arbitrator took quality time to actually review both sides and make the decision."
Thank you, Arbitrator Rebecca O'Connell!

Top of this bulletin