Insurance Claims Handling JudgmentInsurance Claims Handling Judgment. Pay what is owed. Protect what is not. Most handlers can only do one.
A scored diagnostic for claims handlers, adjusters and examiners across motor, property, health and commercial lines: 19 files where the two duties of claims work pull in different directions — and the best handlers hold both.
The first claims assessment that scores both duties separately
Claims training teaches process; claims judgment decides files. This assessment puts you inside the files that decide reputations: the distressed claimant with thin documents, the estimate that grew overnight, the red flags on an ordinary-looking fire loss, the year-end pressure to fast-settle the tail.
The Square Deal Scales are a new scoring design: every option carries a hidden fairness weight and a separate purse weight — because fair treatment and leakage control are not a trade-off, and scoring them separately shows which duty you sacrifice under pressure. Clean and flagged files are compared for proportionality.
Keying follows the published evidence: procedural-justice research, fraud-indicator base rates, signal detection theory, the documented noise in claims adjustment, and fair-handling principles as publicly described by regulators and ombudsman schemes.
What you walk away with
Square Dealer, Soft Settler, Purse Guardian or Process Adrift — from two independent indices, with the tilt you show under pressure.
Whether claimants get truth, reasons and routes — including when the news is bad and when the error was yours.
Whether the pool is defended with specific questions or paid out to end conversations — goodwill, padding and pressure all weighted.
Your craft on clean files versus red-flagged ones — over-investigation and under-investigation are both named.
Your two weakest competencies converted into concrete claims-desk habits for the next month.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Built for
- Claims handlers, adjusters and examiners in motor, property, health and commercial lines
- Insurers, TPAs and brokers screening claims candidates or developing claims teams
- Claims team leads who review and calibrate other people's files
Find out which duty you sacrifice
30 scored exercises · about 35 minutes · full bespoke report with your scales position, both duty indices and proportionality check.
₹999 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
Four competencies: investigation and evidence, fair treatment and candor, leakage and indemnity discipline, and service under distress. It measures what a handler would actually do on 19 realistic files across motor, property, health and commercial claims — not policy recall.
Every option carries a graded quality score plus two hidden weights — fairness to the claimant and protection of the pool — scored separately, because the best handlers are high on both. Clean and flagged files are compared for proportionality, and two consistency pairs test whether your method is stable.
Claims handlers, adjusters and examiners at any experience level, and the insurers, TPAs and brokers who hire and develop them. Scenarios are jurisdiction-neutral and need no specific market's regulations.
About 35 minutes for 30 scored exercises. You get a full report styled as the adjuster's brass scales: your position and tilt, both duty indices, the clean-versus-flagged calibration strip, four banded competencies and diary-note actions — downloadable as a colour PDF.
₹999 in India (including GST) or US$9.99 elsewhere, one-time, for one full sitting and report — against adjuster licensing courses at $200+ and enterprise assessment suites with no single-report option. Organisations can assess claims teams through AssessAll credits at 26 credits per person.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Measures applied claims-handling judgment through original situational items keyed to published evidence: procedural and distributive justice in service decisions (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Colquitt, 2001), noise and inconsistency in professional claims judgments (Kahneman, Sibony & Sunstein, 2021, which documents claims adjustment as a noisy judgment domain), fraud-indicator research and its base rates (Derrig, 2002, Journal of Risk and Insurance), signal detection theory on separating hits from false alarms (Green & Swets, 1966), base-rate neglect and anchoring in numerical judgments (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), principled negotiation in settlement conversations (Fisher & Ury, 1981), service recovery and the aftermath of service failure (Smith, Bolton & Wagner, 1999; Oliver, 1980), empathy and communication in service encounters (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1988), fair claims-handling principles as publicly described by insurance regulators and ombudsman schemes, the utmost-good-faith doctrine as publicly described in insurance practice, and escalation-of-commitment effects in disputed files (Staw, 1981). All items are original works; no insurer's proprietary claims manual or trademarked instrument is reproduced, and no affiliation is claimed.