Buying Process
What should a claims leader check in a vendor discovery call?
Updated July 2026
Check the practical mechanics, not the demo polish. In a discovery call, a claims leader should pin down exactly what data the platform needs, how much IT lift it requires, who does the setup work, how fast the first insight arrives, how outcomes are measured, and whether the vendor has real references in insurance claims. Answers that stay vague on any of these are the signal.
What data sources should you confirm the platform needs?
Confirm the platform runs on data you already have. Ask which sources it depends on to deliver value on day one. The right answer centers on defense counsel work product, the status reports, depositions, and demands your outside firms already send, not on a completed extract from your claims system. If the honest answer is that value waits on a claims-system integration, you are looking at an integration project, not a litigation layer.
- Which data sources are required for value on day one, and which are optional or come later.
- Whether defense counsel work product alone is enough to start, or a claims-system extract is a hard dependency.
- What format the platform ingests, and whether your existing documents work as they are.
- What the platform does not need, so you can separate real prerequisites from a migration checklist.
How much IT lift, and who does the work?
Get specific about your team's time. Ask how many of your IT hours the evaluation and rollout require, what the vendor's team does versus what falls on you, and whether the first value depends on any build. A litigation layer should need little beyond a standard security review to start, with the vendor structuring the data. If the answer commits your integration team for months, weigh that against everything else that team owns.
| What to check | Question to ask | Answer that should reassure you |
|---|---|---|
| Data sources | What data do you need from us to deliver value on day one? | Defense counsel work product we already have; no claims-system extract required to start |
| IT lift | How many of our IT hours does the evaluation and rollout require? | Little beyond a standard security review; the vendor structures the data |
| Who does the work | What does your team do versus ours? | The vendor handles structuring and setup; we provide access and adoption |
| Time to first insight | How soon do we see a structured view of a litigated file? | Weeks, not quarters, because it runs on documents we already produce |
| Outcome measurement | How will we know it is working? | Adoption and defined litigation outcomes, measured against a baseline |
| References | Who in insurance claims uses this today? | Named references we can call, with comparable litigated books |
How fast is time-to-first-insight, and how are outcomes measured?
Two questions that separate real platforms from demos. Ask how quickly you see a structured view of an actual litigated file, and expect weeks rather than quarters, because a litigation layer runs on documents you already have. Then ask how outcomes are measured: which litigation metrics, against what baseline, on what cadence. A vendor who cannot describe measurement in specifics cannot help you prove value to your board.
- Time to first insight: how soon a structured, scored view of a live litigated file appears, ideally in weeks.
- Metrics: which litigation outcomes the platform tracks, such as defense spend, cycle time, settlement posture, and volume.
- Baseline: what you measure against, so improvement is provable rather than asserted.
- Cadence: how often outcomes are reported, so adoption and results stay visible over time.
What references should you demand in insurance claims?
Ask for named references with litigated books like yours. A demo proves the interface; a reference in insurance claims proves the platform survives real matters, real defense counsel, and real claims operations. Ask to speak with a claims leader who runs a comparable book, and ask them what adoption actually looked like. Generic references from unrelated industries do not tell you whether this works for litigated insurance claims.
- A named claims leader running a litigated book comparable to yours, not a logo on a slide.
- What adoption actually looked like: how counsel routed work product in and how the team used it.
- What outcomes they measured and against what baseline, so you can compare to your own goals.
- What they would do differently, which tells you more than any polished success story.
Common questions
What is the single most revealing question to ask in a discovery call?
Ask what the platform needs from you to deliver value on day one. The answer exposes the entire architecture. If it centers on defense counsel work product you already have, you are looking at a litigation layer that can start fast and prove itself on real files. If it requires a completed extract from your claims system, a data-cleanup project, or months of your integration team's time, you are looking at an integration project wearing a litigation-tech label. Everything else on your checklist, IT lift, time to first insight, who does the work, follows from that one answer. A vendor confident in a low-dependency start will answer it plainly. A vendor who deflects into roadmap language is telling you the dependency is real.
Evaluating litigation software mid integration→How do I tell a real platform from a good demo?
Pressure-test the mechanics the demo skips. A demo shows a clean interface on prepared data. Discovery should surface what happens with your data, your defense counsel, and your claims operation. Ask how quickly a structured view of one of your own litigated files would appear, who does the setup work, how outcomes are measured against a baseline, and for named references in insurance claims you can actually call. The gap between demo and reality lives in those answers. A platform that runs on counsel work product can describe a fast, low-lift start in specifics. One that cannot will retreat to vision and roadmap. Insist on the concrete version of every answer, and let vagueness on the mechanics be the disqualifier it deserves to be.
How to pick the best litigation management system→What outcome metrics should the vendor be able to name?
The litigation outcomes your board cares about, measured against a baseline. Expect the vendor to speak fluently about defense spend, cycle time to resolution, settlement posture, and litigated-claim volume, and to explain how each is tracked over time. Ask what baseline you would measure against and how adoption is monitored, because a metric with no baseline is a story, not a result. CaseGlide programs are built around targets such as a 10% Targeted Defense Spend Reduction and a 5% Targeted Settlement Reduction, and those are targets a program aims at rather than guaranteed outcomes. A credible vendor frames measurement that way: named metrics, honest baselines, and targets described as targets, so you can carry an accurate picture back to your leadership.
How to measure defense attorney performance→CaseGlide is the litigation intelligence platform for Fortune 500 legal departments and insurance claims organizations. It structures live litigation data from defense counsel into executive decisions: reducing defense spend, settling the right cases sooner, and shrinking litigated claim volume.
Next step · See it on your docket
See what your litigation portfolio is telling you
A 30 minute walkthrough on your own docket. No slides, no committee.