It\’s not clear what the source of Agent/Broker\’s angst is over the E&S market, but from where I sit after almost 26 years in the business, but painting the entire E&S market as \”sucks\” in itself sucks.
There are vast portions of the E&S market that are highly respectable, and respected, just as there are lots of admitted carriers that play fast and loose with the insured\’s interests. One needs only to look at the bulk of bad faith case law to see that the majority of the insurers are, or were, not only admitted carriers, but some of the biggest names in the business.
I office with a number of producers who wouldn\’t have jobs were it not for the E&S market, and their clients wouldn\’t be able to secure insurance at all. Yet, I don\’t hear anything disparaging in the \”bull sessions\” that would lead me to believe that either these insurance professionals, or their clients, have any fundamental problems with the carriers that they deal with.
Good to see \”professionals\” of this industry resorting to ad hominem against each other to discuss a clear case of insured neglect to maintain proper coverage. Your open bickering lowers our ability to be taken seriously by observers of the industry
There really is no other discussion here except how insured ignorance and neglect will expose them to undue risk.
Does Ken know anything about the E&S Market? I have been in this market for over 40 years & for him to say it \”sucks\” really shows his ignorence. The market is the catch all for the insurance buyer.When the admitted market decides not to write coverage where is the insured going to turn to?. The E&S market is closely watched by regulators, more than the admitted market. Ken wake up 7 smell the roses.
Flashman, $14,000 premium seems a little high given the building was vacant, so I can see the arguement for admitted vs. undadmitted markets. But Letting coverage lapse is mindboggling to me. I have to admit that making a claim against E & O would be the way to go, even if that was not the intended method of risk management. I hope that the selectmen don\’t read IJ……
WOW IT SEEMS THIS RISK WAS INSURED WITH AN ADMITTED MARKET WHEN IT WAS VACANT. IT MAKES YOU WONDER IF THE ADMITTED MARKET FOLLOWED THE SAME REGULATIONS THE \”NON\’ ADMITTED MARKETS FOLLOW. OH TO BAD, IT\’S PRETTY SAD WHEN AN AGENT TRIES TO MAKE AN EDUCATED COMMENT FOR THE SAKE OF HEARING & READING HIS OWN THOUGHTS. NOTHING WORSE THAN THE OLD FOOT IN THE MOUTH WHEN YOU DON\’T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON.
Sounds like the town might have been better off moving one of their clerks into the building so it wasn\’t \”vacant\” and keeping all their insurance together.
AFTER ALL THE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THIS. THE ONLY ONE THAT MADE ANY SENSE WAS THAT THE CITY SHOULD HAVE KEPT SOME OFFICES OPEN IN THAT BUILDING UNTIL IT WAS SOLD.
THE PREMIUM WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT LESS IF THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN VACATED BY THE CITY.THATS WHY IT A JOKE WHEN YOU HAVE POLITICIAN LOOKING AFTER THINGS THAT THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. WHERE DOES COMMON SENSE ENTER INTO THIS PICTURE. OPPS I FORGOT WERE TALKING ABOUT ELECTED OFFICIALS HERE.BUNCH OF DA\”s .
Gee, you\’da thunk that their agent/broker would have pointed that out to them, assuming, of course, that the building was safe to occupy.
Come to think of it, maybe that\’s why the premium was so high, or that it burned down?
I return to my original premise; when a small town with limited assets has to fork over $14,000 in premium to insure a dilapidated town hall, regardless of its \”historic\” value, maybe someone decided that the money was better spent somewhere else. We are all assuming that the City made the wrong decision. Maybe, for them at the time, it was the right decision, or the lesser of two (or more) evils.
And maybe the new mayor is unfairly politicizing the issue.
E&O and D&O specifically exclude any coverage related to insurance, insurance management, and insurance decisions – so there is no help there.
$14,000 in premium may or may not be expensive to insure this particular vacant building. Without knowing the underwriting information it is difficult to say. And remember, this is a 2.1 Million Dollar municipal building so you are not going to see a $1,500 premium on this. Add that is is historic (probably not updated), is vacant, with little or no fire protection and $14,000 is sounding better and better.
As far as there not being a market for historic property, that is incorrect. I actually work for a program specifically designed for just that…and we will write vacant buildings (though the vacant ones do go to our E&S friends).
I think one important thing has not been addressed. When the insured went from a standard to an E&S carrier, did the agent/broker make any advisements to the insured as to how the policy works? I never get expiration notices from my Lloyds and other E&S markets, and I never have. It is understood that the policy expires on the (duh!) expiration date shown on the policy, and is NOT automatically renewed. It is the agent\’s responsibility to let the insured know that this is the case. Equally important, the insured should examine their policy so that they know when his or her policy expires.
The over-seer must have foreseen its loss of office during the past municipal elections, or something. Is this a member of the Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Association? Can we get that re-instated?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It\’s not clear what the source of Agent/Broker\’s angst is over the E&S market, but from where I sit after almost 26 years in the business, but painting the entire E&S market as \”sucks\” in itself sucks.
There are vast portions of the E&S market that are highly respectable, and respected, just as there are lots of admitted carriers that play fast and loose with the insured\’s interests. One needs only to look at the bulk of bad faith case law to see that the majority of the insurers are, or were, not only admitted carriers, but some of the biggest names in the business.
I office with a number of producers who wouldn\’t have jobs were it not for the E&S market, and their clients wouldn\’t be able to secure insurance at all. Yet, I don\’t hear anything disparaging in the \”bull sessions\” that would lead me to believe that either these insurance professionals, or their clients, have any fundamental problems with the carriers that they deal with.
So tell us specifics, Agent/Broker.
Good to see \”professionals\” of this industry resorting to ad hominem against each other to discuss a clear case of insured neglect to maintain proper coverage. Your open bickering lowers our ability to be taken seriously by observers of the industry
There really is no other discussion here except how insured ignorance and neglect will expose them to undue risk.
Does Ken know anything about the E&S Market? I have been in this market for over 40 years & for him to say it \”sucks\” really shows his ignorence. The market is the catch all for the insurance buyer.When the admitted market decides not to write coverage where is the insured going to turn to?. The E&S market is closely watched by regulators, more than the admitted market. Ken wake up 7 smell the roses.
Flashman, $14,000 premium seems a little high given the building was vacant, so I can see the arguement for admitted vs. undadmitted markets. But Letting coverage lapse is mindboggling to me. I have to admit that making a claim against E & O would be the way to go, even if that was not the intended method of risk management. I hope that the selectmen don\’t read IJ……
WOW IT SEEMS THIS RISK WAS INSURED WITH AN ADMITTED MARKET WHEN IT WAS VACANT. IT MAKES YOU WONDER IF THE ADMITTED MARKET FOLLOWED THE SAME REGULATIONS THE \”NON\’ ADMITTED MARKETS FOLLOW. OH TO BAD, IT\’S PRETTY SAD WHEN AN AGENT TRIES TO MAKE AN EDUCATED COMMENT FOR THE SAKE OF HEARING & READING HIS OWN THOUGHTS. NOTHING WORSE THAN THE OLD FOOT IN THE MOUTH WHEN YOU DON\’T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON.
Sounds like the town might have been better off moving one of their clerks into the building so it wasn\’t \”vacant\” and keeping all their insurance together.
AFTER ALL THE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THIS. THE ONLY ONE THAT MADE ANY SENSE WAS THAT THE CITY SHOULD HAVE KEPT SOME OFFICES OPEN IN THAT BUILDING UNTIL IT WAS SOLD.
THE PREMIUM WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT LESS IF THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN VACATED BY THE CITY.THATS WHY IT A JOKE WHEN YOU HAVE POLITICIAN LOOKING AFTER THINGS THAT THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. WHERE DOES COMMON SENSE ENTER INTO THIS PICTURE. OPPS I FORGOT WERE TALKING ABOUT ELECTED OFFICIALS HERE.BUNCH OF DA\”s .
Gee, you\’da thunk that their agent/broker would have pointed that out to them, assuming, of course, that the building was safe to occupy.
Come to think of it, maybe that\’s why the premium was so high, or that it burned down?
I return to my original premise; when a small town with limited assets has to fork over $14,000 in premium to insure a dilapidated town hall, regardless of its \”historic\” value, maybe someone decided that the money was better spent somewhere else. We are all assuming that the City made the wrong decision. Maybe, for them at the time, it was the right decision, or the lesser of two (or more) evils.
And maybe the new mayor is unfairly politicizing the issue.
So many issues, so little time…
E&O and D&O specifically exclude any coverage related to insurance, insurance management, and insurance decisions – so there is no help there.
$14,000 in premium may or may not be expensive to insure this particular vacant building. Without knowing the underwriting information it is difficult to say. And remember, this is a 2.1 Million Dollar municipal building so you are not going to see a $1,500 premium on this. Add that is is historic (probably not updated), is vacant, with little or no fire protection and $14,000 is sounding better and better.
As far as there not being a market for historic property, that is incorrect. I actually work for a program specifically designed for just that…and we will write vacant buildings (though the vacant ones do go to our E&S friends).
I think one important thing has not been addressed. When the insured went from a standard to an E&S carrier, did the agent/broker make any advisements to the insured as to how the policy works? I never get expiration notices from my Lloyds and other E&S markets, and I never have. It is understood that the policy expires on the (duh!) expiration date shown on the policy, and is NOT automatically renewed. It is the agent\’s responsibility to let the insured know that this is the case. Equally important, the insured should examine their policy so that they know when his or her policy expires.
The over-seer must have foreseen its loss of office during the past municipal elections, or something. Is this a member of the Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Association? Can we get that re-instated?