Pain and Suffering Assertions and NCS Zap Responses

"Your response fails to address how pain and suffering were evaluated. If an automated range was generated by ClaimIQ or a similar tool, please disclose the specific factors used in its calculation. The claimant’s pain and suffering demand is supported by medical records, treatment duration, and recovery impact—factors that must be independently assessed rather than relying solely on software-guided evaluations."

"The reliance on an 'industry standard' range, particularly if generated by ClaimIQ, demonstrates a failure to evaluate the claimant's unique circumstances. Pain and suffering is inherently subjective and must be assessed based on the individual impact, as supported by the claimant’s medical documentation and personal statements. Please confirm whether a human evaluator reviewed the specifics of this case or if the evaluation was fully automated."

"Refusing to disclose your evaluation process undermines transparency and accountability. If ClaimIQ or similar software was used, this raises concerns about reliance on automated tools rather than independent adjuster judgment. Please confirm whether your evaluation factored in all pain and suffering components, including non-economic damages and the claimant's recovery narrative."

"If ClaimIQ or other automated tools dictated this range, it lacks credibility without transparency regarding inputs and methodologies. The claimant’s pain and suffering demand reflects documented impacts that must be evaluated individually. A refusal to address these details suggests bad faith handling and may warrant further action under [state-specific UFCPA provisions]."

"If the evaluation was manual, provide the specific factors considered for pain and suffering valuation. A vague assertion of manual review is inconsistent with documented industry reliance on tools like ClaimIQ, and failure to substantiate this claim raises questions about adherence to fair claims practices."