IRMI Update—Issue #93
An E-mail Newsletter for Risk and Insurance Professionals
ISSN: 1530-7948
July 27, 2004
In This Issue
Colleague,
A number of years ago we created an award to recognize achievement in the
development and implementation of a specific construction risk management technique
or process that is innovative, cost-efficient, and effective. This could be
a risk finance technique, contract risk transfer process or technique, safety
program or some other innovative technique.
The award is open to all full-time business professionals charged with managing
construction risks for their employers (including but not limited to risk managers,
chief financial officers, safety managers, loss control specialists, and claim
managers) who have been in their current position at least 3 years and who were
involved in the development of an effective construction-oriented risk management
technique or process. To date we've given the award to six people, and we will
honor another person with it this fall.
If you have (or your client has) implemented an innovative construction risk
management technique or process that others should know about, please apply
for the award. The deadline is September 8 to send in your application or nomination.
The simple process for applying or nominating someone is described in our Conference web site.
The first of our four Tech-eRisk 2004 seminars will be held next week in
Las Vegas. We may still be able to squeeze you into that one, and we definitely
have room at the other two locations at this point. For more information about
the seminar (including insurance CE credit and our unique money-back guarantee),
please go to the Seminars web site.
Thank you for the trust and confidence you place in IRMI.
All the best,
Jack
Jack P. Gibson
President
IRMI
International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI), is accepting nominations
for the annual Gary E. Bird Horizon Award. This award was created to promote
the awareness of innovative risk management techniques and processes. The four
previous awards went to managers from Hoffman Corporation, Southern Industrial
Contractors, Rifenburg Construction, and Cianbro Corporation. See the candidate qualifications.
If you are proud of the accomplishments of your risk manager or safety manager,
please send yours and your nominee's contact information by visiting the Gary E. Bird
Horizon Award section of the Conference Web site.
Conduct a Risk Management Program Self-Appraisal—This
self-audit has proved useful to many of my clients. If you answer "no" to four
or more of these questions, your risk management program probably needs help.
- Are your insurance carriers rated at least A-VIII by A.M. Best?
- Have you reviewed the insurance certificates from vendors and subcontractors
for compliance with contract terms such as: Best's rating; limits of liability;
coverages and additional insured wording?
- Do you annually assess the magnitude of your "Total Cost of Risk" (Premiums,
Deductibles, and Administrative Costs)?
- Do you explore pricing of coverages at various deductible/retention
levels?
- Do you have a strategy for maximum annual aggregated self-insured retentions?
- Based on your loss history, retention levels, and cost of risk transfer,
are your insurance placements economically efficient for your corporation?
- Has a risk management philosophy been developed and communicated to
all appropriate levels of management?
- Do you review underwriting submissions to assure that your risks are
appropriately differentiated from your competitors and not just done on
Accord forms?
- Do you have a written broker/agent "services agreement" that is evaluated
annually?
- Have you conducted a broker competition or validated your broker's services
in the last 5 years?
By: Bill Hammond
Cardinal Risk Management Alternatives, Inc.
Dallas
Suggest a Risk Tip. Send us a practical tip (less than 300 words) for identifying and managing risks,
buying insurance, managing claims, or filling gaps in insurance coverages. We'll
acknowledge your contribution as we did for Bill.
There are now 562 risk management and insurance articles on IRMI.com. Below
you'll find summaries of some recent additions with links to the articles.
Many brokers have the resources to assist their clients with a host of risk
management functions, from loss control to claims. Even smaller regional brokers
can usually provide help with key risk management tasks. Unfortunately, many
companies do not take full advantage of their broker's offerings. At the 24th
IRMI Construction Risk Conference, Frank Keres, a venerated construction insurance
adviser, will lead a panel of brokers representing the production, loss control,
and claims functions in showing contractors how to take their broker relationship
to a new level. Panelists include Bill Kasper of Aon, Dave Langton, of BB&T
Insurance Services, Vickie Taylor of Arthur J. Gallagher, and Troy Wagener of
Stewart Sneed Hewes. Mark your calendar for November 8-11 and join us at the
Orlando Caribe Royale Resort for the entire Conference. For a preliminary agenda,
see the Conference web site.
In IRMI Update 91, Jack Gibson discussed a
recent survey that showed 46 percent of property insurance buyers have switched
insurers due to poor service levels. With an apparent low—and decreasing—level
of customer service by many commercial insurers, Jack asked readers about their
recent experience. Below are some of the comments received.
-
More and more today, carriers that offer service with distinction are
those with whom I prefer to do business. In today's market, where agencies
are constantly being squeezed to do more with less, an insurance company
that not only pulls its weight but excels at risk control, claims handling,
retro and deductible billings, and policy administration is worth its weight
in gold. Good carriers make the brokers look good and reduce the amount
of time needed to baby-sit problems instead of handling significant day-to-day
issues. In the end, it is my feeling that if clients are not set up to internally
handle most insurance company services themselves, their program results
are usually better with high-level service carriers.
Now, about the cost, I've found that buyers initially want the high level
of service but expect insurance companies to deliver the service at the
same low cost as carriers providing low levels of service. It is only after
they have experienced sustained high levels of service and then have to
do without that they truly realize the value of super service.
—Chris Kondrick, Assistant Vice President, Aon Risk
Services, Inc. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
-
As a corporate risk manager, I too have been amazed by the poor level
of service provided by insurers over the years. Working in commercial contracting,
individual contracts are scrutinized word-by-word by both legal counsel
and risk managers recognizing that the outcome of any disagreement, loss,
or potential liability will be determined by the letter of contract.
On the other hand, you have the insurance industry—an industry that,
over the years, has spawned some of the poorest contracts drafted by any
industry group anywhere. Typographical errors, missing pages, duplicated
sections, and wayward endorsements are commonplace. This failure annually
generates millions of dollars in unnecessary costs, costs that are frequently
shouldered by parties other than the insurers themselves. Risk managers
spend large amounts of time checking policies, and the brokerage industry
is currently struggling with steadily rising E&O costs directly related
to the insurance industry's mismanagement of policy drafting and issuance.
Of course, all of this assumes the insured can actually get a copy of
the policy they purchased. On at least one occasion, I have personally not
renewed coverage with a carrier who ignored repeated requests throughout
the policy year for a copy of the policy, and then completely expected the
renewal business. On many occasions I have moved business to insurers with
marginally higher costs in the search for improved service.
My only expectation at this point is that this search is one that will
continue for the duration of my risk management career.
—Jeffrey Hoch
-
Insurers have shot themselves in the foot—trying to get short-term savings,
they have cut training, education, and claims staff. Doing so they ignore
the fact that what the insurer is selling is a promise that they will have
an efficient and professional claims staff that will fulfill the promises
made by the insurer. Because insurers no longer have knowledgeable claims
personnel, stupid mistakes are made that generate unnecessary bad faith
suits.
It is time that insurers recognize that they are the problem—spend money
on their claims staff, train them properly, retain the ones who do the job
well, and provide the service. Indemnity payments will be made promptly
and fairly, and to the surprise of the bean counters, the insurers will
save money and make greater profits. More importantly, they will retain
customers long term.
—Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, Barry Zalma, Inc., Culver
City, CA
-
As outsourced risk management, we get to experience insurer service from
many, many companies. There are quite a few who should be embarrassed by
the lack of service but seem unruffled by it. Their product is represented
in a contract, and it is this product that is paid for up-front but rarely
delivered accurately or timely. Add to that, the horrendous processing of
premium refunds for changes to policies midterm, and the claims battles,
and it is very easy to understand why insureds are so disgruntled. Insurers
can demand payment for the coverage up-front or threaten cancellation. On
the flip side, they hold onto RPs or claims settlements long beyond reasonable
when the insured has no such cancellation recourse. The resulting action
is to change carriers.
For those carriers we know have service problems, we add a cost to their
premium quote as a "cost of doing business" with them. We then compare that
adjusted cost to other quotes and, not surprisingly, we choose higher priced
products to get the better service and relationship on more than a few occasions—provided,
naturally, that the coverages are comparable. Those who provide good service
and coverage are invited back to participate on many more opportunities.
Mr. Callahan is right. In any other business, service levels equal to those
provided by many commercial carriers would sink the business. Finding those
who provide service is the challenge but one that would, in my opinion,
give them an advantage to write more business.
—Kathleen M. Nickerson, Sr. Vice President, Robert
M. Currey & Associates, Boston
-
While the issue of insurer service may be important to more sophisticated
or larger insurance buyers, for the middle-market segment, the two most
important factors in determining the insurer to purchase property insurance
from are (1) price, and (2) financial rating. This is even more apparent
now, as with the softening market, more insurers scramble for business,
and more buyers pursue competing bids and proposals to reduce insurance
costs. Insurer services, policy issuance drag time, and underwriter contact
fall far behind these factors.
I'll never forget the story I heard early in my career of a jaded senior
broker who had a great quote, prepared a stunning power-point presentation
and hard copy proposal including market analyses, service agreements, and
broker biographies, rehearsed for the actual proposal with all participants,
and ultimately made a fantastic presentation only to be asked by the buyer
on the way out, "That was great, but can you beat this?" pointing at a number
written on a yellow legal pad —the incumbent's lower premium.
Property insurance in particular has become more commoditized in the
eye of the middle-market buyer, particularly now with easier availability
of financial rating information online and with more products and capacity
available from well-capitalized companies based in Bermuda. This increased
commoditization is not necessarily bad for insurers or brokers—however,
it will probably not result in better service to the buyer, at least not
in the short term.
—Robert C. Meder, Director of Marketing, Hagedorn
& Company, New York
-
I've completely discontinued quoting coverage before through an insurer
with horrendous service issues. When we finally received an endorsement,
it was wrong at least 90 percent of the time, even if it was the third correction.
That's not acceptable to the agent or the client. That was 5 years ago,
and I understand the service is still just as bad.
—Lorna Greenwood, CIC, CISR, ACSR, U.S. Risk Insurance
Group
-
Jack, great topic once again, and timely, as I read
the Update when I got back to the office from visiting a client—I should
say former client. For 3 years we had written this particular contractor
at a well-shopped package premium of about $100k, and another broker came
in at $70k, on A-rated paper. As much as this reveals the trend in the market
cycle, I think it speaks more to the point of your article regarding carrier
efficiency.
An insurance carrier can always discount their rates to find premium.
In no other business that I know of is revenue so easy to come by. The model
is similar to the federal government, which can access capital markets anytime
there is a need for cash, therefore it shouldn't surprise us that carriers
can be similarly inefficient. And the carriers that typically lead the market
to the bottom of the pricing cycle are down there because price is their
only selling point. Clients buy the rate, and then gripe about the lack
of service. Brokers and carriers must work together to give a better explanation
of the value proposition to our clients.
—Tom Bobrowski, Rothschild Agency, Inc., Merrillville,
IN
-
I speak as a former P&C insurance company underwriter and I address myself
to the problem of policies being issued long after the effective date. I
went through a company underwriting training program (remember those?) in
1987. When I entered the underwriting profession, I naively thought that
I would spend my time analyzing and evaluating risks, selecting coverages,
terms, and conditions, determining appropriate prices, and working with
agents to write profitable business. If company underwriters were able to
do those things, I believe timeliness of policy issuance would improve.
However, that's not what underwriters are expected to do, and the expectations
moved further away from the ideal the longer I was in that role.
Insurance companies do not want to have to pay for marketing representatives,
so they expect underwriters to be on the road 1 day out of every 5 visiting
agencies. Underwriters have to report to management (local and home office)
on their performance, so they waste hours compiling reports that computers
could do instead. Companies run "lean and mean," so underwriters take over
some management functions and spend hours in meetings that could be spent
reviewing files. Plus, companies want to keep a lid on salary costs, so
they have jettisoned experienced underwriters and replaced them with untrained,
inexperienced underwriters, if they replace them at all (my job was eliminated
after 12 years in the underwriting field and 6 months after I received the
CPCU designation). The result is much greater individual workloads. Add
to that the required paperwork (I worked in New York, which has strict documentation
and filing requirements; I can't speak for other states), and underwriters
spend a minority of their time actually underwriting. Most of the underwriters
I knew worked Saturdays to keep up.
I want to laugh when I read that companies are saying that they have
to return to underwriting fundamentals. Most underwriters would be thrilled
to be able to do that. Let underwriters spend time on their profession and
you'll see service levels and profitability improve. According to the Insurance
Information Institute, policyholder surplus stands at a record $361.2 billion.
While that is less than it should be (only 6.5 percent above 1999 levels),
it still represents a tremendous amount of company financial resources.
Insurers can afford to pay for underwriting expertise and good service.
They should stop pleading poverty and do what it takes to perform well.
—Tim Dodge, AU, ARM, CPCU, Director of Research,
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of New York, Inc., Syracuse, NY
-
I have found that service has become a thing of the past, and product
knowledge is waning. Due to our unique climate here in South Mississippi,
much of our commercial business is placed through E&S brokers. The attitude
at the brokerage level is about the worst I have witnessed in my 16 years.
They have hit an all new low. In their favor, I can only image what they
are going through with their own underwriters; however, the way they are
conducting business is appalling. We (retail agents) have gone from valued
client to adversary asset. I also believe that this change in work attitude
will be difficult to overcome.
—Albert J. Betz, CIC, SawyerFoster Group, Gulfport,
MS
-
I just returned from vacation and am pleased to put in my "2 cents worth"
on the subject of the deplorable state of the property insurance market.
As you correctly pointed out, the World Trade Center loss is probably the
best example of what can go wrong when inexcusable delays and lack of attention
to detail suddenly meet. I have been in the insurance industry for 35 years.
During that time, the industry has continued to bemoan the fact that it
has an image problem but has done virtually nothing to remedy the problem.
I think if a company genuinely wants to do something about it, it's long
overdue. In my humble opinion, the commercial property market has taken
a giant back step in the last several years. Much of it is due to the fact
that until 9/11, the property market was so soft that companies were focusing
almost exclusively on pricing and not underwriting. As a result, they were
not investing in bringing in new talent that could be trained in the skills
of property underwriting. They now find a tremendous void in underwriting
talent and a perpetuation of the soft market mentality. I believe that a
focus on good, sound underwriting, coupled with prompt and accurate policy
issuance, and state-of-the-art claims handling would really differentiate
a company like Allianz from the rest of the pack. If they would be willing
to invest in such an initiative, and if their results yielded success, I
believe buyers would be willing to pay the incremental higher premiums.
—Barney Mercer, CPCU, ARM, Mercer & Associates, Dallas
A subscription to IRMI Update is absolutely free. Use the e-mail registration form to initiate or terminate
your subscription.