How come when Mercury sponsors a similar bill IBA West ridiculed it and now suddenly they find religion and think it’s a good idea?
I long ago dropped my membership in that association because of their spotty advocacy.
What we really need is a bill that preserves the ability to charge fees while protecting the consumers from the non-standard brokers that use fees to gouge the public.
As it is, many consumers may not get the full complement of choices available to a broker because he/she is prohibited from charging fees for a particular company.
I for one got tired of going though a long application process on a rewrite just to see that customer go out of force AGAIN for not making their very first scheduled payment. So those customers pay a reasonable fee.
By the same token, too many consumers get hammered with hundreds of dollars in fees just because a broker thinks they will pay it.
So let’s rein in the broker fee mills but leave intact a very necessary tool for brokers to exercise some client control.
IBA West’s bill falls short on both fronts if it allows abuses to continue because they will at some point invite future crackdowns on fees.
To the public and in reality there is no distinction between the term agent and broker. It is a technical difference at best that serves no real purpose.
The agent and broker operate in like manner to solicit, market and deliver the insurance product to the client. Both parties work equally hard in representing the interests of their client.
All would best be served if the legal distinction between agent and broker were eliminated and made synonymous as it is in practice anyway. The distinction is only preserved in that a broker is permitted greater leaway to bill fees to the client.
Let’s get the Joker out of the room and get serious. Agent or broker should each have the same objective and requirement to ethically and professionaly serve the best interests of their clients and being able to charge for their services in a free and competitive market subject to full disclosure to the client of commissions received and additional fees billed.
The bill is certainly a step in the right direction, although still lacks “meat”. Whether or not you are “appointed” by an insurer should have no bearing on the definition of agent or broker. It merely comes down to a simple definition: if you represent 1 insurer (i.e. captive agent) you are an agent. If you represent more than 1 insurer (i.e. independent) you are a broker. Thusly, a broker should have the right to charge a “service or broker fee” for the extra work and service provided to the client on behalf of the client. It really isn’t that difficult.
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.
How come when Mercury sponsors a similar bill IBA West ridiculed it and now suddenly they find religion and think it’s a good idea?
I long ago dropped my membership in that association because of their spotty advocacy.
What we really need is a bill that preserves the ability to charge fees while protecting the consumers from the non-standard brokers that use fees to gouge the public.
As it is, many consumers may not get the full complement of choices available to a broker because he/she is prohibited from charging fees for a particular company.
I for one got tired of going though a long application process on a rewrite just to see that customer go out of force AGAIN for not making their very first scheduled payment. So those customers pay a reasonable fee.
By the same token, too many consumers get hammered with hundreds of dollars in fees just because a broker thinks they will pay it.
So let’s rein in the broker fee mills but leave intact a very necessary tool for brokers to exercise some client control.
IBA West’s bill falls short on both fronts if it allows abuses to continue because they will at some point invite future crackdowns on fees.
To the public and in reality there is no distinction between the term agent and broker. It is a technical difference at best that serves no real purpose.
The agent and broker operate in like manner to solicit, market and deliver the insurance product to the client. Both parties work equally hard in representing the interests of their client.
All would best be served if the legal distinction between agent and broker were eliminated and made synonymous as it is in practice anyway. The distinction is only preserved in that a broker is permitted greater leaway to bill fees to the client.
Let’s get the Joker out of the room and get serious. Agent or broker should each have the same objective and requirement to ethically and professionaly serve the best interests of their clients and being able to charge for their services in a free and competitive market subject to full disclosure to the client of commissions received and additional fees billed.
The bill is certainly a step in the right direction, although still lacks “meat”. Whether or not you are “appointed” by an insurer should have no bearing on the definition of agent or broker. It merely comes down to a simple definition: if you represent 1 insurer (i.e. captive agent) you are an agent. If you represent more than 1 insurer (i.e. independent) you are a broker. Thusly, a broker should have the right to charge a “service or broker fee” for the extra work and service provided to the client on behalf of the client. It really isn’t that difficult.