3 Factors Threatening the Nursing Home Liability Market

Posted on January 4, 2018 by robertjrussellcompanies
With ample capacity in nursing home and long-term care liability insurance, competition remains strong among carriers. However, clouds have been gathering on the horizon, with the convergence of three separate events threatening to create a perfect storm in the marketplace.

Increasing Claims

Claim frequency and severity has been climbing for the past several years, with nursing home litigation being one of the fastest-growing areas of health care litigation. In a recently published report on an actuarial analysis of the long-term care sector, it was stated that long-term care frequency is increasing by 5% annually.

Severity is a concern as well. Consider a few mega-claims in the past few years:

  • In Florida, a jury awarded $1.1 billion to the family of a woman who died following multiple falls.
  • In West Virginia, a nursing home was dealt a $90 million wrongful death ruling (later reduced to $32 million).
  • In California, a judge upheld a $23 million jury award in a wrongful death lawsuit.
  • In Tennessee, a jury awarded a $30 million judgment, which included $28 million in punitive damages, against a nursing home where poor care led to a resident’s death.

 

Significant Regulatory Changes

In another development, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in a recently published rule, have prohibited binding pre-dispute arbitration agreements. The rule, effective November 28, is the first major change to nursing home regulations in 25 years and will impact both liability claims and pricing. Although the American Health Care Association has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to overturn the rule, the government’s action is a clear indication that these types of arbitration agreements are a target for regulatory scrutiny.

If the rule stands, it will drive up costs. The aforementioned report, noted that claims subject to arbitration have a 7% lower total cost and settle three months sooner than those resolved without arbitration. From a claims frequency standpoint, the rule also provides plaintiffs’ attorneys more reasons to sue by mandating several new rules around nutrition, medical treatment, infection prevention and control, monitoring of use of antibiotics, personnel requirements, and more.

Increased claims will drive up base premiums over time, but the pricing impact for nursing homes will be felt immediately. For many years, brokers in long-term care could secure premium credits for their clients that used binding arbitration agreements, and those deals are now obsolete.

 

Changing Patient Demographics

There is a third cloud on the storm front: the population of nursing home residents is changing. Advances in physical care have led to patients living longer, but as medical care finds ways to prolong life, more and more elderly are dealing with mental deterioration. According to the World Health Organization, over 20% of adults aged 60 and over suffer from mental or neurological disorders.

These conditions increase the cost of care, and in some instances nursing home facilities were not designed or staffed to treat high levels of mental disorders among residents. Additionally, it takes more, and more highly trained, people to care for mentally impaired but physically capable residents, compared to physically impaired people who have traditionally comprised the nursing home population.

 

The Impact

With an abundance of capacity in the market, carriers are currently turning a blind eye to these threats. There is a disconnect between the increase in claim frequency and severity already being seen in the market and the cheap and plentiful availability of coverage.

However, it is only a matter of time before claims catch up to carriers. Some of the new capital in the market has not experienced problems with the line. A marked increase in severity and frequency has the potential to take some of the “less informed” capital out of the market. This will have several impacts. First, reduction in capacity will cause pricing to go up and appetites to restrict as happened in the 1990s, where it was difficult to place coverage for nursing facilities. Second, carriers that have exited the market have less incentive to actively manage long-tail claims as they seek to close out reserves, leading to settlements that are in opposition to the best interests of the policyholder.

Agents and brokers need to act now to position themselves and their clients for market disruption. They should work with their long-term care clients to be sure they understand the changes taking place. In particular, taking the arbitration clause out of a defense attorney’s hands is a significant development that affects more than just insurance.

Additionally, agents and brokers should partner with a wholesaler that is an expert in the long-term care liability marketplace. Working with an experienced broker can provide resources for agents to educate clients. Also, when the market does harden, having established relationships with a wholesale broker that specializes in long-term care liability will help ensure that clients have access to insurers that are willing and able to provide needed coverage

Posted in Business, robertjrussell | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why Your Employees’ Driving Record Can Be a Reflection on Your Company

Posted on January 3, 2018 by robertjrussellcompanies

You’ve seen it before – a good employee makes a horrible decision in his or her personal vehicle. What are the implications for your company if the employee’s license is revoked, cancelled, or suspended due to alcohol, controlled substance or felony violations?

If the employee in question is a CDL driver, he or she will lose driving privileges for one year. But what if he or she doesn’t hold a CDL, but instead drives a sales car or pick-up truck?  What if the incident involves excessive speed, reckless driving or bodily harm?  What happens then?

As an employer, you are caught in the balance between a good employee and the potential for vicarious liability, which holds you responsible for the actions or omissions of another person – in this instance, your employees.  As a result, you need to understand the “Doctrine of Negligent Entrustment” and the potential impact that your employees’ decisions can have on your business.

In its general form, the Doctrine of Negligent Entrustment states:
“It is negligent to permit a third person to use a thing or to engage in an activity which is under the control of actor, if the actor knows or should know that such a person intends or is likely to use the thing or to conduct himself in the activity in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk or harm to others.”1

The legal interpretation of the principle of “negligent entrustment” is not founded upon negligence of the driver of an automobile, but upon the primary negligence of the entruster in supplying an automobile to an incompetent driver.  In other words, the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s incompetence, but in spite of this knowledge, the employer entrusted the vehicle to the driver in the scope of his work. The employer may therefore be guilty of negligent entrustment.


What can you do to protect your company?

It is important to be proactive in managing your drivers, both as part of your fleet safety program and to effectively maintain your CDL files. Below are some helpful tips for making this process easier and more efficient:

1)  Develop a company policy for MVR evaluations (CDL & all other drivers) that must be signed by the employee. A minimum three-year evaluation period is effective.

2)  Evaluate MVR at time of hire and annually thereafter (using a minimum time standard).

3)  Establish guidelines for reporting major violations (such as DUI, reckless driving, chargeable accidents) immediately, regardless of whether the incident occurs in a personal or company vehicle.

4)  Develop a company policy for personal use of company vehicles that must be signed by the employee.

5)  Develop a company policy for “occasional” drivers (for example, office employees who may drive to the bank or post office during the course of their work.)

6)  Develop a company policy for employees who may use their personal vehicles for company business (for example, outside sales people). Establish minimum limits that they must carry.

7)  Provide driver training programs.

In addition to the above suggestions, other options may exist for managing an employee with a history of driving infractions, including placing that individual in a non-driving role. However, doing so may affect other roles and responsibilities within your organization.

As an employer, it is important to remember that the consequences of allowing an employee with a less-than-perfect driving record extend beyond a possible traffic violation or accident. Due to the Doctrine of Negligent Entrustment, an employer must be aware of the potential liability to his or her company from allowing an employee with a poor driving history to operate any motor vehicles for work purposes.

Need a Commercial Car Insurance Quote? Visit http://www.InsurancePricedRight.com

Posted in Business, Insurance, robertjrussell | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Coinsurance and Blanket Limits in Commercial Property Insurance

Posted on January 3, 2018 by robertjrussellcompanies

Flynn has been investing in commercial real estate for some time now. He owns, under his real estate corporation, over 50 buildings located in the city, as well as the nearby suburbs. His real estate portfolio consists primarily of leased retail and office space, with some service occupancies, as well. Flynn is preparing to purchase another building in the city and is arranging a mortgage with a new lender – More Money Lending. To his surprise, the lender has rejected an insurance binder obtained by his risk manager, Allie, from his insurance agent. More Money does not accept building insurance with coinsurance – and the binder given to More Money lists coinsurance with a percentage of 90%.

Coinsurance As Flynn relies on his risk manager, Allie, to understand his insurance coverage, he has never read his insurance policies. But now he is alarmed by “coinsurance,” as it seems to Flynn – based on his limited dealings with health insurance – that his insurance company will never pay more than 90% of any loss that he has, regardless of the amount or limit of insurance he has purchased. This sounds problematic, and he immediately arranges to meet with Allie and his insurance agent, Donna, to discuss this matter.

Coinsurance Explained At Flynn’s request, Allie and Donna explain the concept of coinsurance. At the outset, they make clear to Flynn that coinsurance in property insurance is not the same as the 80/20 cost sharing in some health insurance policies. Instead, in property insurance, coinsurance generally means Flynn must purchase a certain limit of insurance on his building – the limit purchased must be no less than a denoted percentage of the full value1 of the building. Here, the percentage is 90%. Because Flynn did obtain, as part of his due diligence, a professional appraisal that determined the replacement value of his building as $5 million, Allie and Donna tell Flynn that he must purchase a limit of no less than 90% of $5 million or $4.5 million. If he does not purchase a building limit of at least $4.5 million, Flynn will face a penalty as a “co-insurer.”

The Coinsurance Penalty Allie refers Flynn to the pages of his property insurance policy, which provide two straightforward illustrations of the concept of coinsurance – including the penalty for being underinsured and what constitutes adequate insurance.2 Allie suggests to Flynn an example using his situation as a hypothetical – what would happen if he purchased less than 90% of the $5 million limit? Let’s say that Flynn bought a limit of $3 million (the amount of his loan principal). If Flynn then had a relatively small covered loss – say a $200,000 water damage loss caused by a broken pipe – he would be penalized as a coinsurer. He would be penalized because the insurer would, at the time of the loss, calculate whether Flynn had complied with the coinsurance condition.

The Coinsurance Formula To determine compliance with the coinsurance condition, the insurer would first ascertain the replacement cost of the building ($5 million) and then note the coinsurance percentage (90%) on the policy – and thus conclude that Flynn should have purchased $4.5 million ($5 million times 90%). But Flynn (in the hypothetical situation) did not meet the coinsurance condition – the limit purchased was $3 million, not the $4.5 million limit that he should have bought. The insurer would compute the coinsurance penalty by dividing the limit Flynn did purchase ($3 million) by the limit he should have purchased ($4.5 million), thereby yielding a percentage of 66%. This percentage (66%) would then be multiplied by the amount of the water damage loss ($200,000), producing a loss payable of $133,333, which is further reduced by Flynn’s deductible. The result is that Flynn would suffer a coinsurance penalty of $66,666 and he would be a 33% “co-insurer.” After further discussion, Flynn now understands the coinsurance formula – did (purchase) divided by should (purchase) may result in reduction in payment for even small or partial losses.

Blanket Building Limit Allie now refers Flynn to a third example3 in the policy regarding coinsurance – how coinsurance is determined if the policy is written with a blanket limit. Flynn’s commercial insurance policy provides a blanket limit for all his buildings, with one limitation that Allie promises to explain later.

A blanket limit4, according to Allie, means that one limit applies to more than one type of property or one limit applies to the same type of property but to more than one location (or both). As Flynn is insuring only the buildings, the blanket limit in his situation applies to the same type of property (buildings) over numerous locations. One limit of $250 million applies to all of Flynn’s listed buildings (again, with one exception). The benefit of this approach becomes evident to Flynn. In the event of certain5 covered losses to one or more of Flynn’s listed buildings – such as may be caused by a hurricane – Flynn has up to $250 million of insurance (in most instances).

Coinsurance and Blanket Limits Blanket limits change the calculus of coinsurance. While the formula is the same – did divided by should times the loss – with a blanket limit, the insurer must determine compliance with the coinsurance condition using total aggregate values. In Flynn’s case, for the insurer to calculate whether he has met the coinsurance condition, the insurer must use the $250 million limit (did), ascertain the insurance limit required (should), which is 90% of the full replacement value of all Flynn’s buildings (an onerous undertaking at best) and then multiply that percentage by the $200,000 water damage loss. As Allie points out, this provides more room for error – if a few buildings are a bit underinsured, but some others are over insured, the chance of applying a coinsurance penalty are reduced.

Margin Clause Two locations that Flynn owns do not have an automatic sprinkler system that is to the insurer’s liking. While the insurer did provide coverage for these two buildings and include both locations within the $250 million blanket building limit, the insurer also added a Margin Clause endorsement6 for these two locations. Flynn recalls that Allie had promised to explain this limitation to him.

The explanation is this: for these two locations, the insurer will not pay up to the $250 million blanket building limit, but instead will pay no more than values last reported for each building multiplied by the percentage shown in the Margin Clause endorsement. While the percentage ranges from 105% to 130%, Flynn’s policy lists in the Margin Clause endorsement 120% for each of the two buildings (reported as locations #16 and #42.) If the building at location #16 was reported as $3 million and location #42 was reported as $6 million, the true limit applicable to each location is $3.6 million ($3 million times 120%) and $7.2 million ($6 million times 120%).7 The effect of the Margin Clause in Flynn’s policy has been to eliminate these two locations from receiving the benefit of the full $250 million blanket building limit.

More Money’s Error – The Agreed Value Optional Coverage At the end of the discussion regarding coinsurance and the blanket building limit, as well as the margin clause limitation, Donna addresses More Money’s rejection of the binder. While the binder does show a 90% coinsurance, More Money failed to notice the coinsurance condition did not apply to any building on Flynn’s policy – the binder clearly listed that Flynn had purchased the Agreed Value optional coverage.8 Donna will explain to More Money that the agreed value option effectively suspends the coinsurance condition to the end of the policy period and that More Money should accept the binder, as the 90% coinsurance condition does not apply to the new building. Donna tells Flynn the agreed value option was provided to Flynn only because the insurer believed the values reported for each building were a reasonably accurate estimate of the full replacement value of each.

Conclusion  While policyholders should strive to provide the insurer with complete and accurate values for buildings (and business personal property) that are the subject of insurance, policyholders also should understand the basic workings of the coinsurance condition, including the potential penalties for underinsurance, as well the purpose of the agreed value option, blanket limits and margin clauses, if applicable. Even a cursory review of the basic illustrations found in the coinsurance condition of the Building and Personal Property Coverage Form should inform any policyholder of the penalties of underinsurance and thus the need for adequate insurance.  Stated differently, no special skill or expertise in insurance is needed to make sense of the coinsurance illustrations – taking only a few minutes to read the examples provided in every Building and Personal Property Coverage Form9should suffice.

For more information: Call Robert J Russell, LAS, LUTCF, Broker – 972.679.9029

Posted in robertjrussell | Leave a comment

An Attitude of Success

Posted on November 8, 2017 by robertjrussellcompanies
Can you picture yourself living your dream? Some people will tell you that getting a clear vision of your success is all you need to do to realize it.
By now, you probably know there’s a lot more to it.
Jim Rohn, the great business philosopher, said, “You must either modify your dreams or magnify your skills.”
If you’re not advancing toward your goals as quickly or as easily as you’d hoped, it’s time to address your skill set. This might mean your industry skills, but real advancement more likely requires you to sharpen your self-discipline and to focus on your personal development.
From productivity tips to leadership styles, how are you supposed to know which skills you should improve and which will lead you down the path of success?
This is an important question to answer correctly because the wrong answer could send you down a rabbit hole of useless suggestions and pie-in-the-sky promises.
The Luck Myth
Before you can answer the question of which skills need improvement, you’ve got to stop telling yourself that success is impossible.
There’s a pervading belief that success happens for others but not for us. Maybe it’s the idea of luck: Some people are just lucky and some people aren’t, right?
Wrong. When it comes to executing a strategy with consistency and the right attitude, luck has no part in the plan. That’s good news because it means that if you create the right map, pack the right gear, and set out with the right pair of binoculars, you’re sure to discover the journey of your dreams.
Luck isn’t about a random set of circumstances that make or break your destiny. Instead, luck is what you make of the things life throws at you. It’s the idea that if you really put your mind to something, you can achieve it.
That might sound simplistic, but any kind of success starts with this fundamental belief that success is possible—for you
Without this essential belief, you’ll get stuck. You might already feel stuck.
When we’re stuck, we have a constant, nagging voice in our heads telling us that we’re not far enough, fast enough, or good enough. There’s a daily regret at not tending to the important things. There’s a recurring feeling of dashed hopes and frustrated dreams.
Being stuck feels like being so close to failure that you’re about to fall off the edge. Every time we think of the life we could have—that life where we’ve met our goals and have set even higher ones—we feel defeated and a little more hopeless.
That’s the danger of believing in luck. If you’re unlucky, you think, “Why bother?” If you’re unlucky, you feel like a failure before you even start. So you don’t start.
It’s time to set aside the myth of luck. Bad luck is not the root of your frustration or failure. Good luck isn’t something that only a few receive.
Instead, your approach to your dreams and the choices you make along the way are the determining factors in whether or not those dreams are possible.
An Attitude of Success
No matter what skills you need to sharpen to move ahead toward your vision, the first skill most people need to hone is attitude. You can call it perspective, approach, or mindset—but it all comes down to the same concept. How you think about your life and your business is the first essential part of success.
And yes, the right attitude for success is a skill. Developing the right attitude for success might seem simple, but it’s a lifetime endeavor.
Why? Because each new challenge, every setback, and any roadblock can blast away your positive attitude and replace it with dread, depression, or defeatism.
“The worst thing one can do is not to try, to be aware of what one wants and not give in to it, to spend years in silent hurt wondering if something could have materialized – never knowing,” Rohn said.
That sad outcome is one too many people are familiar with – you likely know someone who didn’t pursue their greatest dream and regretted it deeply.
You don’t have to go down that road. Instead, you can pick up the essential tool of a success attitude and choose a brighter path.
To develop your own attitude of success, you’ve got to determine what success means for you. Ask yourself:
  • What makes life valuable?
  • What makes life worthwhile?
  • What makes life work well in all areas?
The answers to these questions will help you define success for yourself. It might look like travel with your family, financial freedom, your own business or a certain promotion, robust health, and a sense of peace and well-being. Try to be specific as you consider the successful life you’d like to lead.
The next step is considering what thoughts, ideas, and beliefs will support this life.
For example, if your family and friends make life worthwhile, then you need an idea on how to spend more time with them. You need the daily thought of your family’s well-being, and you need the core belief that family obligations are more important than professional ones. Without that, all the calendar reminders in the world won’t get you home in time for dinner with your spouse and children.
Your attitude, or as Rohn called it, your personal philosophy, is the first step toward success on any path.
“While there are many puzzle pieces for success,” Rohn said, “without developing a sound personal philosophy, the other pieces are of little value.”
Responsibility Thinking
The sound philosophy Rohn refers to is the attitude of success you build through the right thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.
When you take such an attitude, the other pieces of your success plan function at a much higher level. Your future is within reach when you have a firm foundation on which to build and maintain it.
Taking responsibility for your attitude is the first step. Most people hand over the responsibility for their attitude in the following ways:
  • They point to personal circumstances as the reason for their attitude.
  • They point to other people’s actions (or inactions) as the reason for their attitude.
  • They point to luck (or lack of it) as the reason for their attitude.
  • They point to their own flaws or failures as the reason for their attitude.
  • They point to the world at large as the reason for their attitude.
None of these are suitable excuses to have a poor attitude. Sure, things happen in life you can’t control, but as Rohn says, “You must take personal responsibility. You cannot change the circumstances, the seasons, or the wind, but you can change yourself. That is something you have charge of.”
Consistent Learning
The difference between someone who has a difficult youth, a career full of failures, and a personal life that’s in shambles versus a person who has the same difficult youth, career full of failures, and personal life that’s in shambles but has an attitude for success to go with all that is massive.
That one ingredient—the right attitude—can make or break us.
Because the right attitude for success says, sure, we had a rough start in life, but we aren’t going to sit around blaming others’ actions for our choices. Instead, we’re going to start shedding old ideas and adopting new beliefs to grow beyond the painful past.
The right attitude for success says, ‘Wow, we failed a lot in our professional life but what we learned from those failures will propel us even further next time we try!’
And the right attitude for success says, ‘Relationships are hard sometimes and we all lose people we care about, but now we can take what we’ve experienced and apply it so we’re the best versions of ourselves.’
Rather than spend idle time wondering why we have it so rough, an attitude of success inspires us to look back only to see what lessons we can take with us as we charge into the future.
Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to help us get there, but if we end up in a positive place of gratitude, even after difficulty, we know we have the right attitude for success.
Your Personal Development Plan
Once you’ve stepped back from your challenges and looked at things with a new view, you might feel like it is smooth sailing from here on out.
Well, probably not. Every path has its highs and lows. In fact, the most difficult thing you face might be maintaining that positive attitude.
It’s a daily discipline to keep your personal philosophy at the forefront of your mind.
Everything else in your world will battle for prominence, from the news to your complaining neighbor. You might feel pumped up at the thought of your impending success, but without the right attitude to keep your mindset on track, your plan is likely to fail.
You need to adopt a personal development plan that helps you on a both a daily and weekly basis. Reading, writing, talking with other success-minded folks, and learning from a mentor are all part of a solid personal development plan. The idea is to control what your mind dwells on and how you see the world. If you leave this vital component of your life to anyone else—whether that’s your boss or the local news anchor—you’re likely to be disappointed.
“If you don’t design your own life plan,” Rohn said, “chances are you’ll fall into someone else’s plan. And guess what they have planned for you? Not much.”
Posted in Business, robertjrussell | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Help After Harvey

Posted on August 31, 2017 by robertjrussellcompanies

Help after Harvey

home with damage from fallen tree

My home was damaged by Harvey: A quick guide on filing claims, deadlines, and resources.

My car was flooded: Answers to common questions if your car is flooded.

Get help in person: Visit a mobile unit location to get help filing a claim.

House Bill 1774: The legislation does not change how you file a claim or how your insurer will process your claim.

Emergency adjusters: Information on the emergency adjuster application process. To apply, complete Parts I, II, and IX of the application. Fingerprints aren’t required. There is a $20 fee.

Workers’ compensation: Information for injured employees, health care providers, and workers’ comp carriers.

Visit: http://www.InsurancePricedRight.com

Posted in Insurance, robertjrussell | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Top 100 P&C Groups – 2016

Posted on August 6, 2017 by robertjrussellcompanies
2016 RANK 2015 RANK GROUP NAME NET PREMIUMS WRITTEN 2016 PERCENTAGE GROWTH COMBINED RATIO 2016 COMBINED RATIO 2015
1 1 State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. 62,365,585 5.08 108.70 103.30
2 2 Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 38,782,982 9.06 95.00 93.44
3 3 Allstate Corp. 29,864,836 2.52 96.78 95.49
4 4 Liberty Mutual 26,653,251 3.32 102.48 98.94
5 6 Progressive Corp. 23,357,935 12.72 95.27 92.46
6 5 Travelers Companies Inc. 23,339,951 4.25 91.81 87.56
7 7 Nationwide Mutual Group 19,324,954 1.71 107.66 104.73
8 9 USAA Insurance Group 17,787,459 9.14 106.54 101.40
9 8 American International Group 16,246,103 -13.35 131.33 121.28
10 11 Farmers Insurance Group of Cos. 14,761,837 -1.13 105.38 103.05
11 10 Chubb Ltd. 12,162,027 -22.42 88.95 88.41
12 12 Hartford Financial Services 10,626,303 0.06 100.03 96.10
13 13 American Family Insurance Group 7,874,511 7.76 100.48 95.47
14 15 Tokio Marine Group 6,387,454 3.67 94.67 94.04
15 14 CNA Financial Corp. 6,367,223 0.55 115.00 113.60
16 16 Erie Insurance Group 6,253,945 6.16 96.46 96.95
17 17 Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 6,056,805 4.33 89.87 87.14
18 18 W. R. Berkley Corp. 5,711,462 6.98 94.34 89.22
19 23 Alleghany Corp. 4,702,655 15.44 92.98 89.39
20 20 Fairfax Financial Holdings 4,659,386 5.54 94.43 94.21
21 21 Cincinnati Financial Corp. 4,583,666 5.03 94.49 90.64
22 22 Munich-American Holding Corp. 4,279,690 2.33 97.03 93.65
23 19 Zurich Insurance Group 4,179,915 -17.42 96.34 99.21
24 24 American Financial Group Inc. 3,914,028 2.95 90.02 92.48
25 25 Hanover Insurance Group Inc. 3,885,449 4.25 100.89 98.64
26 27 Auto Club Exchange Group 3,619,222 7.98 107.34 100.69
27 26 MetLife Inc. 3,558,284 0.97 99.98 96.89
28 28 CSAA Insurance Exchange 3,496,851 5.57 104.59 111.38
29 29 FM Global 3,284,984 0.53 83.57 86.48
30 30 Mercury General Corp. 3,117,223 5.30 102.00 100.56
31 32 Markel Corp. 2,588,281 9.07 92.44 91.66
32 31 Old Repub International Corp. 2,567,869 -7.53 95.37 96.03
33 34 AmTrust Financial Services 2,434,068 3.48 96.19 89.90
34 43 National General Holdings Corp. 2,341,975 19.84 106.65 102.89
35 40 Selective Insurance Group Inc. 2,237,288 8.09 92.05 92.64
36 38 COUNTRY Financial 2,199,799 0.02 100.40 100.80
37 36 Assurant Inc. 2,197,922 -4.48 90.87 85.78
38 37 Swiss Re Ltd. 2,170,222 -4.49 95.32 87.32
39 41 MAPFRE SA 2,164,931 5.73 102.29 108.82
40 35 QBE Insurance Group Ltd. 2,105,172 -9.45 97.03 100.36
41 44 Amica Mutual Insurance Co. 2,086,541 7.40 109.09 112.51
42 39 Everest Re Group Ltd. 2,050,560 -1.39 88.49 83.37
43 45 Auto Club Insurance Association 2,016,330 4.14 97.58 97.70
44 46 Sentry Insurance a Mutual Co. 2,012,494 7.05 103.95 102.94
45 42 State Auto Insurance Companies 1,989,670 1.56 106.85 102.73
46 54 XL Group Ltd. 1,820,036 19.80 99.45 106.53
47 47 Westfield Group 1,809,536 2.28 98.17 96.66
48 48 NJ Manufacturers Insurance Co. 1,782,566 2.64 105.53 101.32
49 49 Arch Capital Group Ltd. 1,735,145 1.18 76.45 74.46
50 50 Kemper Corp. 1,713,851 3.59 107.77 104.20
51 51 Employers Mutual Casualty Co. 1,707,990 3.76 97.84 98.16
52 55 Federated Mutual Group 1,648,697 12.14 92.82 92.58
53 53 Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 1,638,826 5.40 100.73 97.47
54 52 State Compensation Ins. Fund 1,598,620 -1.61 129.90 127.41
55 56 Infinity P&C Corp. 1,392,459 1.40 102.41 100.64
56 33 Allianz Group 1,356,522 -42.52 138.08 123.38
57 57 Farm Bureau Mutual Holding Co. 1,320,474 0.48 86.51 88.66
58 58 ACUITY A Mutual Insurance Co. 1,316,282 3.65 92.88 93.01
59 59 Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Group 1,292,174 3.19 108.26 99.39
60 63 Alfa Mutual Group 1,229,371 7.99 102.98 102.28
61 73 SCOR 1,224,273 26.83 93.50 84.94
62 60 PartnerRe Ltd. 1,220,320 -1.12 99.46 90.84
63 67 AF Group 1,209,192 13.84 85.26 83.92
64 62 Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins Co. 1,203,666 2.41 87.55 81.51
65 61 Grange Mutual Casualty Co. 1,170,308 -4.26 94.95 100.05
66 68 American National Insurance 1,134,100 7.72 101.64 98.51
67 69 Texas Farm Bureau 1,110,334 5.56 103.00 103.87
68 65 Starr International Co. 1,068,785 -4.94 102.70 93.94
69 72 Main Street America Group 1,066,214 10.19 103.81 99.89
70 66 Ameriprise Financial Inc. 1,065,253 -0.28 108.91 113.97
71 74 West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 1,016,122 5.79 98.62 93.67
72 75 Sompo Holdings Inc. 995,710 5.45 92.83 95.80
73 64 Texas Mutual Insurance Co. 984,434 -13.18 93.57 90.98
74 76 ICW Group 973,276 9.22 88.00 86.02
75 70 MGIC Investment Corp. 970,059 -7.07 99.12 100.70
76 77 United Fire Group Inc. 964,970 8.68 100.17 93.42
77 78 KY Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. 937,898 6.85 102.98 104.97
78 79 AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. 888,503 3.04 107.39 103.46
79 80 Utica National Insurance Group 887,038 8.01 99.48 100.93
80 83 Navigators Group Inc. 844,987 11.61 93.37 95.83
81 84 CUNA Mutual Insurance Group 823,600 8.86 95.24 91.24
82 81 Arbella Mutual Insurance Co. 814,697 1.66 97.10 113.52
83 82 Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. 813,359 4.82 101.09 96.85
84 86 Donegal Insurance Group 800,144 8.31 96.36 97.78
85 89 NC Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co. 771,167 7.61 104.66 94.07
86 85 Safety Insurance Group Inc. 766,469 2.72 95.78 111.72
87 90 FCCI Mutual Ins. Holding Co. 750,099 5.49 110.26 97.68
88 93 Genworth Financial Inc. 745,219 8.96 48.13 61.50
89 87 RLI Corp. 740,952 2.60 89.04 83.94
90 71 Radian Group Inc. 733,723 -24.23 55.66 46.04
91 88 Motorists Insurance Group 714,348 -0.44 102.95 102.52
92 91 Plymouth Rock of New Jersey 704,471 1.97 99.42 100.51
93 92 Employers Insurance Group 694,589 0.76 91.23 93.52
94 95 Michigan Farm Bureau 693,869 5.45 95.86 95.27
95 94 PA National Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. 685,933 1.57 98.50 99.26
96 96 Church Mutual Insurance Co. 683,545 4.10 92.45 90.89
97 99 Universal Insurance Holdings 656,094 4.73 87.02 75.44
98 98 Pinnacol Assurance 632,192 -1.21 92.80 91.31
99 100 Horace Mann Educators Corp. 631,425 4.72 101.66 97.11
100 97 The Doctors Co. 622,966 -3.10 103.00 93.17
Posted in Insurance, robertjrussell | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

15 Cities where rent has increased in 2017

Posted on July 28, 2017 by robertjrussellcompanies

While home prices across the country have risen, the market for renting has surged. (Photo: Shutterstock)

In the decade since the housing market bubble rocked the economy, the homeowners’ market has felt the tides change.

While home prices across the country have risen, the market for renting has surged — in large part due to millennials, who have surpassed baby boomer generation as the largest generation in the American workforce.

In an increasingly digital world, the insurance industry has adapted. Companies like Lemonade have emerged and disrupted the insurance sector by offering renters, condo, co-op and homeowners’ insurance through non-traditional means. Jetty, which launched in multiple states in April, has insurance specifically designed for city dwellers. The market for renters’ insurance has opened the door for companies looking to insure the growing number of renters.

For those considering where to relocate next, factoring the cost of rent is an essential consideration. GOBankingRates, using data from Zillow on the year-over-year change in median rent, has determined the top 15 cities where rents have increased the most in 2017.

With this in mind, keep reading to see which cities renters may want to avoid:

Delray Beach, Florida 

15. Delray Beach, Florida

 

  • May 2016 rent: $1,240
  • May 2017 rent: $1,445
  • Year-over-year change: $205

 

East Orange NJ 

14. East Orange, New Jersey

 

  • May 2016 rent: $995
  • May 2017 rent: $1,200
  • Year-over-year change: $205

 

El Cajon, Cali.  

13. El Cajon, California

 

  • May 2016 rent: $1,150
  • May 2017 rent: $1,357.50
  • Year-over-year change: $207.50

 

Tacoma WA.  

12. Tacoma, Washington

 

  • May 2016 rent: $946
  • May 2017 rent: $1,155
  • Year-over-year change: $209

 

Savannah GA 

11. Savannah, Georgia

 

  • May 2016 rent: $905
  • May 2017 rent: $1,119
  • Year-over-year change: $214

 

Chula Vista Cali 

10. Chula Vista, California

 

  • May 2016 rent: $1,440
  • May 2017 rent: $1,659.50
  • Year-over-year change: $219.50

 

Newark NJ 

9. Newark, New Jersey

 

  • May 2016 rent: $880
  • May 2017 rent: $1,100
  • Year-over-year change: $220

 

Foster City, Cali 

8. Foster City, California

 

  • May 2016 rent: $2,741
  • May 2017 rent: $2,968
  • Year-over-year change: $227

 

Phoenix AZ 

7. Phoenix, Arizona

 

  • May 2016 rent: $850
  • May 2017 rent: $1,084.50
  • Year-over-year change: $234.50

 

Euless TX 

6. Euless, Texas

 

  • May 2016 rent: $795
  • May 2017 rent: $1,049
  • Year-over-year change: $254

 

Corona, Cali 

5. Corona, California

 

  • May 2016 rent: $1,238
  • May 2017 rent: $1,511.50
  • Year-over-year change: $273.50

 

Columbia, MD 

4. Columbia, Maryland

 

  • May 2016 rent: $1,335
  • May 2017 rent: $1,612
  • Year-over-year change: $277

Jersey City, NJ 

3. Jersey City, New Jersey

 

  • May 2016 rent: $1,950
  • May 2017 rent: $2,235
  • Year-over-year change: $285

 

Medford Mass.  

2. Medford, Massachusetts

 

  • May 2016 rent: $1,600
  • May 2017 rent: $2,005
  • Year-over-year change: $405

 

Marina del Rey, Cali 

1. Marina del Rey, California

 

  • May 2016 rent: $2,800
  • May 2017 rent: $3,241.50
  • Year-over-year change: $441.50
Posted in real estate, robertjrussell | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What happens when a renter dies on the property….

Posted on July 27, 2017 by robertjrussellcompanies

It may be difficult for a property owner to recoup cleanup costs after a renter has died on site. Here, AAA Crime Scene Steam and Clean worker Carol Oguri and owner Kathie Jo Kadziauskas work on a Los Angeles condominium where a man died of natural causes but was not found for a week. (AP Photo/Jill Connelly)

It may be difficult for a property owner to recoup cleanup costs after a renter has died on site. Here, AAA Crime Scene Steam and Clean worker Carol Oguri and owner Kathie Jo Kadziauskas work on a Los Angeles condominium where a man died of natural causes but was not found for a week.

Question: Last year, one of our clients’ tenants was found dead in their apartment. The body was there about 2 weeks. A claim was reported to the insurance company, and the insured contracted a forensic cleanup company to handle the apartment. The carrier has since denied the claim, citing the pollution exclusion. I was hoping that you had some information or documentation that I can use to dispute the carrier’s position that the bodily fluids are not considered a pollutant.

Sometimes if you ask five coverage professionals what something means, you’ll get five different answers.

 

Answer: Couch on Ins. § 127:8 says it best: “Several courts have applied the principle of ‘ejusdem generis,’ interpreting pollution by reference to the surrounding language in order to limit the list of substances that may otherwise qualify as pollutants. Thus, although the list of substances provided in the definition may be nonexhaustive, substances not specifically mentioned must be similar in nature to the listed substances. For example, it has been held that living, organic irritants or contaminants do not constitute pollutants under the policy definition because the irritants specifically identified in the definition, namely, “smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste,” are primarily inorganic in nature.

The homeowners form HO 00 03 05 11 does not define pollutants in the definitions. Pollutants are defined in the exclusions section as “solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed…”

The intent of the exclusion is to eliminate coverage from industrial products and byproducts. A human body cannot be recycled or reconditioned or reclaimed. That implies being able to reuse the materials again for the same or similar purposes. Organ donation is not recycling a human body. Nicholson v. Allstate Ins. Co. (979 F. Supp. 2d 1054, E.D. Cal. 2013) speaks to this directly. In this case, the court stated that the carrier failed to show that the standard pollution exclusion in the homeowners policy would be understood by a reasonable policyholder to apply to bat guano and decaying bat carcasses.

Exclusions are to be read narrowly, and reading the pollution exclusion narrowly puts the list of excluded items as being industrial or environmental in nature, and not the result of a natural tenant death.

Dealing with decomposition


Question: There was a deceased body in an apartment building. Tenant had complained about the smell and alleged damages as a result of the odor. Our insured did not know there was a dead body in the building. Can the fumes/gases released by a dead body be considered a pollutant?

— Washington, D.C. Subscriber

Answer: Dead body gases should not be considered a pollutant since the current trend by courts is to view pollutants and the pollution exclusion in connection with environmental issues. However, before any consideration of exclusions should be considered, where is the liability on the part of the insured? Where is the bodily injury and/or property damage to a third party? The insuring agreement has to be considered first before any exclusions are considered, and these circumstances you describe do not seem to match any part of the insuring agreement.

Twice the grieving for a common law widow


Question: This is on a general liability policy. The insured is a funeral home. The claimant and the deceased were common law married. The claimant came home and found her domestic partner dead. Without the claimant’s permission, the insured picked up the body and transferred the body to one of its facilities.

The claimant contacted the insured, who confirmed they had permission to take the corpse.

The claimant asked if she could view the body and was told that she would have to obtain permission to view the body from the deceased’s mother, and that she would have to pay $300 to view the body. The claimant told the insured that she is the legal spouse and should be allowed to view the body. The insured refused to allow the claimant to view the body without the permission from the family or without paying a fee.

Then, without the claimant’s permission or knowledge, the insured cremated the body. The claimant was opposed to cremation and believes that her partner would not have wanted to be cremated. The insured then released the ashes to his estranged mother, who took the remains with her to another state. This was done without the consent or knowledge of the claimant.

The claimant has filed a lawsuit and is seeking compensation for emotional distress plus punitive damages.

Would this be considered an occurrence under the CGL form?

— California Subscriber

Answer: This sounds like a questionable case of liability on the part of the insured. We do not know the law in this area, but it seems that the parents have the legal right to dispose of the son’s remains and the insured was just following the proper instructions. But you would have to check with an attorney on this to see what the law in that area is when it comes to the status of common law couples.

In any case, if the insured is liable, emotional distress is not covered by the CGL form. There has to be bodily injury or property damage. As for an occurrence, that has to be considered from the standpoint of the insured. So, if the insured made a mistake and followed the wrong instructions, that is an accident and therefore an occurrence.

Covering an accidental carbon monoxide poisoning


Question: Our insured had some friends in his garage for a get-together. Because it was winter, they had a space heater going. The end result was that our insured and one of his friends are dead. The family of the deceased friend is suing our insured’s wife, and she herself is making a derivative claim for bodily injury. Our homeowners policy appears to exclude any coverage whatsoever. There is a Section I and II exclusion, which precludes coverage for “bodily injury, personal injury, mental anguish or property damage … involving the presence, discharge, dispersal… of toxic chemicals, liquids or gases… or any substance which [is] or may be injurious to public health or the environment (herein called ‘hazardous substances’) into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water…”

— Illinois Subscriber

Answer: We reviewed three cases that addressed this problem. They involved commercial liability; however, the wording of the exclusion under review was comparable to that in your homeowners form.

In the first, Essex Insurance Co. v. Tri-Town Corp. (863 F.Supp. 38, D. Mass. 1994), the court upheld the exclusion when a malfunctioning Zamboni machine emitted carbon monoxide into an ice rink. But a court in Pennsylvania reached a different conclusion with reference to the same exclusion. A hot water heater malfunctioned, allowing carbon monoxide to infiltrate a restaurant, resulting in bodily injury. The court looked at Tri-Town, and noted that the word “atmosphere” had not been discussed. The court said that “the exclusion is worded broadly to encompass the natural resources of this planet in their natural setting… within the context of the pollution exclusion, the distinction is not in the air itself but where the air happens to be… We conclude, therefore, that the term ‘atmosphere’ in the pollution exclusion does not exclude coverage under the primary policies for the contamination or pollution of air within a building.” (This case is Gamble Farm Inn Inc. v. Selective Insurance Co. (656 A.2d 142, Pa. Super. 1995).

That brings us to American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms (687 N.E.2d 72 , Ill. 1997). Here, tenants in a building owned by the Koloms were sickened by carbon monoxide fumes from a furnace. The Illinois Supreme Court considered Gamble Farm Inn, noting that the court said the exclusion was ambiguous, and considered other cases that denied coverage on the grounds that the exclusion was plain and unambiguous. The court said “we agree with those courts which have restricted the exclusion’s otherwise potentially limitless application to only those hazards traditionally associated with environmental pollution. We find support for our decision in the drafting history of the exclusion, which reveals an intent on the part of the insurance industry to so limit the clause.”

And this approach appears to be the fairest to your insured. There would be no coverage for negligently discharging oil or gas into a storm drain or water supply, say, but there is coverage when, as in this case, a space heater malfunctions.

We also noted in the policy the statement that “the exclusion does not apply to liability resulting from the use of product [sic] used in the cleaning or maintenance of the household or residence premises.” The space heater can be viewed as a product used in the maintenance of the residence premises in that it is used to maintain heat.

So, given the courts’ findings and this exception, we think the claim against the insured for bodily injury is covered. We do not think the insured’s wife has a claim against the policy, because most homeowners forms exclude coverage for bodily injury to an insured. You will want to review the policy’s exclusions.

Posted in Insurance, real estate, robertjrussell | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Best and Worst States for Life Expectancy

Posted on July 26, 2017 by robertjrussellcompanies

After you read this, please comment on where you live….

In the U.S., the county in which you live can add — or subtract — as much as 20 years, or even more, from your lifespan. (Photo: Fotolia)
In the U.S., the county in which you live can add — or subtract — as much as 20 years, or even more, from your lifespan.

The U.S. doesn’t just have an inequality gap—it also has a life expectancy gap.

That’s according to a study from the University of Washington, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, which finds that the county in which you live can add—or subtract—as much as 20 years, or even more, from your lifespan.

Findings from the study, reports The Guardian, reveal that residents of specific affluent counties in central Colorado had the highest life expectancy at 87 years.

But several counties in North and South Dakota, often home to Native American reservations, could cut that down to just 66.

Political changes could boost the riches of American millionaires even further.

Researchers also predict that the gap will become even wider in the future; during the period studied—1980–2014—11.5 percent of U.S. counties saw the risk of death for residents aged 25–45 increase. No previous study, the report says, “has put the disparity at even close to 20 years.”

Says The Guardian, “Previous studies recorded lower variations ranging from 12 to 17 years between counties, with the highest and lowest life expectancies in both 2007 and 2010. These were an underestimation, according to the University of Washington team, because data from smaller counties was either combined with others or excluded altogether.”

“This is way worse than any of us had assumed,” Ali Mokdad, professor of global health at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and one of the authors of the study, is quoted saying in the report.

He adds, “You expect disparities in any country, but you don’t expect the disparities to be increasing in a country with our wealth and might. We spend more money on healthcare than anybody else, and we debate the hell out of healthcare more than anybody else, and still the disparities are increasing.”

Mokdad points to the dispute in Congress over health insurance as an example of how misleading the mere coverage by a health insurance policy can be, and how indicative it is of inequality.

“Many people don’t have health insurance, but even among those who do it’s misleading,” he says in the report, adding, “My insurance, for example, allows me to go to a doctor for an exam and a blood test and they’ll tell me if I have a problem early on. Many don’t have that luxury, only catastrophic insurance, so if they’re hit by a car they’ll be treated.”

 

He also highlights how location can play a role in other health factors, such as those who live in mountainous or rural areas where it can take two hours to reach a good health facility in the event of an emergency—or the poor areas within or just outside of rich cities that are food deserts for such essentials as fresh produce.

The study calculates overall average U.S. life expectancy at 79.1 years, 5.3 years higher than in 1980—which is the beginning of the 35-year period for which researchers compared death records, census returns, the human mortality database and figures from the National Center for Health Statistics on a county-by-county basis.

However, researchers caution that that 5.3-year increase “masks massive variation at the county level,” adding.

They added, “Counties in central Colorado, Alaska and along both coasts experienced much larger increases, while some southern counties in states stretching from Oklahoma to West Virginia saw little, if any, improvement over this same period.”

When it came to decline, variation again was key.

Researchers write, “Similarly, there was considerable variation among counties in the percent decline in the mortality risk within each age group. While all counties experienced declines in mortality risk for children 0 to five years, and nearly all experienced declines in the mortality risk for adolescents and older adults 45 to 85, 11.5 percent [of counties] experienced increases in the risk of death between ages 25 and 45 years.”

Where does the variation come from?

The study points to differences in socioeconomic and race/ethnicity factors, availability of and access to quality health care and insurance, and “preventable risk factors” such as smoking, drinking and physical inactivity.

But other factors cause problems, too, such as guns, automobile accidents and drugs, which weigh on male lifespans, as well as the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables in local markets and people’s distance from health care providers—factors over which they have little or no control.

Below you’ll find the 7 states in which counties have the longest lifespans or have experienced the greatest increase in life expectancy, as well as the 7 states in which counties have the lowest lifespans or have experienced the greatest decrease in life expectancy.

The states are not in order, and you’ll notice something interesting as you go through both lists:

 

7 regions in the U.S. with the longest life expectancy

 

7. Minnesota.

Southern Minnesota boasts several counties where the length of lifespan is quite impressive.

 

6. Colorado.

Colorado offers some really impressive longevity statistics, although most of the counties accounting for that are mostly located in the central portion of the state.

 

5. Wyoming.

If you follow the admonition to “go west, young man,” you’ll find the majority of the Wyoming counties offering the best chance at a lengthy life.

 

4. Texas.

Again, the western part of the state houses most of the counties where residents live longest—although there have been less notable gains in some other parts of the state.

 

3. California.

Everyone flocks to the coast in California, and the majority of the counties offering the chance for the longest life in the state are coastal counties.

 

2. Florida.

Southwestern Florida offers residents the best chance at a long life, having experienced a substantial increase in longevity over the period of the study.

 

1. Alaska.

Some Alaska counties saw major increases in lifespan between 1980 and 2014.

 

7 regions in the U.S. with the lowest life expectancy

 

7. North Dakota.

North Dakota and its neighbor to the south have the dubious distinction of having counties with the lowest life expectancy—nothing to boast about.

 

6. South Dakota.

South Dakota shares the misfortune with North Dakota of having counties offering the lowest life expectancy.

 

5. Oklahoma.

Southern counties in a number of states, including Oklahoma, saw little or no improvement in lifespan over the course of the study period.

 

4. Mississippi.

Rural western Mississippi is home to counties that do very poorly when it comes to longevity—and they haven’t experienced much, if any, improvement over the life of the study.

 

3. Kentucky.

Eastern Kentucky is another state in which a number of counties suffer from shorter lifespans.

 

2. West Virginia.

Southwestern West Virginia is another area where counties are suffering.

 

1. Alaska.

Yes, Alaska actually makes both lists—while counties experienced substantial increases in lifespan over the period of the study, life expectancy at birth across the state is nothing to boast of.

Ok….now what state do you live in?

 

Posted in Insurance, robertjrussell | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Insurance Call Centers

Posted on July 25, 2017 by robertjrussellcompanies

The insurance industry has been plagued with call-center problems for the better part of a decade.

Consider the 2008 report from Genyses Worldwide, “Customer Service Strategies for the Insurance Industry,” which found that mishandled policyholder phone calls was a leading cause of insurance customer dissatisfaction — this at a time when the insurance industry as a whole began to experience slower growth and consolidation.

More contemporary research has concluded that nearly all insurance customers who reach out to a carrier via telephone are placed on hold, and it takes less than a minute of being on hold for a business relationship to suffer, says David Squibb, a customer experience expert and chief sales and marketing officer of Xpertdoc, the global communications technology firm based in Terrebonne, Quebec, Canada.

Here’s why today’s tech-savvy, forward-thinking insurance businesses have little choice but to incorporate texting.

Squibb believes the simplest way for P&C companies and partners to properly handle phone calls is to replace traditional call centers with technology-driven communications solutions.

Here, he answers five questions about that idea, and offers suggestions that carriers can use to reduce policyholder reliance on telephone calls.

PC360: What is the connection between call centers and customer satisfaction in the insurance business?

Squibb: Customer satisfaction plays a vital role, not just in keeping customers but also in attracting new customers through positive word-of-mouth referrals. For call centers, keeping customers satisfied means not only processing claims, billing inquiries, and new account applications but also resolving issues and complaints quickly and efficiently. Nearly three-quarters of customers say they will return if complaints are resolved quickly, according to recent studies.

PC360: What are potential solutions to the challenges posed by call center communications?

Squibb: Many call centers lack the appropriate tools and software needed to deliver on customer needs and expectations. On average, 26% of an agent’s time is spent looking for relevant data in various systems during each customer contact. Merging separate database management solutions in an organization (accounting/billing, marketing automation and CRM platforms) to one unified platform like a CCM, can give agents a complete view of a customer at any given time and touch point while reducing response times.

For call centers, keeping customers satisfied means not only processing claims, billing inquiries, and new account applications but also resolving issues and complaints quickly and efficiently. (Photo: iStock)

For call centers, keeping customers satisfied means not only processing claims, billing inquiries, and new account applications but also resolving issues and complaints quickly and efficiently. (Photo: iStock)

PC360: What role will chatbots play in the future of insurance industry customer communications?

Squibb: The “chatbot” phenomenon isn’t new to the insurance industry and has been widely used for over a decade. (For example, Allie is Allianz’s online assistant, Mia answers customer’s insurance queries for Co-op Banking Group, and Arbie “works” for RBC Insurance in Canada).

According to Gartner, AI bots will power 85% of all customer service interactions by the year 2020. A good chatbot can help an insurance company offer a better experience to its customers because they provide users an easy way to get the information they need. They can show users one response at a time with a quick and personalized approach including images, content, links, call-to-action buttons or direct payment options based on user input at a specific point.

From a claims perspective, more carriers are turning to chatbots to automate repetitive communication functions like registering the first notice of loss, arranging emergency assistance, and offering pre- and post-disaster assistance.

PC360: What other emerging technologies can insurance providers, agents, claims agents and executives capitalize on to build their business?

Squibb: Blockchain is seen as one of the major technology disruptors in the insurance industry. Its ability to send, receive and store information has the underlying power to disrupt the way insurers’ process digital transactions.

According to a report by KPMG, one of the more disruptive uses of blockchain in insurance is the development of ‘smart contract’ models: “Smart contracts contain self-executing protocols that work with a blockchain to enforce the performance of a contract across all counterparties. Claims data is shared across all counterparties. Identities and contract provisions are immediately verified. Payments are automatically made. And, as a result, less adjudication and negotiation is required and costs are minimized.”

PC360: What tip or message do you have for insurance businesses that may be struggling to find adequate resources to keep pace with innovation demands?

Squibb: Leverage technology partners that can deliver real results in short timeframes. Modern solutions (like Xpertdoc) allow carriers to fill the resource gap by rethinking their approach and game plan to deliver real results to their customers.

Automation that employs business rules, AI, dynamic conditional content can remove the burden from limited insurance staff and propel their customer engagement capabilities forward in a major way.

Posted in Insurance, robertjrussell | Tagged , | Leave a comment