We talked about change in the insurance industry and the increasing speed of change in the world at large. We talked about the transition from agrarian society to industrial society, which occurred over a period of 60 to 100 years or more, while the shift from the industrial to the information age took just under 20.

I told the story of how, in my 23 years with FC&S, the speed of response to subscribers' coverage inquiries has been cut from two weeks to hours. When I got here in 1982, letters from FC&S users generally were attended to within two weeks of their receipt. That was our stated policy and it was all right with our users. By the early '90s, faxes had replaced letters, and we would get second requests two or three days after receipt of the faxes. Now, in the great age of e-mail, we get questions from subscribers that are followed up by e-mail messages marked with red exclamation points within hours of getting the original messages. We know that this is the speed of your business today. What you had weeks for 20 years ago, you get two hours for today.

We talked about where adjusters get into trouble and the unauthorized practice of law in a rousing exchange that touched on the differences between independent adjusters and public adjusters. I reviewed important case law, including the seminal 1939 case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Jones, 130 S.W.2d 945 (Mo. 1939), in which the Missouri Bar Association sued six mutuals doing business in the state because, of all things, they were making decisions on what was covered under an insurance policy and what was not, without the aid of attorneys. The insurance companies won, allowing them to advance the profession of insurance adjusters.

We talked about how the adjusting business can be the practice of law, and not the unauthorized practice of law, wherein the adjuster will be held to the standard of a practicing attorney in the event that his negligence causes harm to an insured. We talked about the developing minority opinion in several states in which a direct cause of action has been established against an independent adjuster working on contract for an insurance company, along with that insurer (see Charleston Dry Cleaners v. Zurich American Ins. Co. [2003 WL 22119885, S.C.])

Not by any means least of all, we talked about adjusters' doing the right thing, as fellow speaker J. Southall Stone, vice president of first party claims for Essex Insurance put it. This came out of a comment that a perception exists that insurance adjusters are given bonuses for cutting insurance recovery to claimants. Southall, voicing the opinion of all in the hall, held forth that a bonus structure like that is “not doing the right thing.” People pay insurance premiums to cover losses that they incur, and minimizing recovery for insureds is not why we are in this business, he maintained. “I'm not going to pay one dollar more than necessary to indemnify an insured, but I'm sure not going to pay one dollar less, either. And I'll err on that side, if I have to,” said Stone, who also is an incoming officer for the Loss Executive Association, to whom he will carry that message.

It was an interesting couple of days: a great meeting program, fine networking opportunities, and just good folks. I wanted to take some space here to tell the group, “Thanks.” Keep doing the right thing and we'll be OK.

Bruce Hillman is editorial director, Professional Publishing Division, of the National Underwriter Co.

The FC&S Claim Queue is prepared and written by the editorial staff of The Fire, Casualty and Surety (FC&S) Bulletins, the most widely used encyclopedic reference service devoted to insurance policy interpretation and coverage topics. FC&S is published by The National Underwriter Company.