Reader Letters

Panera Profits

I liked Laura Mazzuca Toops' blog article “Apple, Panera and the Profitability of Ethics” (propertycasualty360.com, Feb. 23)  

Some people believe that ethics are situational. I believe ethics are “locational.” There are three Panera locations that I have visited.

At one location, after filling up a frequent buyer card, they told me they no longer accept them (strike one). At a second location, I have been shorted bagels not once, but twice, which was not discovered until after leaving the store (strike two). 

At the third location, I explained the above to an employee at the counter. I left the third location with a few extra bagels and a genuine apology (home run).

When we—insurance companies or agencies—mess things up, will we get a third chance to hit a home run?

Phil Minshall, CPCU
Dansville, Mich.

Resonate Reagan

I enjoy reading Laura Mazzuca Toops' contributions to PC360.com. Her writing style is straightforward and insight significant. The blog article, “Small Business Holds its Nose to Vote” (propertycasualty360.com, Feb. 16) on small business perception that President Barack Obama is a bigger supporter of small business than Mitt Romney is breathtaking. Because Romney's strength is his business experience, and Obama has done nothing but make the business environment more challenging and costly, I guess there is a need to educate small business as to their real friends and foes.

It would be interesting to see the sample size and wording of the questions from the Manta survey. At any rate, the Republican field needs to pull together and create a message that can resonate with the American people despite the bias of the American press. Reagan did it, so it is not impossible. 

Sal Provenzano
Riverside, Conn.

Weblining Woes

I am a big fan of the magazine and Laura Mazzuca Toops' articles on PropertyCasualty360.com. In the past I have wanted to respond to some, but this particular article, “Redlining is Back—On the Web,” (propertycasualty360.com, Feb. 9) hit home.  

Our agency is participating in a Social Media Pilot Program via The Hartford, administered by Hearsay Social, and I act as our agency's administrator for this pilot. Hearsay posts weekly suggestions and content for us to upload to our Facebook and LinkedIn profiles on a weekly basis. Recently, they posted a suggestion: “Consider emailing friends and family asking them to join your fan page. Having a large fan base is a great way to show potential customers that you are a legitimate, trustworthy business.” However, when I forwarded this email to our agency staff, I not only received pushback from our president, but from a majority of our staff, who offered  valid reasons ranging from “I keep my personal life separate from business” to “I don't want a photo from 20 years ago being tagged and cross referenced with our business Facebook page.”

So, now we have this other issue to ponder. As if credit scoring wasn't enough to affect the outcome of a prospect/client insurance placement, now we will have to be subjected to Big Brother watching. As both an agent and consumer, I can see this becoming a definite problem—not only as it relates to our issue of privacy, but how it creates havoc when marketing or re-marketing a risk. How will we know if aggregate data is the culprit, and what is one's recourse to challenge the data? The sad reality is that as the world is seemingly getting smaller via social media, I suppose it's inevitable that it would head in this direction.  

Denise L. Kelly 
Long Island, N.Y.

Valuable Lessons Learned

I look forward to receiving American Agent & Broker in the mail and first turn to Down to Cases. When reading the last paragraph of “Valued Advice” (AA&B February 2012), I came across this sentence: “The agent should have gone over the meaning of the policy at the time it was issued and attempted to sell replacement cost coverage since it would have earned him a higher premium.”

I know we all work to make money to feed our families, but shouldn't that sentence read “The agent should have… attempted to sell replacement cost coverage since it would have been in the best interest of the insured”?

That is how I was taught since day one, “do what is in the best interest of the client” and the money will follow.

Buddy Butler
Seattle

Barry Zalma wrote a great article, “Valued Advice,” in the February issue of American Agent & Broker. His articles have significantly opened my eyes.

Can he expand on how to exercise broad discretion in servicing the insured's needs or offer a short example of how this could be defined?

Paul J Arnone
Kansas City, Mo.

Zalma response: Discretion for an insurance agent or broker, or for an insurance company, is to be prudent and consider all of the needs of the person to be insured. 

Although the law in most cases only requires an insurance agent or broker to provide the insurance the person to be insured asks the agent or broker to provide, a broker using a broad discretion uses the broad knowledge of the insurance industry, a complete knowledge of the person to be insured, and explains to the person to be insured the opportunities and types of coverages that might be needed. By so doing the insured can then choose or not choose and if the agent or broker's file is well documented, he can avoid the type of litigation discussed in the article.

Of course, holding oneself out as an expert can create a fiduciary relationship and can be dangerous, so it must be made clear to the insured and documented in the file that all the agent or broker is doing is offering opportunities, not making suggestions as an expert of all the insurance needed. That is why I used the word “discretion” and why what the agent or broker suggests to a potential insured must be done prudently.

For example, when an insured comes to a broker and asks for fire insurance on a house where the insured lives, he or she can just say “Okay,” or can, with prudence, say there are other coverages available that might interest the insured, like a homeowners policy, a fire and extended coverage policy, or other coverages that might be important to the insured and for which the insured might wish to consider.

When it Rains…

I certainly enjoyed reading Chris Amrhein's article “Rain Blame” (AA&B January 2012) regarding the “dog and cat fight” between the NFIP and the dwelling form coverage. Even though I deal with large commercial accounts, I am from south Mississippi and have weathered many, many hurricanes. 

Amhrein's concept of a “hurricane policy” should be given much thought and consideration. NFIP certainly has its own issues as well as FEMA. Many of my friends and family lost everything after Hurricane Katrina. The claims process for a few of them was unfathomable: “Did the water or wind come first?” They had to deal with that crap from their agents and adjusters—not to mention some of them only had the clothes on their backs. Does it really matter which came first? They lost everything!

Our industry is evolving daily and yes, we need to streamline some of these types of coverages to fit the circumstances and make insurance conform to what it should be.

Cindy Rawls
Hattiesburg, Miss.