The Federal Communications Commission’s version of a telemarketing do-not-call list, which is more restrictive than the Federal Trade Commission’s version, is causing a stir in the insurance industry.
Essentially, the FCC rules require agents and companies to check the list before telemarketing to prospects agents have no established relationship with. Furthermore, FCC rules do not regard a referral as an established business relationship, meaning that insurers would also have to check to see whether or not the referral’s name is on the list. The FTC imposes no such limitations.
What strikes me as interesting about the current round of do-not-call activity is that the same people who want legislation banning spam, want to be exempt from telemarketing limitations. Does anybody see anything inconsistent with that?
Here is updated coverage that should appeal to a broad spectrum of agents who offer commercial insurance. Fireman’s Fund recently introduced Commercial Equipment Breakdown coverage, which replaces its previous boiler and machinery coverage while modernizing the coverage to include a broader and more relevant range of property risks.
What strikes me as interesting is the insurer’s rationale for introducing the new coverage. According to Joe Dillon, senior vice president of commercial business underwriting, "Fireman's Fund is actively marketing this updated coverage because only about 500,000 out of 10 million American businesses protect against such risk."
Dillon also said, "Industry underwriters often decline to quote this risk because they view it as a difficult-to-understand specialty line. So Fireman's Fund has undertaken a comprehensive training program for our underwriters in the elements of equipment breakdown risk.” Dillon pointed out that the new commercial risk coverage also reflects the need to cover losses created by automation and modern technology.
This new product announcement causes me to wonder about other kinds of commercial coverage that might be antiquated, archaic, or hampered by terminology that is no longer relevant. Might it be appropriate for insurers to update and modernize their product offerings so consumers can see the benefits of purchasing them?
Insurance fraud continues to be a problem, as evidenced by various surveys, including a new report from the Insurance Research Council.
According to a news release about the survey results, “respondents agreed that it is acceptable to increase the amount of an insurance claim by a small amount to make up for a deductible. Just over one in five respondents (22 percent) agreed that it is acceptable to increase the amount of a claim to make up for insurance premiums paid when no claims were made.”
The report also mentioned, “In contrast, fewer respondents tolerated dishonesty in areas other than insurance, such as exaggerating income or experience in a job interview or withholding information on a loan application or from the IRS.”
As previously reported
in Sounding Line, the topic of insurance fraud is well documented by a
number of online resources, which would make a good addition to an agency
Web site. Inasmuch as insurance fraud increases P&C premiums by nearly
$300 per household, agents could be instrumental in educating consumers about
this industry-wide problem.
© Copyright 2003 by Sound Internet Strategy. All rights reserved