“If I could be you and you could be me for just one hour
If we could find a way to get inside each other's mind
If you could see you through my eyes instead of your ego
I believe you'd be surprised to see that you'd been blind.
Walk a mile in my shoes…”
— Joe South

In this month of November, Joe could have been singing of thatfirst Thanksgiving, where the settlers gave thanks for the AmericanIndians saving the settlers' lives by sharing gifts, crops andknowledge.

One can see how critical was the sharing simply by noting thefatality rates of the original colonists who tried to conquer thenew world using the skills and techniques they brought with them.Despite apparently superior weaponry, wealth and skills that hadlong proved successful in the old world, the wipeout all along theeastern seaboard was nearly total. Then, through contacts with thenatives long since blurred into legend and myth, colonists learnedto adapt in crucial areas such as effective shelter, planting orhunting. In effect, to walk a mile in the native's shoes was toturn a world that seemed deadly and foreboding into one of untoldwealth and possibilities. Thanksgiving, indeed!

Related: Read ChrisAmrhein's October column, “Reality bites.”

Unfortunately, far too many insurance agents today seem to befalling into the trap of those original settlers, with likelysimilar fatal results. Focused on the skills and techniques of thepast, these agents are steadily losing the ability to see the worldthrough the eyes of their prospects and insureds. Keep it up andthere goes the colony.

Because our focus here is policy issues, let's narrow theplethora of possible miscommunications and lost opportunities downto a few representative yet specific coverage scenarios. How canyou move from our CE/designation/E&O-imbued focus on technicalcoverage analysis and get into the minds of prospects and clientswho don't know the first thing about policy language?

In other words, when it comes to the world we address with ourproducts and services, what do prospects and clients see andfear?

Easy answer, if you follow any of the basics of risk managementanalysis. It all begins with step one: identifying risks orchances of loss. Basically, what are your prospects afraid oflosing and how much will it hurt them to lose it?

For example, backin my September column, I mentioned the dark cloud/silverlining that often accompanies an insured with a flooded basementwhen cashing in on his sump and sewer backup coverage. Hopefully,the silver lining is that he has the coverage, typically providedby a homeowners' endorsement. The dark cloud is that the basic ISOendorsement only provides a limit of $5,000, and many insureds havefar in excess of that amount of personal property in theirbasements. Man caves, anyone?

Seen through insurance policy eyes, the technical questions are“is there coverage and how much?” Seen through insured eyes, it'snot a question, but a statement: “Oh, no, my home theater, beercooler, ice machine and pool table are history!” OK, the washer,dryer and furnace are gone, too.

If the agent can see through the client's eyes, suddenly it isclear the real issue isn't just “if” there is coverage, becausethat need is a given. It's now a full focus on adequate limits.That $5,000 is not only nothing to brag about, it's woefullyinsufficient.

A key point: getting into the other's mind doesn't mean losingyour own. Quite the contrary: you are adding the insured's view ofloss to your existing understanding of coverage. The result is youare now focused upon effective solutions instead of merely sellingproducts, a development guaranteed to move any true sales trainerto euphoric rhapsody in your honor.

If sump coverage represents a small window into an insured'smind, now let's throw open the door and walk on in. For example, onmy personal homeowner's policy, that sump coverage is $10,000. It'snot a separate standalone endorsement, but automatically includedin the special “enhanced wondermatic extendo super-duper add-onpackage” endorsement thrown in with my policy. The carrier evensent me a nice brochure extolling the wonders of their generosityin providing this additional package of coverages, clearly implyinghow lucky I am not to have fallen in with lesser carriers with nosuch concern for my welfare.

Such package deals exist throughout our industry (BOP, anyone?),and are obviously a good thing–as far as they go. But given ourtheme, note the viewpoint: strictly the carrier's. How generous ofthem to give me these extensions. How wonderful that I have them.Yet where is any indication they thought for even a second about myview of these tidings? Do I even need all these “bonus” coverages?(Probably not all, if the low cost of the package endorsement isany indication.) Do I want them? Are there those, like the sumpcoverage, that are valuable but insufficient for my true needs? Thepersonal injury coverages are great, but if truly of value, shouldmy liability limits be significantly higher than I would needwithout them? And can I have a refund for whatever cost wasassigned to that doubling of the horsepower limit for the boat Idon't own, the higher fire department service charge I will neveruse or the additional loss assessment I don't need?

I know, that is the point of a package–throw in a lot of stuffand every insured will find at least something of value, even ifmuch of the rest is a waste.

Exactly my point. From an insurance marketing department view,this is genius. As for actually adequately addressing my realneeds, it reminds me of a bird hunter using scattershot in a doublebarreled shotgun: Just blast the whole tree; there ought to be abird in there somewhere. Maybe, but hardly the approach of askilled woodsman, to say nothing of the sheer waste and collateraldamage.

And that lazy approach by the carrier often leads to the agentfalling asleep at the switch and never actually exploring with memy view of things. Hence, some sump coverage, but not enough. Someliability coverage, but insufficient limits. And far too often, nodiscussion at all of what I might need that is not addressed by thepackage, expanded coverage endorsement or not. For example, E&Oclaims tell us agents often overlook seemingly obvious exposuressuch as home-based businesses and flood coverage (including excessflood when, as if frequently the case, NFIP limits areinsufficient).

In our world, the waste is lost opportunity to truly provideexcellent coverage meeting the real needs of clients. Thecollateral damage includes lost profits, squandered opportunitiesand increased E&O, along with the loss of professional imagewhen folks finally have that claim only to be told theirwonderfully broad and expansive policy is going to fall a bit (or alot) short of delivering.

Just to show how far many in our industry have separated theirthinking from our prospects and clients, do you see any irony inpanels at insurance conferences debating whether our products arebecoming commodities, while our prospects and clients describetheir worlds–and thus, risks of loss–as evolving at the speed oflight in social mores, lifestyles and technology?

Like those first settlers, the problem isn't the new world; it'sour inability to see we are still trying to live in the old one.Take Joe South's advice. Get into your prospects' and clients'minds. See through their eyes. You may be surprised that you'vebeen blind.

Then be one with our friends as at that long-ago feast, whenthey celebrated the realization that where once the land seemedforbidding and deadly, the fields were truly white unto harvest.Happy Thanksgiving!

Related: Read ChrisAmrhein's October column, “Reality bites.”

Read “Wantfireworks? Make like Tchaikovsky.”

Read: “Oh the places we swim.”