Chris Amrhein, AAI, is an insurance educator and speakerwith more than 30 years in the industry. He also is the chief funofficer at insuranceisfun.com, and author of “Yes Virginia, Thereis Insurance.” He serves as AA&B's Policy Issuescolumnist.

One of the joys of fall is seeing the harvest come in from thosefruit and vegetable gardens that you labored over so loyally allsummer. The time and trouble pays off when you realize, as yousavor that incredible “fresh from the garden” flavor, what thosewho purchase edibles from the grocery store are missing. They thinkall produce tastes exactly the same, rather than appreciating thevast variety available for the feast.

Too bad that same blandness is often mistaken for the reality ofinsurance. Commodity? You must be kidding. Aren't all formsfairly standardized now, with little variation? Hasn't the sheercommonality of package coverages rendered the entire buyingdecision down to price—oh, and service, of course?

That's about as accurate a picture of insurance market realityas seeing a photo of a tie-dye while listening to a Zeppelin MP3recreates the '60s.

Related: Read “Misplaced Terminology“

As for “standardized” common forms and coverages, I am willingto admit there was once a time when those of us in the insuranceeducation realm used to love major ISO program revisions. Newhomeowners program? Rent the van, print the handouts and sing outwith Willie Nelson: “On the road again, just can't wait to get onthe road again!”

After all, back in the day, an ISO filing had the power of HolyWrit. State approved with an effective date of May 1? Then you darnwell better be ready on May 1 to know the new forms, coveragechanges and rating implications, because on that day all old formspassed away and the new rolled in like that New Year's baby takingover from the old guy. Any new or renewal policy taking effect onor after that date would be issued with the new forms, for good orill. So education folks leaped into that window of opportunity.Every practitioner of the insurance arts needed the new info andthey needed it now. Instructors, start your seminars!

Of course, insurance publishers also greeted the new filingslike Christmas come early. Authoritative articles needed tobe written, textbooks updated, license and designation examsrevised. A good, thick ISO forms revision was the insuranceequivalent of the Federal Reserve launching another stimulusprogram: cash in now before everything reverts to normal.

How the mighty have fallen. Due largely to antitrust allegationsin the early '80s, ISO is no longer the king of the hill but merelyan “advisory organization.” It was as if someone found a newtranslation and proclaimed the Ten Commandments as the TenSuggestions: nice ideas, but feel free to ignore and/or delay iffor any reason they were to unreasonably impact your operations. AnISO filing today has all the legal weight to an insurance carrierof a committee report.

Related: Read “Walk the Line“

Yet the old ways die hard. Following thetried-and- true advertising motto of “Well, if it ain't true, actlike it is,” publishers, education providers and others dreaming ofthe potential windfall cash-flow of the old days still treat a newISO program rollout like a “must see, must act, must know”event—when in reality it's more of a “interesting, wonder if itmatters?” sideshow.

“So what?” you may be asking. Isn't it better for everyone if nosingle monolithic organization dictates the standard form languageapplicable to all? For good or ill, at least we are all on the samepage, all can learn the same lessons and at claim time all willknow what will and won't be paid.

Clearly you didn't live in the good old pre-'80s, grasshopper.As much as it may rock your worldview, even then we had disputedclaims, hard/soft markets and adjusters from the dark side whoinsisted that seemingly clear phrase was actually more of anopinion, not necessarily hard coverage fact.

If that was true then, what of now, when a smorgasbord ofform/endorsement language is upon us, proprietary mixed with“standard,” and approval date by the applicable state regulatorsimply means carriers will now think about utilizing the newlanguage when it's convenient?

A recent email query highlighted the potential created by ourcurrent “ISO as advisory only” scenario.

As with any major HO revision, the ISO 2011 form update had itsshare of good news and bad news. For example, I would include under“good” a cleanup of the lawnmower liability coverage for occasionaloff-premises use; under “bad” was a “change from nowhere” severelylimiting coverage for property in mini-warehouses. As statedpreviously, seminars were rolled out, articles written andtests/texts updated, all treating the new changes as “immediate,need to know” information.

Yet the reality appears to be quite different. Here we are, 2years after this supposedly major revision rolled out into ourinsurance world, and I receive an email from an agent. His questionwas simple: Does he need to worry about the mini-warehouse changewhen it appears few if any carriers in his state have adopted thenew program?

Having learned never to assume that what I see in themarketplace is necessarily absolute truth, when receiving questionsof this type I always run it by a few of my friends with agencyexperience or national teaching gigs to test the waters.

Perhaps one quote from an experienced agent/instructorsummarizes my findings the best: “It seems as though most of mycompanies only file new homeowners policy forms every 10 years orso and none of my carriers have adopted the latest ISO form. “

Yes, friends. ISO's major HO revision of 2011, approved in moststates that year, has, as breathlessly promised through variouseducational channels, immediately impacted the marketplace,coverage and claims—not.

I feel so used.

But having been in insurance for more than 3 weeks, mycompatriot knew well enough to include a disclaimer: “That's not tosay that they haven't adopted some of the 2011 changes in arecently filed amendatory endorsement or in their own proprietarypolicy form.”

Related: Read “Tailor or Seller?“

In other words, when it comes to taking an authoritative stance,should full knowledge of the new ISO HO program be consideredmandatory or as an interesting committee report to keep in mind fora later date? Although many prefer the former, reality indicatesthe latter.

Consider just a few of the implications:

• All insurance classes, textbooks and technical articles shouldbear the following disclaimer: “WARNING: Nothing contained hereinregarding ISO form language and usage should be interpreted asvalid and applicable now or in the immediate future. Please consultyour carriers and/or competition for the latest effectivestatus.”
• No broad-brush summaries of coverage should be provided toprospects and insureds without the following disclaimer: “WARNING:Nothing contained herein should be construed as true. Please seeyour actual policy for actual coverages and details.”
• All blog posts, tweets and web articles discussing actualcoverage should include the following disclaimer: “WARNING: Thiscontent is for general information purposes only. Do not assumereading this will help you in any way, shape or form to actuallyunderstand what your current insurance will or will not do in anactual claim situation. Only your specific policy can be reliedupon for valid information on your current protection, assuming youcan make any sense out of the wording in the first place.”

Bottom line: if you want the right coverage, you better lookonly at the specific, applicable forms in current force for aspecific client or carrier. Any other specific coverageinformation, regardless of source, should be consideredgeneralizations and opinions, not fact—and certainly not to beacted upon as if it were fact.

Add in the coverage changes, like many of those affectingAdditional Insureds under the 2013 ISO CGL program revisions, thatwill only be clear after perhaps years of ISO revision, carriermodification and court interpretation. With apologies to RonaldReagan, the need to verify, not trust, becomes even morecritical.

Now is the time to establish regular communications with yourcarriers. After any ISO forms revision, ask:

• What, if any, of the new forms/endorsements will the carrier beadopting?
• When?
• Will those adoptions be the actual ISO forms or carrierversions?
• If carrier versions, how much or how little of the ISO changeswill be incorporated?
• If either full ISO forms adoption or issuing of new carrierforms will take place in the future, will any of those changes beincluded sooner in state amendatory endorsements?
• If so, which?
• How do we obtain actual copies or new/revised forms wordingthat the carrier will be adopting so we can view the originalsacred texts, not just rely on perhaps inaccurate summaries?

I don't mean this to sound negative. This is not a call to putyour agency up for sale or flee for your E&O lives. No, this iswhat I call a classic “trap or treat” scenario. It's a “trap” ifyou fail to verify reality versus theory. But it's a major “treat”if you realize that the more complex the possibilities, the morevalue an astute and erudite professional offers to clients andprospects. Insurance a commodity? I think not! For my money, thisevolving, fluid coverage marketplace is more accurately appreciatedas the fields being white unto harvest!

Good harvesting, my friends!