Here is a great article that was posted by Safeco Insurance. Our Tague Alliance members and independent insurance agents in general need to be more than "order takers". It is unacceptable that a teenager working the McDonald's drive-thru line can be more effective at selling value than licensed and educated insurance agents. Think about it...what questions are you asked every time you go through McDonald's? "Would you like to make that a large combo?" "Would you like to try our Mocha blah blah blah?" "Would you like an apple pie with that?" So as insurance agents we need to be sure that we are offering our clients all the protection they need. Just as McDonald's is "rounding out" your meal by offering you additional products; we need to be doing the same thing by offering to write the home/auto/umbrella, etc.
Remember one simple fact: Those who sell on price will die on price!
Selling value: Don't get caught in the price trap 6/24/2010
Insurance sales conversations frequently start with an apples-to-apples price comparison. If that describes the approach you take, Josh Stirpe, director of Safeco's Licensed Sales department, wants you to tip the proverbial cart over and use a more effective approach.
"Once you start a conversation with price as the focal point, it becomes difficult to engage the client in a conversation about the value of a particular insurance policy, even if it costs a little more than their current policy," explains Stirpe, whose background in the industry includes a stint as an agent. "It's imperative to present a total package of benefits to them. Agents first must sell value, explaining what coverages and services the client will get."
"Statistics show that more than two-thirds of clients are willing to pay a higher price for maximum protection."
— Josh Stirpe, director of Safeco Licensed Sales
He recommends that you:
Avoid falling into the “price trap” by positioning yourself as a way to save the client money.
Find out why the client is shopping. Uncover the catalyst for the quote inquiry.
Take the time to understand all the risks in the household (not just those that are covered in the requested quote).
Tailor the presentation to the overall risk exposure.
Above all else, invest time in educating the client by providing examples he or she can relate to … Insurance is more than the lowest price; it is something that can protect the client's way of life in the event of a tragedy.
Value-selling policies results in loyal, long-term clients — boosting your retention. But that's not all your agency will gain.
"Producers also are more satisfied because they get away from being 'quote generators' and instead are doing what they got into this business for in the first place, to educate their clients and protect people," he says.
Benefits vs. price
While many consumers certainly look to save money wherever possible, research shows that price is seldom the primary reason people make a buying decision. According to comScore's Auto Insurance Survey, when offered a choice between low-cost/minimum coverage and high-cost/maximum coverage, the majority of consumers fall in the middle to upper-middle range. What that indicates is exactly what value-selling is all about: People are more interested in feeling protected than in saving a few dollars.
"Statistics show that more than two-thirds of clients are willing to pay a higher price for maximum protection," Stirpe notes. "A high percentage of clients will go that road with their agents who value-sell the protection."
The value-sell approach involves bringing to the forefront what you as an independent agent can provide that insurance consumers can't get elsewhere:
Expert advice
The ability to identify coverage gaps and overlaps
A knowledge of industry trends that affect consumers
The ability to customize a plan that meets each individual's protection needs
A variety of policy choices
"When insurance consumers initially meet with an independent agent, they may start out with a desire to see how they can save money, but quickly become ecstatic if an agent first educates them on benefits," says Stirpe.
He says price should be the last resort in the sales process. At the point that price does enter the equation (and of course it will for many people), you can remind customers that Safeco offers a variety of cost-cutting solutions, such as discounts when they purchase multiple policies, including Home, Auto and Specialty policies. Eighty-five percent of insurance consumers will consider hearing how bundling their coverages can translate into a discount.
"Clients will be less likely to shop elsewhere – including online – when agents value-sell and show that they are looking out for their clients' future."
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Tague Alliance - Inducted Into The Safeco Insurance H.K. Dent Society
Tague Alliance is excited and proud to have been inducted into the H.K. Dent Society. This is an elite group of independent insurance agencies who represent Safeco Insurance. Only 7% of Safeco's 12,000+ agents are part of the H.K. Dent Society.
Many thanks to all the members of Tague Alliance for their Safeco production over the years which has allowed us to qualify for this honor.
Many thanks to all the members of Tague Alliance for their Safeco production over the years which has allowed us to qualify for this honor.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Tague Alliance - Carlsbad Condo Court Case Overview
The court case review below provided by Rough Notes is an interesting case where some more complex coverage triggers are discussed.
270_C276
EFFICIENT PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO THIRD PARTY CASE
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ISOP) insured the City of Carlsbad (City) under a general liability policy that covered bodily injury and property damage losses to third parties resulting from City's negligence. It defined property damage as "physical injury to or destruction of tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property." However, an exclusion provided that ISOP would not defend or pay for claims or suits brought against City for property damage arising out of land subsidence for any reason whatsoever. The definition of land subsidence included landslide.
As a result of City's negligent maintenance and repair of a fire hydrant and water line located within the La Costa de Marbella Condominium Complex (Marbella), an earthen slope above it became saturated with water and failed. The resulting landslide damaged or destroyed 15 units and part of the common area. The Marbella Homeowners Association sued City, seeking damages for property damage and emotional distress. ISOP defended under a reservation of rights. City settled the lawsuits for $12,670,000. ISOP indemnified City for the bodily injury claims but denied coverage for the property damage claims. City sued ISOP, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. City asserted that it was entitled to indemnification under the "concurrent causation doctrine" because the exclusion did not explicitly negate coverage that resulted from more than one cause, that the exclusion was illegal, and that it did not apply to landslides caused by man-made forces. ISOP argued that the exclusion unambiguously applied to all property damage arising out of landslide, that the concurrent proximate cause doctrine did not apply because there were not two separate and independent acts of negligence to cause the damage, and that the exclusion applied even if the concurrent proximate cause doctrine applied.
The trial court heard the motions together, denied City's in its entirety, and granted ISOP's in its entirety. City appealed on essentially the same basis as its initial motion. It asserted that the trial court erred because the exclusion was ambiguous as to whether it covered landslides regardless of cause, that it did not apply to landslides caused by man-made forces, and that it was entitled to indemnification under the "efficient proximate cause" doctrine and related Insurance Code. The Court of Appeal determined that, based on the evidence, there was no need to interpret policy language and that the issue was a pure question of law.
Under the "efficient proximate cause doctrine," when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and specifically excluded perils, it is covered if the covered peril was the efficient proximate cause of the loss. On the other hand, the loss is not covered if the covered peril was only a remote cause of the loss, or the excluded peril was the efficient proximate, or predominant, cause. An insurance company is liable for a loss where a peril insured against was the proximate cause, although a peril not contemplated by the policy may have been the remote cause of the loss; but is not liable for a loss where the peril insured against was only a remote cause. However, this doctrine is limited to first party cases, where an insured seeks coverage for its own property interests. In third party cases like this one, where coverage is sought for liability to third parties, the concurrent proximate cause doctrine applies. As a result, the first party cases that applied the "efficient proximate cause doctrine" that City relied on were irrelevant to the appellate court's analysis. City did not assert coverage under the concurrent proximate cause doctrine that applies to third party cases. Even if it had, it would not have applied because it applied only where there were two negligent acts or omissions, one of which independent of the excluded cause rendered the insured liable for the resulting injuries. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California. City of Carlsbad, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Defendant and Respondent. No. D053843. Nov 20, 2009. 180 Cal.App.4th 176. 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 535
270_C276
EFFICIENT PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO THIRD PARTY CASE
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ISOP) insured the City of Carlsbad (City) under a general liability policy that covered bodily injury and property damage losses to third parties resulting from City's negligence. It defined property damage as "physical injury to or destruction of tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property." However, an exclusion provided that ISOP would not defend or pay for claims or suits brought against City for property damage arising out of land subsidence for any reason whatsoever. The definition of land subsidence included landslide.
As a result of City's negligent maintenance and repair of a fire hydrant and water line located within the La Costa de Marbella Condominium Complex (Marbella), an earthen slope above it became saturated with water and failed. The resulting landslide damaged or destroyed 15 units and part of the common area. The Marbella Homeowners Association sued City, seeking damages for property damage and emotional distress. ISOP defended under a reservation of rights. City settled the lawsuits for $12,670,000. ISOP indemnified City for the bodily injury claims but denied coverage for the property damage claims. City sued ISOP, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. City asserted that it was entitled to indemnification under the "concurrent causation doctrine" because the exclusion did not explicitly negate coverage that resulted from more than one cause, that the exclusion was illegal, and that it did not apply to landslides caused by man-made forces. ISOP argued that the exclusion unambiguously applied to all property damage arising out of landslide, that the concurrent proximate cause doctrine did not apply because there were not two separate and independent acts of negligence to cause the damage, and that the exclusion applied even if the concurrent proximate cause doctrine applied.
The trial court heard the motions together, denied City's in its entirety, and granted ISOP's in its entirety. City appealed on essentially the same basis as its initial motion. It asserted that the trial court erred because the exclusion was ambiguous as to whether it covered landslides regardless of cause, that it did not apply to landslides caused by man-made forces, and that it was entitled to indemnification under the "efficient proximate cause" doctrine and related Insurance Code. The Court of Appeal determined that, based on the evidence, there was no need to interpret policy language and that the issue was a pure question of law.
Under the "efficient proximate cause doctrine," when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and specifically excluded perils, it is covered if the covered peril was the efficient proximate cause of the loss. On the other hand, the loss is not covered if the covered peril was only a remote cause of the loss, or the excluded peril was the efficient proximate, or predominant, cause. An insurance company is liable for a loss where a peril insured against was the proximate cause, although a peril not contemplated by the policy may have been the remote cause of the loss; but is not liable for a loss where the peril insured against was only a remote cause. However, this doctrine is limited to first party cases, where an insured seeks coverage for its own property interests. In third party cases like this one, where coverage is sought for liability to third parties, the concurrent proximate cause doctrine applies. As a result, the first party cases that applied the "efficient proximate cause doctrine" that City relied on were irrelevant to the appellate court's analysis. City did not assert coverage under the concurrent proximate cause doctrine that applies to third party cases. Even if it had, it would not have applied because it applied only where there were two negligent acts or omissions, one of which independent of the excluded cause rendered the insured liable for the resulting injuries. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California. City of Carlsbad, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Defendant and Respondent. No. D053843. Nov 20, 2009. 180 Cal.App.4th 176. 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 535
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Tague Alliance - Insurance Study On Serving Future Customers
The member insurance agencies of Tague Alliance and SIAA can learn a few interesting things from watching this video. Does "trust" rank as the most important factor that comes to your mind when considering what our client really wants from an insurance company? My guess is that you would say great products and/or a low price. Based on the study conducted in 11 countries with 4400 insurance consumers price is a factor but not the most important factor. You will also see in the video that about half of the consumers who are classified as being "people" centered prefer to work with an insurance expert, i.e. an agent.
So while "trust" is hugely important for the insurance carriers to foster with insurance clients, it is equally important for independent insurance agents to foster and focus on trust building with their clients. One key element in building trust with clients is being able to place their business with top rated insurance companies who have a stellar claims handling reputation and claims processing. A claim is when the trust factor is put to the biggest test.
Tague Alliance members need to realize that they must engage the client multiple times throughout the year in a number of different ways. Trust is built in multiple ways, but one key foundation of trust is the "relationship" that the agent has with their clients. This does not mean that you have to be best friends with every client, but it does mean that you need to be accessible when the client needs you, respond with relevant and efficient service, and be consistent in the handling of the client needs.
In addition, trust can be facilitated through "transparency" and "openness". A simple way to be more transparent is through the use of Facebook which can be used to create more personalization of your agency to your clients. This is a simple concept and one that takes time to create and manage. However, this personal extension of your agency helps to to foster relationship which in turn breeds more trust. Side note - if your agency is not careful about what is posted, said, and shown on a site like Facebook you can destroy all your good intentions very quickly. So the agency must be aware of posting only relevant consumer focused information that works toward building more client relationship.
The video below is meant for insurance companies, but has some good insights for Tague Alliance members and independent insurance agents in general.
So while "trust" is hugely important for the insurance carriers to foster with insurance clients, it is equally important for independent insurance agents to foster and focus on trust building with their clients. One key element in building trust with clients is being able to place their business with top rated insurance companies who have a stellar claims handling reputation and claims processing. A claim is when the trust factor is put to the biggest test.
Tague Alliance members need to realize that they must engage the client multiple times throughout the year in a number of different ways. Trust is built in multiple ways, but one key foundation of trust is the "relationship" that the agent has with their clients. This does not mean that you have to be best friends with every client, but it does mean that you need to be accessible when the client needs you, respond with relevant and efficient service, and be consistent in the handling of the client needs.
In addition, trust can be facilitated through "transparency" and "openness". A simple way to be more transparent is through the use of Facebook which can be used to create more personalization of your agency to your clients. This is a simple concept and one that takes time to create and manage. However, this personal extension of your agency helps to to foster relationship which in turn breeds more trust. Side note - if your agency is not careful about what is posted, said, and shown on a site like Facebook you can destroy all your good intentions very quickly. So the agency must be aware of posting only relevant consumer focused information that works toward building more client relationship.
The video below is meant for insurance companies, but has some good insights for Tague Alliance members and independent insurance agents in general.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Tague Alliance - Do Not Lie On Your Insurance Application
By Tony Veteto
Tague Alliance, a SIAA Master Agency
As an insurance agent one of the most challenging things to work through with the insured is the "truth". There are many prospects that come to us for a quote on auto insurance and when we question them about accidents and tickets they suddenly have selective memory. To be fair, many of us cannot remember exactly when we may have received a ticket or had an accident. However, most of us know that we have had some type of incident during a given time period. I recently came across an article from Rough Notes Magazine regarding a court case where coverage was denied due to misrepresentations by the insured.
Insured responsible for statements on application
On October 22, 1992, Jaber (first name not shown) met with William Kasirye, an independent insurance agent, about automobile insurance from Prudential. He stated that he was married, employed, had not been cited for or convicted of a traffic violation in the past 60 months, and had not been involved in any losses or insurance claims during the 36 months preceding his application. At that time, Jaber paid a premium of $129 and Kasirye issued a binder effective immediately.
Prudential then requested and received a report from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles which showed that Jaber had moving violations in 1989 and 1991, and had been involved in an accident on January 2, 1992.
On November 9, 1992, Jaber submitted a notice of loss in which he reported his car had been stolen two days before. On December 7, Prudential sent him a letter denying liability and declaring the policy void from inception. The company returned the premium that Jaber had paid.
In May 1995, Jaber filed suit for declaratory judgment and sought reimbursement for his car and compensatory and punitive damages. Prudential asserted that the policy was void from inception since his statements in the application were warranties and that the application was a part of the policy. Also the binder had been issued based on the application.
The trial court entered judgment in favor of Prudential, and Jaber appealed.
Jaber contended that, although he had signed the application, the agent had filled in the answers to the questions and, thus, he was not responsible for the falsity of those answers. Furthermore, he asserted that the policy did not warn that any misrepresentations in the application would void the policy.
The higher court pointed out that the policy contained the following statement: "By accepting this policy, you agree that the statements on your Application are true and correct. This policy is issued relying on the accuracy of these statements." The binder that had been issued also contained a similar statement.
The judgment entered in the trial court in favor of Prudential was affirmed.
Jaber, Appellant, v. Prudential Insurance Company of America--No. L-95-347--Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County--August 16, 1996--681 North Eastern Reporter 2d 478. *
©COPYRIGHT: The Rough Notes Magazine, 1998
After reading the case above there should be no doubt in the mind of the agent or the insured that true and accurate information must be represented on the insurance application! The insurance company has grounds to deny a claim if an insured misrepresents the facts when applying for the insurance policy.
Tague Alliance, a SIAA Master Agency
As an insurance agent one of the most challenging things to work through with the insured is the "truth". There are many prospects that come to us for a quote on auto insurance and when we question them about accidents and tickets they suddenly have selective memory. To be fair, many of us cannot remember exactly when we may have received a ticket or had an accident. However, most of us know that we have had some type of incident during a given time period. I recently came across an article from Rough Notes Magazine regarding a court case where coverage was denied due to misrepresentations by the insured.
Insured responsible for statements on application
On October 22, 1992, Jaber (first name not shown) met with William Kasirye, an independent insurance agent, about automobile insurance from Prudential. He stated that he was married, employed, had not been cited for or convicted of a traffic violation in the past 60 months, and had not been involved in any losses or insurance claims during the 36 months preceding his application. At that time, Jaber paid a premium of $129 and Kasirye issued a binder effective immediately.
Prudential then requested and received a report from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles which showed that Jaber had moving violations in 1989 and 1991, and had been involved in an accident on January 2, 1992.
On November 9, 1992, Jaber submitted a notice of loss in which he reported his car had been stolen two days before. On December 7, Prudential sent him a letter denying liability and declaring the policy void from inception. The company returned the premium that Jaber had paid.
In May 1995, Jaber filed suit for declaratory judgment and sought reimbursement for his car and compensatory and punitive damages. Prudential asserted that the policy was void from inception since his statements in the application were warranties and that the application was a part of the policy. Also the binder had been issued based on the application.
The trial court entered judgment in favor of Prudential, and Jaber appealed.
Jaber contended that, although he had signed the application, the agent had filled in the answers to the questions and, thus, he was not responsible for the falsity of those answers. Furthermore, he asserted that the policy did not warn that any misrepresentations in the application would void the policy.
The higher court pointed out that the policy contained the following statement: "By accepting this policy, you agree that the statements on your Application are true and correct. This policy is issued relying on the accuracy of these statements." The binder that had been issued also contained a similar statement.
The judgment entered in the trial court in favor of Prudential was affirmed.
Jaber, Appellant, v. Prudential Insurance Company of America--No. L-95-347--Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County--August 16, 1996--681 North Eastern Reporter 2d 478. *
©COPYRIGHT: The Rough Notes Magazine, 1998
After reading the case above there should be no doubt in the mind of the agent or the insured that true and accurate information must be represented on the insurance application! The insurance company has grounds to deny a claim if an insured misrepresents the facts when applying for the insurance policy.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Tague Alliance 5th Annual Awards Dinner
Well another successful event is in the history books and what an evening it was! Thank you to all our members, staff, and sponsoring companies. Everyone had a wonderful time of fun and networking. Tague Alliance works hard to provide resources to our members through SIAA so they can grow their insurance agencies. Our Annual Awards Dinner is a celebration of the Tague Alliance member agency results!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tague Alliance - Stay Educated and Connected
The blog post below by Penny Hagerman is a great reminder that insurance agents need to get out of their office and start networking with other professionals. In addition, it is critically important that the agent become educated and knowledgeable on the coverage and products they are selling. Get out and make it happen. Tony
The Importance of Staying “Edumacated”
Last week, one of the agents on our network called to speak with me directly after reading this blog. He wanted to contribute his views on a previous post “in person,” rather than leaving a comment.
During that conversation, which ended up lasting nearly an hour (and I loved every minute of it!), we ended up talking about the challenges of being an agent, from persistency, to the cost of underwriting, to finding ways to stay in touch with clients.
But one thing this agent asked resonated especially loudly with me: Why aren’t agents getting out away from their desks, taking seminars and conferences, becoming experts on their products, and networking with other professionals?
And he’s right. There’s a definite perception in the industry that if you’re not sitting at your desk working leads, making calls and following up with clients, you’re not making money.
In fact, a recent article published online at American Agent & Broker indicates that “…agents aren’t particularly keen on lunches and conferences for new product information. Just 4 in 10 say they learn about new insurance products at lunches or speaker events, while less than that say they go to conferences to gain this knowledge.”
I’d like to pose another question I think has equal merit: How much more time could you save and money could you make if you started:
- learning everything there is to know about the products you’re selling (as well as new ones being introduced)
- networking with other agents to gain their perspectives, ideas and opinions (and possibly find some you’d consider partnering with)
- talking and role-playing with others to learn techniques for educating, selling and forming long-term relationships
- Staying up-to-date on the laws and regulations that govern insurance in your state
- Visiting with customers “in person” (as I did with this agent) to let them know you’re there if they need anything and are always willing to help (this can be accomplished in person, by email from a PDA or by phone while you’re on your way to another appointment or out grabbing lunch)
We all know the power of referrals. They cost you nothing and can result in some pretty substantial income. By staying educated, possibly trading business with other agents whose products compliment yours, and using your knowledge to educate clients and promote yourself and your agency, you’re likely to, in turn, increase your referral volume.
Staying educated can also help you gain confidence in yourself and what you do, enabling you to more effectively convey value to new leads and clients.
Do you sit at your desk day after day, working leads but neglecting opportunities to grow your business in other ways? If so, I’d like to encourage you to make a change today. You never know what you’re missing until you try.
P.S.—Please pardon the title. I couldn’t resist!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
