One thing we’re trying to do a better job of is pushing the underwriters with whom we work to describe for us what their ideal client looks like. Insurance is not supposed to be a consumer good like an iPhone or a refrigerator, it’s supposed to be a customized financial arrangement where one party pays for the losses of another. And I think in an agreement like that both sides should know the other side as much as possible.
Some insurance companies are better at predicting future losses for large groups of drivers (more stable premiums), others are better at concierge claims (only a very few, unfortunately), others are better at being flexible in their underwriting tolerance (old-school common sense), and others are better with technology and customer-facing efficiencies.
No insurance company is good (yet) at all of those. But they all think they are. So the point of us asking them about it is to create a level of accountability to our office and to our clients. We’d actually love it if one were honest enough just to say “we aren’t efficient yet, but we’re the best at claims adjusting”, or “we’re pretty generic with claims, but we’re the most affordable”. At least then we’d feel in partnership because we could match consumers and what they need with the stated strategy of the insurance company. Matched expectations are always best.
We’d love to tell you what we think each insurance company really stands for if you’d like, and we’ll tell you what we think we’re good at, too. Now we’re trying to see how honest insurance companies can be with their own self-reflection.
Photo: Joshua Tree, CA