Welcome to March, where we again join the CPCU Society and manyother insurance organizations in celebrating National Ethics Month.Several months ago, I received an e-mail, from alert reader RickMayhew, that I saved for this occasion. Chris,
I ran into an interesting situation the other day. An agent told usabout a time he lied to an insured and felt like he did the rightthing. A young insured came into his office and asked if his lifeinsurance policy covered suicide. It was beyond the contestabilitytime period but the agent told the person, “No, it does not.”Apparently this young person was struggling with some issues andthe agent was concerned that a “yes” answer might lead him toinjure himself.
That raises the interesting ethical question: When it is OK to lie?Rick, that is not just an interesting ethical question–it's one ofthe all-time biggies. Forget ethics instructors; the “how manyangels can stand on the head of a pin?” query pales by comparisonto the wheels-within-wheels of “when is it OK to lie?” Greatscholars, learned philosophers and spiritual leaders over thecenturies have debated and discoursed on this very subject, oftento no avail. And to attempt this outside the halls of academe andcathedrals, much less within the confines of an insurance magazine?Only a true fool would attempt such a Sisyphean task.
Rick, you asked the right man.
Let me provide a brief summary of my approach to ethics trainingand discussion. The best way to remove ethics from pure theory andapply it to everyday realistic situations is to move beyond the“ethics is morality” discussion. As a working premise, I definemorality as making “right versus wrong” decisions, and ethics asdeciding between “right versus right.” A weakness of purely arguingmorality is we can often debate to no conclusive end “right versuswrong.” Depending on our culture, our country, our religiousbeliefs or simply the way we were raised, our ideas of what isright and wrong can be in direct conflict with another, equallyconscientious person, raised with different beliefs.
For example, consider polygamy. Considered by the vast majority ofour society to be immoral, to say nothing of illegal, polygamiststoday can be jailed as well as scorned. Yet in the Old Testament,men considered to be some of the greatest heroes of Islam, Judaismand Christianity were happily married to multiple wives. Well,happily may be a stretch, which may explain the later change tomonogamy, but I digress.
I'm all for morality, but as a practical approach to everydayinsurance situations, such conflicting belief systems far too oftenlead us from the high ground into the swamps of argument anddissension, to no avail in reaching a proper ethicaldecision.
The strength of a “right versus right” definition for ethicalbehavior is we move away from the argumentative arena of “whichchoice is wrong” to a question that will be familiar to all riskmanagers: Of all the possible right choices, which is the bestright?
As with risk management, the answer to that question arises fromthe key goals of the client. Which possible solution best gets uswhere we want to go?
So in our situation, what is the key goal of ethical behavior ininsurance? I suggest it is building trust. Insurance is anintangible. We sell a promise of future behavior in return forpresent compensation. Our ability to offer true value to clients isdirectly tied to their trust that we will deliver that promise atthe proper time.
Yet it's a given that we aren't the most popular industry in town.Our public image takes a beating every time some catastrophereveals the disconnect between what clients thought they werepromised and what we actually delivered. Look no further than theanger and sense of betrayal arising from Hurricane Katrina, theCalifornia wildfires or the Midwest flooding. Numerous folks havethe same complaint: that when they were paying us, we made thingssound real simple. Now that it's time for us to pay them,everything seems to be complicated. Thus we end up with court casesbickering over what often seems arcane and esoteric policylanguage, while insureds grow angrier.
Accepting that establishing and building trust is the ultimate goalof ethical behavior for those in our profession. Let's return toRick's question, with a slight rephrasing: “When, if ever, will alie build trust in the one lied to?”
Well, duh–never.
Rick's acquaintance meant well, and his choice may have helped theyoung client avoid a tragic error in judgment. But from an ethicalstandpoint he didn't make a good choice–he got lucky.

Consider all the assumptions the agent made in deciding whetherthe ethical thing to do was lie:

• He read the young man's mood accurately (psychiatry)
• He heard the young man's question correctly (powerlistener)
• He accurately read between the lines to understand the “true”intent of the young man's question (psychic)
• He understood the future result of his response (fortuneteller)
• He was, in fact, the linchpin upon which the young man'sultimate decision would be based (egocentric)
• His “lie” made the difference (speculation).

Quite a stretch, wouldn't you say? In college logic, the termwas syllogistic fallacy.

The classic example runs thusly: God is justice. Justice isblind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder isGod.
Setting aside for the moment there is a Stevie Wonder cult burningincense before a framed cover of his “Innervisions” album, youcannot, simply by connecting one logical assumption to the next,create from enough such assumptions mathematical certainty. If anysingle assumption in the chain is false, the conclusion must beflawed. You may get away with it, but you were lucky, not good.Wall Street financiers, anyone?
And a lucky guess, even if it turns out well, does not buildtrust.
If our agent above accepts he could not be certain he was readingthe young man correctly, he also must accept that trying tooutguess the young man's intentions in his response is pointless.So what was his best ethical answer among the many choices? The onethat builds the most trust now and in the future.
If you are in sales, you know what to do now. Clarify in your ownway the true question being asked. Is it really about insurance, oris it “Should I kill myself, because my beneficiaries will bebetter off with the money from this policy than with me?” Eitherway, you no longer have to make assumptions, false rationalizationsor a wild guess. If he is truly considering the worst, prove youactually care. Talk with him. Listen with concern. Refer him tothose better able to see him through. If that is not the case, thenanswer his insurance question accurately and honestly–exactly whatclients expect of a trusted advisor.
There is no need to lie. With a goal of building his trust, clearchoices emerge, all truthful. Lying in the ethical sense is alwayswrong, even for the best of intentions, simply because it neverbuilds trust, only destroys it. Lying even once forces the otherperson to evermore have to guess whether this time you are tellingthe truth or protecting them with another lie. Eventually thatendless need to guess will eat away any trust they have as surelyas termites chew through wood. And the end of trust is without failthe end of the relationship, which is the fundamental buildingblock of all insurance success.
This month, consider your own assumptions. If you have ever lied toa client, even for the best reasons, do you see the seeds ofdestruction you are inevitably planting? Commit to rise above theshifting sands of moral assumption to the solid rock of ethicalanalysis until, as Stevie sang it best, “we reach the higherground.” Chris Amrhein is an insurance educator and speakerwith more than 30 years in the industry. He is also chief funofficer of www.insuranceisfun.com and author of “Yes,Virginia, There is Insurance.” Contact Amrhein at [email protected].