E-MAIL THIS 
PRINT THIS |
Property-Casualty breakout sessions aimed at helping participants
miss less sleep
 |
Marty Fisher, Martha Fisher and Associates,
facilitates the Property-Casualty breakout sessions during
the Nashville Exchange. |
Between natural catastrophes, changing technology, tougher customer
expectations and an increasingly competitive market, property and
casualty customer relations people don’t need to overdose
on caffeine to lose their beauty sleep. Always dynamic in
the best of times, the business is undergoing one of the most tumultuous
and challenging periods in its history.
So it was no surprise that the always-popular Property-Casualty
breakout sessions were particularly well attended and animated
this year. Marty Fisher, Martha Fisher and Associates, served as
facilitator extraordinaire for the PC breakout segment. The range
of issues was broad, a mix of both long-standing and more recent
topics clustered around several general concepts:
- Large and growing complaint volumes, and how best to handle
them.
- Insurance scoring in the underwriting process.
- Pricing issues.
- Internet applications and security.
- Agency credentialing.
Inconsistent regulation cited
Inconsistent regulation from state to state as well as incomplete
responses from regulatory agencies or responses that were confusing
or lacked documentation were a set of concerns raised by company
people.
There were a variety of related concerns expressed about the general
style and efficiency of communications between insurers and regulators.
Some breakout attendees noted that when an issue is settled, some
states do not regularly inform insurers of case disposition. Another
concern was incomplete or partial responses to the specific questions
or issues submitted with a specific case, necessitating follow-up.
Concerns were also raised about inconsistent time frames mandated
by many DOIs, time frames often set by state legislative bodies.
Agent credential process needs consistency
Concern was expressed that there is apparently no real standardization
among companies regarding the criteria for selecting and licensing
agents. Most companies require at least a driver’s license
and a background check, but even that level of consistency is
generally in response to the demands of state regulators. A best
practice in this area might be for the industry to consider a
more consistent and predictable set of standards.
Insurance scoring not the issue it was
There was a general consensus that this issue was not sparking
the controversy it did in the past, primarily because enough time
has passed that consumers have grown used to and less concerned
about the issue. Legislation has been developed that mandates clearer
information provided to consumers and agents have become more educated
on the subject and are in turn educating their customers. Breakout
attendees from among the ranks of regulators agreed that there
has been a marked decrease in the number of calls on this issue.
An ongoing best practice recommendation was to encourage agents
to continue to discuss the issue with their customers.
Internet raises new concerns
Issues discussed around the Internet included the growth of unwanted,
unrequested and intrusive insurance advertising flooding the computers
of customers and agents alike. Another concern involved the possibility
of unlicensed entities crossing state lines and selling unauthorized
insurance products through the Internet.
Negative and incorrect information being made provided to consumers
via various Internet sites and blogs continues to complicate life
for insurers and regulators as well as engineering a desire for
instant answers on the part of consumers. Then, there is the organizational
problem of improper use of the Internet by employees, an issue
for both regulators and insurers.
Best practices cited in the Internet area include the establishment
of consumer affairs units solely dedicated to handling Internet
issues. Companies can also satisfy consumer demand for “instant
answers” by acknowledging questions or complaints immediately
and clearly stating the turnaround time required for a complete
response. It was also suggested that DOIs establish a practice
of opening files for research and action on the behalf of consumers
when potentially illegal insurance offers pop up.
Complaint volume headed upward
There was universal agreement that with more insurance products
being sold than ever before, coupled with easier communication
access to DOIs and insurers through technology and the Internet,
the volume of future complaints will continue to grow. Interestingly,
there appears to be a “seasonal” factor to complaint
volume, with upward spikes occurring typically after “family” holidays
and during the summer months. A best practice might be for carriers
and regulators to anticipate and respond to these seasonal spikes
by allocating the people and resources to handle them effectively.
Several states have apparently implemented “rapid response” units
to help deal with complaint volumes, generating templates and brief
responses to standardized questions. Consumers and companies can
opt out of the programs when particular questions are too involved
to fit into rapid response time frames.
An established technology, three-way conference calls, is now
being employed by many DOIs to bring consumers and insurers together
for quick complaint resolution. Insurers are particularly positive
about this approach because it provides witnesses to the interaction.
Privacy concerns get a hearing
The issue of consumer privacy was a key concern to both insurers
and regulators. Some of the issues included the handling, disposition
and disposal of confidential information and how insurers and DOIs
can interact effectively in states with formal “sunshine
laws” regarding the disclosure of confidential documentation.
In states with clear sunshine laws, there is very little recourse.
Documents that are included in complaint files are open to public
review, period. A best practice in such states may be the development
of a rapport between companies and regulators so that there is
general agreement surrounding what will actually be added to a
file. In states that do not have sunshine laws, a “confidential” stamp
is enough to insure that sensitive information will remain secure
until disposed of.
Everyone agreed that the use of facsimile machines to transmit
documents over telephone lines should be done with caution and
with good follow-up to make sure that the information is received
by the correct individual and no one else.
Food for thought…
As always, the Property-Casualty breakout sessions provided insurers
and regulators with a full plate piled high with food for thought
about the issues facing our industry. Whether or not participants
are likely to lose less sleep in the coming months is anybody’s
guess, but it’s not likely. It might just be a good idea
to down that food for thought with a glass of warm milk.
|
