Good point ! In the years to come, we will remember ECM not as a solid insurance carrier, but as the company that tried to “screw” the agency force. What a legacy. What was ECM thinking ?
” Makes it very difficult to end a relationships with a troublesome agent.”
I my experience, canceling business with an agent guilty of misrepresentation is not an issue.
“troublesome” in company terms usually means a profitable book of business is with an agent they can’t get to behave like an employee. Companies hate it when their “independent agents” act independedent.
I hope the Big Egos at Hartford take a look at this ruling. Hartford is infamous for their handling of agent terminations, and it really reached a fever pitch when they threw all their Florida agents under a bus this past year.
Good for the MGA in this case. Too bad other carriers have gotten away with shenanigans because it’s too expensive and troublesome to fight about it.
Again remeber this is not the job of the company but the Insurance Commisioners Office, and by this case of the carrier’s actions it isnt the agent who suffers its the insured.
Its our job as MGA to protect the interest of the insured, same with the carrier.
Let the Commisioner handle the questionable agent. Not the carrier.
that we had given to one of our most coveted carriers. A carrier that I loved working with for 16 years. They were complaining about the losses and about poor production — right after their rates skyrocketed. I ended up being laid off after 12 years working at the firm.
I actually had to type up the notices of non renewal and I called my people to give them a heads up about what was going on.
The reason for non renewal was “no longer doing business with the broker.” Because the carrier had to pay some claims. I thought that’s what they were taking those premium dollars to maybe do. Good golly.
How is that the books of business that have “gone bad” are always the agents’ faults, even though insurance companies had the chance to underwrite the business when it was first written? I think companies like to blame others and other things for their results and not say, “Hey, we just had a stroke of bad luck but if we stay the course, things will improve.” Either that or say, “We blew it.”
Big companies never seem to take responsiblity for their results prefering to blame others. On ther other hand, small companies do take responsibility and act responsibly and ethically, Let’s ehre it for small, responsible insurors.
I have absolutely terminated agents due to mis-representation. Why in God’s name would I keep allowing an agent to put business on the books when he was outright lying about commercial operations and binding with us? An agent agrees to be the eyes and ears of the company. If I can’t trust them to do that, I don’t need them.
So, should we regulate when an agent wants to move a book of business from one Co to another?
When I was on the property side I can recall any number of inspections on residential and commercial properties that looked like they had been deserted for years. Many of these houses looked like crack houses. These were bound by the agents under standard and above standard programs. It’s difficult to manage a book of business properly when some agents want to abuse the system. What can I get away with today?
I think we’re talking about 2 different things heer. Terminating an agent for just cause is not only OK, it’s absolutely essential. if you can’t trust someone who is your agent, you should definitely not have him/her representing you. In fact, it mught even be a good idea to take legal action against them.
On the other hand, when a company’s actions are frivolous when it comes to terminating agents, that’s a whole different story.
I have seen agents of companies that I represented place business that I know would have walked away from. I have also had companies get upset because a book that had been good for many years had “gone bad” overnight. As a result, they terminated, when in reality, they were just looking to reduce their agency force perhaps because thay had appointed too many agents in the first place.
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.
Good point ! In the years to come, we will remember ECM not as a solid insurance carrier, but as the company that tried to “screw” the agency force. What a legacy. What was ECM thinking ?
It’s stories like this that make me value small companies that much more.
” Makes it very difficult to end a relationships with a troublesome agent.”
I my experience, canceling business with an agent guilty of misrepresentation is not an issue.
“troublesome” in company terms usually means a profitable book of business is with an agent they can’t get to behave like an employee. Companies hate it when their “independent agents” act independedent.
I hope the Big Egos at Hartford take a look at this ruling. Hartford is infamous for their handling of agent terminations, and it really reached a fever pitch when they threw all their Florida agents under a bus this past year.
Good for the MGA in this case. Too bad other carriers have gotten away with shenanigans because it’s too expensive and troublesome to fight about it.
Again remeber this is not the job of the company but the Insurance Commisioners Office, and by this case of the carrier’s actions it isnt the agent who suffers its the insured.
Its our job as MGA to protect the interest of the insured, same with the carrier.
Let the Commisioner handle the questionable agent. Not the carrier.
that we had given to one of our most coveted carriers. A carrier that I loved working with for 16 years. They were complaining about the losses and about poor production — right after their rates skyrocketed. I ended up being laid off after 12 years working at the firm.
I actually had to type up the notices of non renewal and I called my people to give them a heads up about what was going on.
The reason for non renewal was “no longer doing business with the broker.” Because the carrier had to pay some claims. I thought that’s what they were taking those premium dollars to maybe do. Good golly.
How is that the books of business that have “gone bad” are always the agents’ faults, even though insurance companies had the chance to underwrite the business when it was first written? I think companies like to blame others and other things for their results and not say, “Hey, we just had a stroke of bad luck but if we stay the course, things will improve.” Either that or say, “We blew it.”
Big companies never seem to take responsiblity for their results prefering to blame others. On ther other hand, small companies do take responsibility and act responsibly and ethically, Let’s ehre it for small, responsible insurors.
I have absolutely terminated agents due to mis-representation. Why in God’s name would I keep allowing an agent to put business on the books when he was outright lying about commercial operations and binding with us? An agent agrees to be the eyes and ears of the company. If I can’t trust them to do that, I don’t need them.
So, should we regulate when an agent wants to move a book of business from one Co to another?
I thought not
When I was on the property side I can recall any number of inspections on residential and commercial properties that looked like they had been deserted for years. Many of these houses looked like crack houses. These were bound by the agents under standard and above standard programs. It’s difficult to manage a book of business properly when some agents want to abuse the system. What can I get away with today?
I think we’re talking about 2 different things heer. Terminating an agent for just cause is not only OK, it’s absolutely essential. if you can’t trust someone who is your agent, you should definitely not have him/her representing you. In fact, it mught even be a good idea to take legal action against them.
On the other hand, when a company’s actions are frivolous when it comes to terminating agents, that’s a whole different story.
I have seen agents of companies that I represented place business that I know would have walked away from. I have also had companies get upset because a book that had been good for many years had “gone bad” overnight. As a result, they terminated, when in reality, they were just looking to reduce their agency force perhaps because thay had appointed too many agents in the first place.