I believe we are looking at seperate items. Granted there is a always a bad apple in the barrel. They should have done their due dilligence before appointing an agent. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!!
The situation is the company does not have the right to send out illegal non-renewal notices. That is that!! And this company broke the law, and when they were told they broke the law, they appealed it.
Maybe there isn’t any difference, it sounds like a few bad apples here also!!
I agree. These are two different issues. In researching the company who sued the carrier they are a small agency with a gross revenue according to one company report of under 400K annually. So this in all likely hood a case where the carrier didnt feel this agent wasnt producing enough revenue. In this case the carrier is clearly in the wrong…
So back to my original thread.. Insurance Companies are not god, they have to be held accountable for their actions.
Why is it illegal or immoral to terminate someone who doesn’t produce?
Do you agents keep producers on the books who keep telling you their gonna produce next year…..but they never do?
I absolutely agree, that the companies should follow the law in any termination. That said, I am seeing an overwhelming sentiment that we should keep an agency no matter what. I don’t get it. No one tells you to keep your sales force no matter what, why should we?
It is true that a company should give plenty of warning and I think most do.
Company Gal I think you need to read the whole thread. Nobody is saying its illegal or immoral to terminate an agent who doesnt produce. It is the manner in which they do that is in question hence the court ruling. To terminate the coverage to the insured by reason “The agent is no longer representing this carrier” is not a legal reason to terminate the INSURED’s coverage.
Its easy to sit in the company’s position and think of the retailer as your customer however it isnt the agent that you are supposed to represent it is the name on that policy you just issued. That is part of what is in dispute, termination at will. That and the agent’s right to have an acceptable time frame to save his business. Put the shoe on the other foot. To suddenly be told “sorry you cant place any more business with us effective now” can be finacially devistating to an agent. In the case of the insured suddenly he is without coverage and what happens in the case of a loss?
All the retailer is asking for is sufficent time to save his business. And for the insured to be able to have time to move his coverage to another carrier. Really is that too much to ask?
JLT, I read the thread. Much of it was relating to the Co staying on a book and not terminating. You said “On the other hand, if it’s a production issue, the cutomers shouldn’t be put in a position to re-shop for insurance just because the company and the agent had a different set of objectives.” I agree – the agent should make provisions for their customer way in advance of non renewal. This is not the company’s fault.
Sorry, when I tell an agent they need to meet a goal to retain their appointment, and they don’t meet it, then they get notice that if they don’t meet the next goal they will be terminated the agent has a decision to make. They either need to make producing that book a priority or move the business. It’s not personal. It’s either a business match or it’s not. If they can’t meet the goals, then they need to move the book (or sell it to another agent who represents co X to recap some $$). I absolutely understand that process is a pain in the butt. What usually happens is the agent ignores all of the goals and then is surprised and acts like the company is abandoning the insured. Then that same agent sees their volume decrease they cry hhow unfair it is.
Someone else said fraud should be reported to the comissioner not handled by the company.
I totally agree that the agent should be given adequate time to manage a business decision. I agree that the company should comply with the law at all times. At least in my experience, the dialog becan a couple of years before the legal clock even starts ticking. I just don’t buy that we should have to stay with an agent for any reason (production, fraud or even poor relationship).
I have been on both sides of the business. I think that often CO people understimate how hard agency folks work or how mch they know. That said, I think that agents blame the company for everything.
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.
I believe we are looking at seperate items. Granted there is a always a bad apple in the barrel. They should have done their due dilligence before appointing an agent. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!!
The situation is the company does not have the right to send out illegal non-renewal notices. That is that!! And this company broke the law, and when they were told they broke the law, they appealed it.
Maybe there isn’t any difference, it sounds like a few bad apples here also!!
I agree. These are two different issues. In researching the company who sued the carrier they are a small agency with a gross revenue according to one company report of under 400K annually. So this in all likely hood a case where the carrier didnt feel this agent wasnt producing enough revenue. In this case the carrier is clearly in the wrong…
So back to my original thread.. Insurance Companies are not god, they have to be held accountable for their actions.
Amen
Why is it illegal or immoral to terminate someone who doesn’t produce?
Do you agents keep producers on the books who keep telling you their gonna produce next year…..but they never do?
I absolutely agree, that the companies should follow the law in any termination. That said, I am seeing an overwhelming sentiment that we should keep an agency no matter what. I don’t get it. No one tells you to keep your sales force no matter what, why should we?
It is true that a company should give plenty of warning and I think most do.
Company Gal I think you need to read the whole thread. Nobody is saying its illegal or immoral to terminate an agent who doesnt produce. It is the manner in which they do that is in question hence the court ruling. To terminate the coverage to the insured by reason “The agent is no longer representing this carrier” is not a legal reason to terminate the INSURED’s coverage.
Its easy to sit in the company’s position and think of the retailer as your customer however it isnt the agent that you are supposed to represent it is the name on that policy you just issued. That is part of what is in dispute, termination at will. That and the agent’s right to have an acceptable time frame to save his business. Put the shoe on the other foot. To suddenly be told “sorry you cant place any more business with us effective now” can be finacially devistating to an agent. In the case of the insured suddenly he is without coverage and what happens in the case of a loss?
All the retailer is asking for is sufficent time to save his business. And for the insured to be able to have time to move his coverage to another carrier. Really is that too much to ask?
JLT, I read the thread. Much of it was relating to the Co staying on a book and not terminating. You said “On the other hand, if it’s a production issue, the cutomers shouldn’t be put in a position to re-shop for insurance just because the company and the agent had a different set of objectives.” I agree – the agent should make provisions for their customer way in advance of non renewal. This is not the company’s fault.
Sorry, when I tell an agent they need to meet a goal to retain their appointment, and they don’t meet it, then they get notice that if they don’t meet the next goal they will be terminated the agent has a decision to make. They either need to make producing that book a priority or move the business. It’s not personal. It’s either a business match or it’s not. If they can’t meet the goals, then they need to move the book (or sell it to another agent who represents co X to recap some $$). I absolutely understand that process is a pain in the butt. What usually happens is the agent ignores all of the goals and then is surprised and acts like the company is abandoning the insured. Then that same agent sees their volume decrease they cry hhow unfair it is.
Someone else said fraud should be reported to the comissioner not handled by the company.
I totally agree that the agent should be given adequate time to manage a business decision. I agree that the company should comply with the law at all times. At least in my experience, the dialog becan a couple of years before the legal clock even starts ticking. I just don’t buy that we should have to stay with an agent for any reason (production, fraud or even poor relationship).
I have been on both sides of the business. I think that often CO people understimate how hard agency folks work or how mch they know. That said, I think that agents blame the company for everything.
Who is responsible for setting up the rules, regulation for carrier-agent model ?
There ARE NO models. Companies do whatever they think they can get away with.
Amen