March 2019 E-Bulletin for TRS

This month's E-Bulletin topics include:

  1. New Functionality – Claims in Excess of $100,000
  2. Video Evidence – What It Is and Isn't
  3. New Members Joining TRS
  4. Reminder: Direct Filing Coming to TRS in April
  5. NASP 2019 Subrogation Litigation: Skills & Management Conference

New Functionality – Claims in Excess of $100,000

Image of a keyboard with a button that reads New FunctionalityWith the February release that removed the TRS® filing limits ($5,000 and $10,000 on counterclaims), functionality was also added to allow for filings that exceed the $100,000 compulsory limit.

When the recovering party’s Company-Paid Damages exceed $100,000, it will be prompted to advise if prior consent was secured from the responding party(ies). A “Yes” response will advise to submit the evidence of prior consent. A “No” response will allow the filing to proceed to see if the responding party(ies) consent. See Graphic 1 below.

The responding party’s workflow will vary based on the recovering party’s selection.
  • If the recovering party indicated prior consent was not secured, the responding party’s first step will be to either accept or deny consent to arbitrate. See Graphic 2 below.
  • If the recovering party indicated prior consent was secured, the responding party will be able to dispute this, if necessary, when it reviews the feature damages. See Graphic 3 below. If disputed, the first issue to be resolved will be consent. The filing will proceed to a liability and/or damages decision if consent is confirmed. The filing will be closed if consent is not confirmed.
Screenshot of the company-paid damages tab

Responding Party’s Options
1. Recovering party indicated prior consent was not secured
Screenshot of the Consent to Arbitrate over Compulsory Limit screen

2. Recovering party indicated prior consent was secured
Screenshot of the Feature Response consent option
Top of this bulletin

Video Evidence – What It Is and Isn't

Close-up image of a camera lensThe ability to upload and submit video evidence has been widely applauded by our membership, as it eliminates the need to schedule a date and time for a video conference in order to show the video to the arbitrator.

In a few cases, however, we have seen non-video evidence submitted as video evidence. Some recent examples include: a video of an audio cassette player playing a recorded statement and a video playing a voice message left by an insured.

To clarify, examples of appropriate video evidence include: dash-cam video of an accident, security video showing an accident, and video of an accident scene. In short, video evidence is something for the arbitrator to watch, not listen to.

In the case of evidence that is truly audio evidence (such as recorded statements or audio recordings), AF requires the written transcript of the recording be provided as evidence for the arbitrator to read. These items are not acceptable as video evidence and will not be considered by the arbitrator.
 
Top of this bulletin

New Members Joining TRS

Image of hands holding a quote bubble that reads Welcome AboardThe following members have set tentative dates to become active in TRS.

April 1 Meemic insurance
April 8 Progressive
April 16 Virginia Farm Bureau
April 29 Farmers Alliance Insurance
April 29 Kentucky National
April 29 Madison Mutual
April 29 Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
May 1 Permanent General
May 7 American Family
 
   
 
Top of this bulletin

Reminder: Direct Filing Coming to TRS in April

Image of a road sign that reads Coming SoonCurrently, members that file in the TRS® technology platform must initiate their cases in E-Subro Hub®. Beginning April 29, 2019, members will have the option to file directly from TRS without pushing demands from E-Subro Hub.
Top of this bulletin

NASP 2019 Subrogation Litigation: Skills & Management Conference

Omni Rancho Las Palmas Resort & Spa – Rancho Mirage, CA
March 28–29
Register today!
 
Top of this bulletin