Compare · vs. Manual sample audits

Ishqkala vs. Manual Subrogation Audits

A 2% sample tells you how adjusters perform. It never reads the other 98%.

Start free trial Request free closed-claim audit

Manual subrogation audits pull a small sample of closed files, roughly 2%, and have an experienced reviewer read each one against a checklist. They are good at coaching adjusters and exposing process gaps. They were never built to recover money at scale. Ishqkala reads every closed file in scope, notes and attachments included, and returns a scored manifest of unpursued recoveries with live SOL dates. In Ishqkala audits, full-file review found about four times the actionable subrogation.

Dimension	Ishqkala	Manual sample audits
Coverage	100% of closed files in scope	Roughly 2% of closed files, often weighted to large losses
Throughput	Up to 50,000 closed claims in 48 hours	Limited by reviewer hours per quarter
Documents read	Diary notes, FNOL, police and origin reports, estimates, recall data	Whatever the reviewer opens in the time allowed
Liability analysis	State fault rule applied to every file	Reviewer judgment, varying by experience
SOL tracking	Expiry and municipal notice dates on every file	Noted on reviewed files only
Output	Manifest ranked by dollars, win probability and days to SOL	Audit scorecard and a short referral list
Actionable yield	About 4x the actionable subrogation (Ishqkala audit finding)	Whatever the sample happens to contain
Consistency	Same logic on every file, reasoning shown	Shifts with reviewer, sample and checklist
Cycle time	4.5-month average with automated packaging	14-month average through manual queues
Adjuster coaching	File-level reasoning shows which notes were missed	Strong: direct reviewer feedback to supervisors
Cost model	10% to 15% contingency on net recovered, zero upfront	Staff time or a fixed audit fee

What a manual audit does well

A good audit program puts an experienced subrogation professional in front of real files. Reviewers spot process failures, such as a missed recorded statement or a referral box never checked, and that feedback goes straight to adjusters and supervisors. For claims quality and coaching, the human read is hard to replace.

Why sampling leaves money in the files

Take a $150M DWP carrier with about 30,000 closed claims over 24 months. A 2% audit reads 600 files. At a 2.2% yield, the full book holds about 660 unpursued recoveries, and the sample contains roughly 13 of them. The other 647 files, worth about $8.1M at $12,500 each, are never opened.

Samples also lean toward large losses, so routine $8,400 auto recoveries and water losses with a plumber's note in the diary go unread until the SOL runs out.

Running both

Most customers keep their audit program for QA and hand the recovery sweep to Ishqkala. The manifest shows which notes carried the liability signal, which gives auditors better coaching material than a random draw. Your subrogation team or recovery counsel still decides every file.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

It is a Ishqkala audit finding. When we swept closed-claim populations that customers had already covered with manual audits, full-file review surfaced about four times the actionable subrogation those programs had found. Most of the gap sat in files the sample never drew and in attachments reviewers did not open.

No. Many customers keep it for claims quality and coaching. Ishqkala handles the recovery sweep, and its file-level reasoning gives auditors specific examples to coach from.

Your licensed claim professionals and recovery counsel. Ishqkala scores and packages opportunities; it does not give legal opinions or contact adverse parties.

Find the millions hiding in your closed claim files before the Statute of Limitations expires.

We'll scan a batch of 500 closed claims for free and deliver an itemized recovery manifest within 5 business days.

Request a free closed-claim audit Start 14-day free trial