October 2021 E-Bulletin for Arbitrators

This month's E-Bulletin topics include:

  1. New Identity Management Solution Launching This November
  2. Paid, Unpaid, and Undetermined Exposures Coming Soon to Policy Limits in TRS
  3. Jurisdictional Exclusion Update
  4. Handling Additional Exposures in TRS
  5. Updated Tutorial: Liability Deductible/Self-Insured Retention Cases
  6. NASP 2021 Annual Conference: Remember the Subro

New Identity Management Solution Launching This November

Image of a calendar icon with November 1 on itOn November 1, AF will be transitioning our identity provider to an industry-leading identity management solution. We are confident this transition will provide the added layers of security and protection our members and arbitration and subrogation data deserve.

When accessing AF applications, users will be presented with a new login screen where they will be prompted to create or select a security question. 

Screenshot of the login pop-up
 
Screenshot of the forgotten password options

To best prepare for this change, users will need to know their password for our website. If you have saved this password and no longer remember it, please be sure to change your password before November 1.

For additional assistance, please view the guide available on the AF website.
 
Top of this bulletin

Paid, Unpaid, and Undetermined Exposures Coming Soon to Policy Limits in TRS

Image of a woman sitting at a laptopBeginning Monday, October 18, 2021, members will be able to enter paid, unpaid, or undetermined exposures to Policy Limits in TRS. This will give members the ability to define their exposures based on whether they have already been paid or are still unpaid. Members will also be able to mark exposures that have not yet been determined as undetermined. 

These additional details will help the arbitrator address issues regarding Policy Limits and calculate awards.
 
Top of this bulletin

Jurisdictional Exclusion Update

Illustration of a car on top of a law book with a gavel in front of itRecently, the Jurisdictional Exclusion of “filed in the wrong forum” has been replaced with “filed under wrong coverage.” Why the change?

This change better reflects the TRS design since TRS supports coverage-driven cases (collision/OTC, PIP, Med Pay, etc.) to track the dispute to the correct forum (versus forum-driven cases [the design used in our legacy system]). In arbitration, the coverage under which the first-party claim was paid drives the forum to which it tracks. For example, if a car accident between two or more potentially liable signatory parties results in damage to a building (assuming all parties are signatory to the Property Forum), the first-party claim for building damage belongs in our Property Forum, even though it was caused by an auto accident. In arbitration, the coverage under which the first-party claim was paid drives the forum to which it tracks; the coverage-based design of TRS has helped us reduce the number of improperly filed cases. 

We recognize that we will occasionally see cases in which the Recovering Party may not select the correct coverage under which its claim was paid. In this instance, the Adverse Party can raise a Jurisdictional Exclusion of “filed under wrong coverage” to remove the case from AF’s jurisdiction. The Recovering Party can then refile the case under the correct coverage. 

Screenshot of the Feature Response tab with the Add Exclusion button highlighted
 
Top of this bulletin

Handling Additional Exposures in TRS

Illustration of a clipboard in front of a carAn additional exposure in TRS is one that is outside of the scope of the arbitration. Unfortunately, we continue to see cases in which the Adverse Party asserted the dispute is Out of Jurisdiction due to an additional exposure(s), but the additional exposure(s) was not properly supported/proven. 

The Adverse Party may cite the exposure(s) and claim that it renders the case outside of AF’s jurisdiction, but that does not automatically remove the case from arbitration, nor should the arbitrator immediately consider the case outside of AF’s jurisdiction. It is the arbitrator’s responsibility to determine if the Adverse Party has supported/proven that the Additional Exposure puts the case out of AF’s jurisdiction. 

Has the Adverse Party submitted a declarations page or screenshot of the coverages to prove its limits? In multiple exposure situations, has the Adverse Party provided enough evidence to support an outstanding exposure(s) that may put their policy limits at risk? Remember, the Adverse Party can request a deferment at the time of response if the value of the additional exposure(s) is unknown. Moving forward with an answer is an indication by the Adverse Party that it has completed its investigation and is ready to resolve the dispute. 

For additional guidance on Policy Limits issues, please see Arbitrator Procedures for Policy Limits FAQ.

Screenshot of the Policy Limit Worksheet
 
Top of this bulletin

Updated Tutorial: Liability Deductible/Self-Insured Retention Cases

Illustration of a video player on a laptop screenOur existing tutorial,, has been updated.  

In this updated tutorial, you will learn: 
  • The definition of a liability deductible/self-insured retention 
  • What to look for on a policy declarations page 
  • How to modify the award when it is greater than the liability deductible/SIR proven
  • How to modify the award to zero when it is less than the deductible/SIR proven
  • Common entry mistakes to avoid 
Screenshot of the Applicable Findings area
Top of this bulletin

NASP 2021 Annual Conference: Remember the Subro

Image of the cover of the NASP annual conference brochureNovember 8–10, 2021

The NASP 2021 Annual Conference will be held virtually.

Visit the NASP website to register and download conference brochures. 
 
Top of this bulletin