The Winning Team Concept
June 2007
Some time ago, I commented on the fact that
there needs to exist a tripartite between agent/broker, insured, and insurer.
I received a number of comments, primarily pro, toward the realization that
successful and lasting placements must out of reality contain this partnership.
by Peter
M. Polstein
I must say that I was somewhat taken back at some of the comments coming
out of RIMS 2007, and especially those during a speech where the speaker clearly
spoke in terms of risk managers needing to become far more involved in the placements
of their program.
During my tenure at Alexander & Alexander, which lasted nearly 24 years,
where I had the pleasure (most of the time) in dealing with very professional
risk managers, rarely were they ever not very involved with the placement of their programs. This included ongoing discussions
on policy terms, market and worldwide conditions, changing legal attitudes,
and potentially new ways to "skin a cat."
It is a necessity, assuming you want to maintain the account, that scheduled
meetings be held to discuss and clarify a wide variety of risk potential, and
that there must always be a clear understanding of expectations, from the standpoint
of coverage, pricing, service, engineering and claims handling. Equally important
is the delivery on an agreed time line of renewals and appropriate documentation.
Additionally, on site risk assessment is a must, if you are going to have more
than an adequate knowledge of your account’s overall potential for risk.
Prior to submission, there is no valid reason why the risk manager should
not review the submission prior to the underwriter's review. There are occasions
when the placing professional has either misunderstood or misspoken relative
to particular aspects of the risk. It is not a blemish; it is simply a fact
which, under the circumstances, needs to be corrected prior to submission and
negotiations. Further, I have previously written that no agent or broker should
be either intimidated or concerned over having a risk manager become directly
involved in meetings with underwriters, loss control, engineering personnel
and litigation experts.
There was an article in Business Insurance (4/26/07) which spoke to the differences of opinion between risk managers and
their executives relative to overall risk. It appeared to point out that in
a variety of instances, executives either did not agree or took what appeared
to be a different position relative to the assessment of risk. Again, I find
this curious, as we are living in an extremely dangerous world not only from
physical and natural risk, but those from whom we need to clearly understand
their desire to create damage through a wide variety of means.
No longer do we live in a simplistic world, where risk is limited to traditional
insurance technology and utilization. We are living in a world where traditional
insurance is becoming less the norm, and thinking outside the box is the norm.
Alternative resolutions for risk, the advent of offshore capacity (not necessarily
insurance), the capital marketplace, and the use of "exotic" financial instruments
are just a few examples. I find it difficult to understand that there exists
a lack of mutual understanding and agreement between risk management and the
executive branch regarding current or future risk assessments.
The world in which we reside is not for the fainthearted. I can hardly believe
that the vast majority of professional risk managers, the executive branch of
corporations, and counsel do not literally review and assess risks on a weekly,
if not daily, basis.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles
and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other
professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney,
accountant, or other qualified adviser.