|
Don’t you think it’s easy to manipulate quote ratio, though? Just don’t quote accounts you don’t think you’ll write. In the same sense that would make it a useless metric, no? Like it’s supposed to be some sort of productivity and competitiveness metric, but you could spend all sorts of time pre-qualifying or researching a group just to find them deficient and not send a quote. Still wasted time your organization is paying you for. Seems like it would be more efficient to reward individuals bringing in the most money - similar to i-banking. Like sure, every account is a risk, but I’d imagine an organization would want to reward the best earners who bring in the most consistently lucrative contracts. Maybe even writers that minimize risk as far as they’re able - cash is king and even if someone generates consistent profits, payouts are immediate and come from cash on hand. Am I missing something?
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
Ruggan posted:Don’t you think it’s easy to manipulate quote ratio, though? Just don’t quote accounts you don’t think you’ll write. Yes, you're missing something/No, that wouldn't work. You definitely don't want to base performance metrics on heavily premium volume because it encourages under-pricing to put more accounts on your book, which leads to insufficient premium volume to finance losses. That's how you get situations like Tower Group, which went form a huge carrier with an A- rating in early 2013 to being insolvent with a negative rating in 2016. This is their website now http://www.twrgrp.com/ It can happen to almost any company with sloppy underwriting and over-emphasizing premium growth at the expense of standards (except for "too big to fail" companies with lovely reinsurance management). You can inflate your quote ratio to a degree but that's why bind ratio (number of accounts actually purchased to number quoted) is also a contributing metric, so you can't inflate it too much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:Yes, you're missing something/No, that wouldn't work. You definitely don't want to base performance metrics on heavily premium volume because it encourages under-pricing to put more accounts on your book, which leads to insufficient premium volume to finance losses. That's how you get situations like Tower Group, which went form a huge carrier with an A- rating in early 2013 to being insolvent with a negative rating in 2016. This is their website now http://www.twrgrp.com/ It can happen to almost any company with sloppy underwriting and over-emphasizing premium growth at the expense of standards (except for "too big to fail" companies with lovely reinsurance management). Oh, I see. I think I misunderstood quote ratio as bind ratio. So quote ratio is number of accounts quoted over number of accounts handled (the ones you look into)? Do you find your own leads or does your company bring them to you and ask you to investigate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Ruggan posted:Oh, I see. I think I misunderstood quote ratio as bind ratio. So quote ratio is number of accounts quoted over number of accounts handled (the ones you look into)? Correct - and my target is 40-50% on the quote ratio, so I do have ample room to decline or inquiry (request additional information, then quote or decline after) as needed. We do some marketing travel but it's mostly to appointed brokerages and not prospects (save for industry trade events). Most of our brokerage relationships are set up by our marketing department. At any given time I have a couple hundred brokerage offices I work with, each with 5-100 brokers depending on the size, and each of those brokers has hundreds of agents they work with, so it ends up casting a pretty wide net. Our "territories" are by location of brokerage, not by the location of the insured, so I have accounts nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 13:06
|
|
|
What sort of schooling or training did you have to go through to get this job?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:What sort of schooling or training did you have to go through to get this job? There's universities that offer risk management degrees (generally as a specialization within their business college), but a lot of people come in after 5-10 years experience in the standard market (either as agents or as underwriters). I was recruited and interviewed in (in two days of interviews and weird mind games) via a friend of my family shortly after college (history/biology). My training was on the job; my company has a "sink or swim" type of mentality - the goal is that you'll quote on your first day (with close supervision and work-checking, naturally). I didn't have territory and authority to quote without a sign-off until 3 months, 3-9 months is a pretty average "training" period depending on your experience and how quickly you hit your groove. E&S is a little quirky, there's no one background that necessarily means you'll fit, it's kind of a combination of things you can develop lots of ways - great research and internet creeping skills, a good head for risk gambling, good phone/interpersonal skills. I'd guess less than half the people at the company I work for actually have a degree in business, risk management, accounting, or law even those would be the obvious educational backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
No one background? Bull, that's right up a professional poker player's alley
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:No one background? Bull, that's right up a professional poker player's alley Poker is a game of risk management, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:No one background? Bull, that's right up a professional poker player's alley One of my coworker's brokers has played on the WSOP circuit and I'm sure he's not the only one. I'm more of a blackjack person, there's still two deck tables at the Monte Carlo in Vegas and that's loving great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:There's universities that offer risk management degrees (generally as a specialization within their business college), but a lot of people come in after 5-10 years experience in the standard market (either as agents or as underwriters). I was recruited and interviewed in (in two days of interviews and weird mind games) via a friend of my family shortly after college (history/biology). My training was on the job; my company has a "sink or swim" type of mentality - the goal is that you'll quote on your first day (with close supervision and work-checking, naturally). I didn't have territory and authority to quote without a sign-off until 3 months, 3-9 months is a pretty average "training" period depending on your experience and how quickly you hit your groove. E&S is a little quirky, there's no one background that necessarily means you'll fit, it's kind of a combination of things you can develop lots of ways - great research and internet creeping skills, a good head for risk gambling, good phone/interpersonal skills. I'd guess less than half the people at the company I work for actually have a degree in business, risk management, accounting, or law even those would be the obvious educational backgrounds. I've worked in property & casualty claims since 1985. I'm probably too old now, but I've been tempted to give underwriting a go. I currently handle commercial property claims in the Philadelphia area (oh, what fun) and do also write estimates for our little E&S line (property insurer of last resort). Working in casualty & litigation can bring on nightmares since I would see stuff on a regular basis that the public don't see: post-accident shots by the police A.I.D. division. We would get the whole report & photos. Then again, in property, there'd be murders & suicide aftermath scenes. Back in the day, there were no specialty clean-up companies, and I'd often wind up alone inside homes that were...nasty. I had to go in; understandably no one else (family, friends of family) wanted to - they'd hand me a key & turn me loose. On the amusing side: in case you might wonder why they put glaring warnings on things like lawnmowers: during training at The Hartford in 1985, we were given a case involving an insured in Texas, around 1981, who thought it would be a most excellent idea to de-shingle his roof with his lawnmower to save time during the roof replacement process. Needless to say, he fell off, and the running mower followed, on the same trajectory. He died, but not quickly. Family sued the lawnmower manufacturer, since there were no warnings not to, uh, use a lawnmower for roof demo. We all wondered how many beers it took for that demo method to start to sound like a good idea. PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Apr 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:I've worked in property & casualty claims since 1985. I'm probably too old now, but I've been tempted to give underwriting a go.  Lawnmowers are pretty bad, for a lot of the same reasons heavy machinery is bad (used way past the point of safety, poorly maintained, safeguards like dead man switches removed or overridden to "save time") with the added bonus of largely being used by people with no formal safety training in their use (I mean, obviously, it's not like there's lawnmower class) and even minors. People lift up mowers to trim hedges, don't clear rocks in their path, etc. It's one lovely death or dismemberment claim after another, it's a rough class to write profitably. Saw a loss on a riding mower a couple years back where there was some kind of gas fire, guy was belted in and trapped burning to death and rolled into a lake where he promptly drowned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
I’d imagine riding mowers are way worse (falling/running over kids). If you’re using a self propelled lawnmower on grass as designed with a bag or plug in place I’d bet the injury rate is pretty low. Is that right? Do you see anything where a lot of claims come in despite proper use?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Ruggan posted:I’d imagine riding mowers are way worse (falling/running over kids). If you’re using a self propelled lawnmower on grass as designed with a bag or plug in place I’d bet the injury rate is pretty low. Is that right? The big issue with self-propelled it people tying off the dead man's handle and then some other inciting incident happening (fall over from heat stroke, stung by a bee and let go of the mower, etc.) and the mower continuing on unguided into a kid or pet or, if the person falls into the path or holds on and pulls it down with them, self-mulches. Accidents do happen even with proper use (unseen golf balls, toys, rocks, etc. taking out eyes), and blindness can be a big claim (especially if it's a kid). It's one of those "the nature of the product will lead to losses" type risks, it's impossible to make an open spinning blade completely safe and foolproof. Ideally people would wear safety glasses (or impact resistant shades) while mowing and that would reduce those kinds of claims by a lot, but "lawn care" is one of those consumer habits you'd have a hell of a time trying to change someone's method on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:Ideally people would wear safety glasses (or impact resistant shades) while mowing and that would reduce those kinds of claims by a lot, but "lawn care" is one of those consumer habits you'd have a hell of a time trying to change someone's method on. I have smashed my helmet so hard before, that I literally started blacking out (saw some black spots). Think it would have been a hospital trip if I wasn't wearing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
John Smith posted:I have smashed my helmet so hard before, that I literally started blacking out (saw some black spots). Think it would have been a hospital trip if I wasn't wearing it. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
John Smith posted:I put on my PPE even when performing home maintenance tasks, such as serving the air-conditioner or minor repairs. This is an excellent habit to put into practice; I wonder if the inclusion of eye protection with mowers would get more people into it, but I have no idea. Someone with a background in behavioral analytics should crunch it and find out, it seems to me it'd be cheaper then cutting checks for blinding claims + paying more for insurance accordingly every year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
My dad always made fun of me for insisting on wearing safety glasses every time we used powertools. Then he got debris in his eye and spent 6 months wearing an eye-patch. That's my power tools safety story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
John Smith posted:I have smashed my helmet so hard before, that I literally started blacking out (saw some black spots). Think it would have been a hospital trip if I wasn't wearing it. Do you remember how it happened? OP: What about parking lots? The big box and chain places probably have shitloads of casualties. Usually Targets and Krogers have speed bumps for traffic and even the stop sign where pedestrians are walking in and out. I just left a Publix that had none that poo poo! Cars generally have the right of way and it's really weird. Wawa must have a fucken body count imo. If you go any Wawa during morning rush hour time the whole place is mass loving chaos. Especially the parking lot. Trucks whipping around. Wawas always have that parking lot and lack of walking paths that wrap around the store so people are whipping around corners. How does that go? A driver hitting a pedestrian is pretty much universally considered at fault. But how much of that can be tied to a business's liability for a safer parking lot? e: Also Cosco. Probably so many incidents involving multiple pedestrians, vehicles, and those giant flatbed carts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
A relative of mine suffered an eye injury involving a fishing sinker of his. It was stuck on something under the water and in order to release it he gave it a good tug. The thing flew at him and hit him square in the eye, gave him some permanent eye issues. Should he have filed a claim? With who exactly? I ask because even though it seems squarely his fault, this thread gives me the impression that consumer fault doesn’t necessarily mean insurance wouldn’t pay out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
fzA455 posted:Do you remember how it happened? To be fair, if I wasn't wearing my helmet I would remember harder. When you feel "safe", you are a bit more reckless. But then again, you can't possibly count on never forgetting ever. I just took it as a reminder to remember harder and wear my PPE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
fzA455 posted:Do you remember how it happened? Most slip and fall losses will fall within what is referred to in the policy was "med pay" - it's a low limit (usually $5-10k) that *generally* pays regardless of fault because it's cheaper and faster than fighting it and, at least in the past, the claimed damages are generally just ER or doctor's bills. Nowadays companies will investigate to a degree, and will always investigate if the alleged damages exceed the med pay limit because there's a lot of fakers (both outright lying about falling or intentionally dropping/spilling something to fall on). The big gas station chains go to big standard market carriers but I imagine there's a few auto-pedestrian claims. Most of those will get reported primarily on the driver's auto policy but if the parking lot has a particularly fucky layout, poor lighting, etc. it's not outside of the realm of possibility for the gas station to get brought in. Costco's vendor insurance requirements are a loving NIGHTMARE from a claims standpoint. If you sell a product in Costco and they ever demo it (food, pharma, furniture, whatever) - which is highly desirable as far as moving merch - any slip/trip accidents that happens in a pretty sizeable perimeter (I can't recall exactly but I think it's 10 feet or something) you are on the hook for. Every account I've ever seen with demos at Costco has had obnoxious slip/trip and fall claims from the demo periods. It's hella smart on Costco's part, their risk manager deserves a raise. Ruggan posted:A relative of mine suffered an eye injury involving a fishing sinker of his. It was stuck on something under the water and in order to release it he gave it a good tug. The thing flew at him and hit him square in the eye, gave him some permanent eye issues. I can't give legal advice, but for a lawyer to take it seriously there would have to be some plausible claim of negligence against another party. Even claim payouts that seem nuts have an arguable contributory negligence aspect to them. Was there debris under the dock/water surface, and was the dock/water surface privately owned and managed? Did any of the gear fail? Was your relative using the equipment as could reasonably be expected? These are the kinds of things a lawyer would need to know. Generally I wouldn't personally recommend filing a suit unless you truly feel it's warranted because the time and money investment for you as an individual can be ruinous. There's no guaranteed payout (I mean...we joke in the industry that workers comp always pays but even that they'll dig into every little crevice and fold of your personal life if anything seems even slightly off). I had an account with a frivolous claim a couple years back that we fought for two years and $600k+ in legal fees. The guy got $0, not even his court costs and legal fees, which I'm sure after two years was thousands of dollars. Even if you found a law firm to take your case contingent fee (not as easy to find these days) the time off from work and court fees can still be a lot to bear. Most states have a 2 year statute of limitations for negligent injury claims so if this was a long time ago it's moot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:29
|
|