The Mailman Cometh
A few readers didn't like the fact that I criticized AIG Chairman Maurice Greenberg last month for referring to plaintiff attorneys as "terrorists." In my March 8 column, headlined "Words Matter," I argued that it was wrong to lump trial lawyers with those who murder innocent people for political or religious causes. I also warned that on a practical level his poor choice of words could come back to haunt him by obscuring the sound reasoning behind his tort reform crusade.
Harry C. Crowell, an insurance company subscriber, e-mailed to say that he was "amazed" by my position. "There is no doubt that you have a very small definition of a terrorist," he wrote. "Terrorism comes in various forms. One is the schoolyard bully that picks on smaller children. Another is the very set of attorneys that Mr. Greenberg is referring to. They are the primary cause of so many insurance company problems."
He decried "these ruthless attorneys," charging that "any cause is a cause for them to enrich themselves at the cost of the insurance industry or any other deep pocket."
Citing the woes facing small contractors in finding coverage, he said: "Is insurance not available because they are not of adequate quality, or is it because the terrorist attorneys have found a way to frighten insurance companies into excluding those they deem least able to withstand the onslaught of the terrorists that is, plaintiff attorneys?"
He concluded by stating: "I believe you owe a personal apology to Mr. Greenberg a very hard-working man who has made insurance a product that is available everywhere, even when other companies are drawing back on their product."
Meanwhile, Frank Norris, an agent from Columbia, S.C., snail-mailed to say: "Regarding Mr. Greenberg's comment about trial lawyers, there's an old saying that when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one you hit is going to holler. Let's just hope Mr. Greenberg, as well as others, have the courage to keep throwing those rocks."
I am not fond of ambulance-chasing attorneys, and support reasonable legislative remedies to short-circuit class-action scams, but I stand by my opinion that Mr. Greenberg went too far with his "terrorist" characterization. Rather than demonizing the opposition, let the facts speak for themselves on tort reform.
My column of March 22, "Dreaming Of SEMCI," was more fondly received. In that piece, I lamented the fact that had I been sleeping at my desk the past 22 years, I would have been hard put to know whether any time had passed given the lack of progress on achieving single-entry, multiple-company interface.
"Right on, brother!" said Ron Von Haden, executive vice president of the Professional Insurance Agents of Wisconsin, in an e-mail. "The SEMCI banner seems to get raised every few years, only to be dropped again and hidden out of sight for awhile. It seems crazy to me that the property and casualty industry can't (or won't) master the technology."
He recalled that "many years ago, agents were forced to complete different applications for each company they represented. Finally, the agents stood on up and told carriers that they were only going to do business with those that accepted ACORD applications. The carriers quickly adopted the standardization and efficiencies that ACORD forms provided."
Now, he urged, "agents must do the same with the carriers and SEMCI. Some carriers will resist and they won't survive, but if the agents don't push for increased efficiencies, some of them won't survive. Keep up the good work."
I say, amen!
Sam Friedman
Editor-In-Chief
Reproduced from National Underwriter Edition, April 2, 2004. Copyright 2004 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.