Time For Some Tough Love On Industry’s Image
I have a feeling I’m going to get a lot of flack for my cover story in the May 26 edition of NU about how the property-casualty insurance industry can solve its image problem.
My piece is based on a presentation I’ve been making over the past two years to groups of carriers, agents and consultants on “The Insurance Industry’s Reputation and Its Impact on the Bottom Line,” which was developed and tweaked in blog entries like this one, columns I’ve published in NU, and thanks to feedback from readers.
(You may read my cover story online at this address: http://www.property-casualty.com/Issues/2009/May%2025%202009/Pages/Insurers-Can-Polish-Their-Image-While-Boosting-Bottom-Line.aspx.)
Everyone has listened respectfully, but I am not convinced I’ve been getting through to people who are most often skeptical at best and cynical at worst about the prospects for convincing any “civilians”—those outside the industry—that insurance is anything but evil incarnate.
What has disturbed me the most, however, is that whenever I have published a column, posted a blog, or delivered a speech on this topic, at least a handful of folks accuse me of biting the hand that feeds me and taking sides with “the enemy”—the hostile consumer advocates, the media that’s out to get them, and the politicians more interested in grandstanding than in the truth.
But the fact is that I beat up on the industry so thoroughly because I do care about those who read this publication and our online brand extensions. I understand that while insurers and their agents do bad things sometimes, that’s no different than any other business—journalism included.
Indeed, I sympathize with the plight of the insurance industry, as perhaps only those in banking and the media have a worse reputation.
Yes, my colleagues in the consumer press are too often uninformed about how the insurance industry works and all the good it does for society. There is bias, sensationalism and sloppy reporting. But I know that most journalists are just trying to do a good job of keeping their audience informed about the most important news and trends of the day, in an objective and honest way.
The same can be said for those laboring in the underappreciated insurance industry. Yes, there are carriers that drag their feet when paying legitimate claims, and brokers who have conspired with insurers to rig bids or steer business to wherever they can get the best contingency deal.
But to argue that such behavior is the norm rather than the exception would be the same as arguing that all claimants are out to defraud their carriers.
Obviously, that is not the case, as the overwhelming majority of claims are fair and square, filed by those who only want what they paid for—just compensation for their loss. But to get the public to think of insurers as people of similar good faith is quite a challenge, given the misperceptions and stereotypes accepted by far too many as fact.
I have a number of concrete suggestions for insurers to consider that could help the industry improve its perpetually tarnished reputation. At the very least, if even some of my ideas are implemented, I believe the press and public might be more inclined to give the industry the benefit of the doubt.
So please check out my cover story and let me know what you think. But if you find yourself questioning my motives or feelings toward the insurance business at any point, keep in mind that if you can’t depend on your friends to give it to you straight, who can you trust to do so?
Entries (RSS)
Thank you for your candid cover story: “Insurers Can Polish Their Image While Boosting Bottom Line.” Like you, we have been working for a number of years to convince the insurance industry to engage in shaping its public image. We have had numerous direct discussions with insurance executives and have made proposals for public education advertising campaigns, including professionally produced ad demos.
I also have been giving a speech titled “Changing Public Opinion About Insurance” for a number of years. The talk has been well-received and yet, as you say: “Everyone has listened respectfully, but I am not convinced I’ve been getting through to people who are most often skeptical at best and cynical at worst about the prospects for convincing any ‘civilians’—those outside the industry—that insurance is anything but evil incarnate.”
I would value any feedback from your cover story and column that you are willing to share. I believe it is possible to identify and connect key players who see the need to take action. Your story may be the catalyst.
I just finished reading your article, “Insurers Can Polish Their Image While Boosting Bottom Line” and it was so refreshing to see this topic covered.
I am a 28-year-old personal lines underwriter who has been in insurance for almost 7 years. I am routinely questioned by my father-in-law about insurance–how fat my company’s wallet is, that claims are denied first, that we do not care about the consumer, that we overcharge, and the list goes on. Mind you he is a contractor who in fact does benefit from the service that insurance provides.
This article does a great job of identifying the reasons insurance carriers are in this predicament and how we can get out of it. Thank you for writing this! I plan to pass it along to management.
I have a better idea for the industry than a new PR campaign.
How about stopping using Colossus and other computerized claims machines dialed in a way to underpay claims?
How about ending the campaign of overpricing the poor through the use of such “classifications” as education, occupation, prior limits, credit scores, home ownership and so forth?
How about ending the competition in fine print that surprise policyholders only when a claim is made?
How about sticking with customers when time gets rough rather than abandoning them? (Who made Allstate and State Farm write all those homes they are now dropping on the coast?)
You get the idea–substance will work, slick PR will only make people madder.
We already have been made “good hands” promises that can now be seen by some as bloody hands. We already have “good neighbor” promises by those who became strangers to many of us.
Let’s have action to clean up the mess and the PR will take care of itself!
SAM RESPONDS:
Bob, while you make some good points, my main argument is not that insurers should be doing a better job of “covering up” their mistakes and misdeeds–in fact, I say the industry should admit when it screws up to improve its credibility with the public. My main point is that insurers genuinely help their policyholders at the worst moments in their lives the vast majority of the time, and that they help make society safer for all. Those are the positive stories that they should be doing a better job getting out.
As Pogo said, “We done met the enemy, and it be us!”
You are so true in your article that the industry needs to get information out, explain what is going on and that not everything will be covered. If things get screwed up, admit it like you say. When an industry is a reaction industry vs taking the lead to educate, evaluate and admit when things are wrong, this is the final acts.
In response to “I have never met an insurance company that I liked” Robert Hunter:
1) Colossus, IF USED THE WAY IT IS INTENDED, can be a very good TOOL in HELPING to evaluate bodily injury claims. Sadly, there are too many executives that have no idea how to adjust claims and do not understand the word TOOL, and have made Colossus gospel–which was never the intent of the system.
2) Computerized systems that underpay an insured. Granted, some companies may adjust the pricing to suit their whims. However, most of the computerized systems, IF LEFT ALONE, allow more than enough to get the vast majority of the property claims settled and the insured back in shape. If they did not, then why do many reputable contractors who are not on any carrier lists use them?
Too many times I have seen contractors jack the pricing up after a disaster, then alledge that the computer pricing is not sufficient for the work and you have been gulible enough to fall for their cries.
3) Overpricing the poor based on education, occupation, prior limits, credit scores, home ownership and so forth? I thought that you had started out as a actuary and would remember that numerous factors go into pricing. If nothing else, credit scores could be used as a reward in a discount, like claims-free is. Remember that the liberal business school located in Austin, Texas even agreed that credit scores do show a correlation to claims potential. I have seen many lower income homes in good shape and have gotten rewards from the carriers.
4) Fine Print? This is largest print that I have ever seen for the policies today. Years ago, the print was very fine. If people cannot see the words with the size the print is now……Again, education is needed but the public has about as much interest in knowing what is in a policy as trying to educate themselves on candidates running for office–and that is none and none. Perhaps with your vast accumen, you could educate the public about the ENTIRE policy and not just what you do not like about it.
5) I used to think that this country was based on free enterprise. Other companies can pull out of markets, why cannot the insurance carriers? Granted, some of them have been so boneheaded over the years that if I was an insurance commish, I would seriously challange why a carrier would want to come back, and then make sure that the carrier did not get into the situation of overwriting. Is that not one of the duties of the department of insurance? To make sure the citizens are served properly?
Maybe it is time for the Feds to take over. They are taking over the auto industry and why not insurance? We could only pray that the head would be someone with no preconceived notions about the industry and would want to bring parties together to try to iron out major problems. (Now cue up the song, “Day Dream Believer”!)
Just read the “Insurers Can Polish Their Image…” article.
The companies have done a poor job at protecting the industry. For years they have used the same playbook. Blunder, then go into lock down until the storm blows over. They let the agency force take the heat, phone calls, and tough interviews.
It would be nice if the companies would proactivly communicate the important role our industry plays in commerce, for a change. Be a hero or stay the scape goat.
You bring up many interesting points.
Mr Friedman, you sure hit the nail on the head.
Too often in our industry does the consumer advocate names of Birny Birnbaum and Robert Hunter bring a dismissive knee jerk reaction of ‘what a quack.’ Although definitely misguided at times, these people represent what a vast portion of this country thinks (and feels). Politicians may not understand the importance of our industry, but it’s important to note that these elected officials are not just leaders but also representatives that are a product of the voters they represent. Politicians don’t like insurers because people don’t like insurers.
Acknowledging the conflict and LISTENING to the other side can help find common ground, or at least understanding, in a discussion that is desperately needed. The insurer/insured relationship is currently an adversarial one. But with rational thought and action from leaders of both sides of the argument, we can make a lot of headway, and reading your comments I want to thank you for reassuring me that I’m not alone in this line of thought.
Thanks again and keep up the good work!
Come on, Sam, how can you still be repeating Hartwig’s lies almost four years after Katrina?
Rep. Taylor and Sen. Lott both had flood insurance. They were paid for their flood losses. They were not asking State Farm to pay for flood losses. They expected to be paid for their wind losses.
Katrina was a huge hurricane with winds far in advance of the eye. The Mississippi Coast suffered four-to-five hours of high hurricane winds with gusts to 140 mph before the storm surge. This was not an either flood-or-wind proposition. All the places that had any storm surge flooding also had the highest winds and suffered substantial damage from wind and wind-driven debris.
Yes, the insurers paid most of their Katrina claims. They paid for wind damage in every county of Mississippi, every parish of Louisiana, most of Alabama, much of Florida, and even into Georgia and Tennessee. But on the Gulf Coast where the winds had been the strongest, State Farm did not even investigate the claims. If water had touched a property, their adjusters simply drove up, handed out a check for NFIP policy limits, and in effect said, “No wind damage. Sue us and we will drag these cases out for years until you give up and settle.”
This was a deliberate strategy to refuse to conduct a proper investigation of the loss and then shift the burden of proof to the insureds to prove the wind damage rather than the insurer having to prove the exclusion.
Read the GAO reports – “Insurers have an inherent conflict of interest when handling both wind and flood claims.”
Read the Mississippi Insurance Dept. market conduct report – Adjusters were trained that if any water touched a property, NFIP paid and State Farm did not owe anything.
Read the DHS OIG report – “There is little evidence in flood claim files to determine whether payouts were fair and equitable for damages caused by both wind and water affecting the same structure.”
Don’t just read their conclusions, because someone obviously got to each of them. Their weak conclusions do not match their pages of evidence of fraud committed against homeowners and taxpayers.
The instructions to the adjusters and the engineers were the fraud. They demanded that adjusters and engineers not attempt to divide or apportion the damage between wind and flood but to assign all the damage to the predominant or primary cause.
If there was any evidence of flooding the claims managers would not accept a finding that wind as the primary cause. They fired engineers for finding wind damage. So then engineers who had not seen the property started rewriting the observations and conclusions of the engineers who had conducted the assessments.
Hartwig likes to say how many claims were paid and how much money was paid, but most claims paid were inland of the flooding where they couldn’t cheat, and most of the money was paid on commercial claims, including some big industrial business interruption claims. Those statistics prove absolutely nothing about the handling of wind/water disputes.
You are not going to improve the insurance industry’s image by repeating false arguments and intentionally misleading statistics to cover up dispicable practices that took advantage of the desperation of disaster victims.
SAM RESPONDS:
For one thing, Mr. Hartwig is a person of integrity who has plenty of facts to back up all of his assertions. I’ll let you two fight it out among yourselves.
However, don’t you think that if the industry was purposely and systematically cheating claimants out of coverage, the last claims they would deny would be those filed by two U.S. members of Congress? Denying those claims on the merits would certainly expose them to a harsh public spotlight.
Isn’t it possible that State Farm denied both those claims because coverage did not apply, and if they paid those congressmen’s claims even though they didn’t believe they had merit, wouldn’t that be fraud–even considered bribery?
Sam, Your article is penetratingly accurate and timely indeed. Keep on preaching; but hopefully not to the choir!
I have been working in the world of insurance for almost 40 years of my life and have been both an underwriter as well as a broker, so I feel I am qualified to speak here.
The vast differneces that exist between insurers and consumers comes about because our industry deals in “promises.” We sell promises or provide them with the idea of a commitment. We are not selling lawnmowers or things that can be taken back to the store after they are purchased that do not work or fail to work properly when used.
That aspect of misunderstanding with the buying public leads to a great deal of mistrust when claims or losses occur. That is how we, in part, obtain the reputation we deserve many times.
To mitigate claims and cut losses, adjusters approve bad-faith settlements in the name of saving the company millions of dollars in the cases of catastrophies, at the expense of the consumer or the policyholders.
Most brokers and agents are compensated by selling insurance. Probably not the smartest way to be rewarded because it promotes many monetary-motivated young insurance neophytes to concentrate on commission levels alone, and fail to properly understand consumer needs and evaluate the risks of insurance properly for their clients before a loss.
Those failures lead to errors and omissions (more insurance!) and more unhappy people.
If I were the “Insurance King,” I would totally revamp the way insurers compensate brokers and agents. I would re-evaluate how brokers are compensated by their employers at the expense of their clients!
And, finally, I would arm every claims adjuster with their own personal moral compass that points only to “true North”–just in case they get “lost” and there’s any doubt about what is the right thing to do for policyholders and people in the event of loss or claims.
Sam, as much as you and State Farm and Hartwig want this to be about Rep. Taylor’s and Sen. Lott’s personal claims, it is not and never has been. I only mentioned the specifics of their cases to correct your misinformation that was intended to discredit them. It is proof of just how bad the insurance industry’s case really is for your only argument to be the false claim that Taylor wanted State Farm to pay for flood damage.
Stop the nonsense and address the facts. I am embarrassed for you that you are still using September 2005 talking points that were discredited long ago.
As I said in the major part of my comment that you ignored, again, State Farm did not perform a legitimate adjustment of any of the thousands of properties that had exposure to any flooding. If they had conducted real investigations of the losses and concluded that flooding had caused all or almost all of the damage and had evidence to back it up, your side would have a point. But that is not what they did and the record is absolutely clear on this point.
They decided before any investigation or evidence that they would blame everything on flooding where anything could be blamed on flooding. They approached NFIP and convinced the Bush Administration to allow WYOs to pay flood limits without inspecting the property. Then they did not conduct legitimate investigations of either the flood claims or the wind claims. They sent their adjusters out with instructions to pay flood policy limits and keep the wind claim open.
They tried to send engineers out to issue reports blaming all the damage on flooding, but they soon found out there were not enough crooked engineers for the scope of Katrina, so they had to coerce the engineering firms to rewrite all the reports that had found wind damage and then they cancelled all remaining engineering assessments.
These are all facts that Hartwig refuses to acknowledge while he repeatedly disparages disaster victims for daring to expect windstorm insurance to cover wind damage. If you believe he and State Farm are credible about Katrina claims, you really have not bothered to look at any of the cases or the reports.
Can you at least admit that State Farm and other insurers have a responsibility to investigate the wind and flood claims and compile some record of the evidence? Do you really defend their absolute refusal to investigate each loss? Please address the facts, not the straw man that Hartwig and State Farm’s lawyers have tried to create.
Go back and reread my comment above. Those are the facts. I can support everything I have said.
These are simple questions:
–Does the insurance company have the burden to prove the exclusion?
–Do WYO companies have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers or can they freely assign wind/water losses to NFIP without needing to explain how they distinguished between the two perils?
–Can an insurer completely refuse to investigate the loss and then years later in court use the lack of details in the record to shift the burden of proof to the policyholder?
–The business apologists in the federal courts may find that these practices are not fraud, but the questions for this forum are whether they are defensible and whether the public has just cause to be outraged by them.
SAM RESPONDS:
I am neither State Farm’s attorney nor their PR rep, so I will let them defend themselves.
Once again, you focus on one carrier and one set of claims, when my point was the the vast majority of claims were paid by the vast majority of all carriers.
The Katrina argument may never be resolved due, in no small part, to the excellent points on both sides.
Taking the national disasters out of the equation, most people’s experience with the industry will come about due to a minor fender bender or their garage door being kicked in. That is when they rely on the agent having given them the best advise they could have and without concern for commissions.
Here in Illinois, if they don’t like my price, my office is in walking distance of 3 captive agents and 3 other independent insurance agents. We need to be as much about educating our clients as we are about finding the cheapest price.
The companies’ advertising budget should include industry PR and education. It doesn’t help when they spend all their advertising dollars claiming that they saved their customers $300 over company A’s price. Just keep watching the same TV channel and you’re bound to see company A’s commercial claiming that they can save you $500 over that other company.
It’s sad to hear that even a few NU P&C readers would question your motivation, empathy, or your sympathy for the industry that you’ve dedicated so many years to improving. Clearly your role is not that of “yes man” or apologist for all of those who fill NU’s pages with paid ads, yet I don’t recall ever reading insensitive, intentionally misleading, or demeaning commentary that you or NU should be taken to task for.
If any criticism is fair to make, it may be that due to the source of your income, and the ultra conservative history of the insurance business, your most recent efforts such as Time For Tough Love and the very long titled Image article are:
a) Too kind/soft on insurers
b) Too late in the game
c) Have largely ignored political and corporate realities
Long before I realized how damaging it could be to share my honest opinions with insurance company management as you have, I began carrying that torch. With the exception of the rare article here and there over the past 37 years, I’ve felt very alone as most of my fellow agent/broker friends and acquaintances seem to resigned to just smile, and attempt to outsmart the corporate managers. Looking back on it, it’s sort of been like the old jokes about the Russian’s five year plans.
I have always believed that the vast majority of insurance company employees are very good people intent on doing a good job, and understanding that their job has something to do with helping those in need. That seems to be the point of divergence though, as those same people come to think that the agent/broker, and corporate bosses are much more concerned about improving their own personal bottom line rather than that of the insurance company, stockholders, or society. My point being make and honest profit, in a way that everyone can be proud of what they are doing, as opposed to saying you care about policyholders, when you really don’t.
We should be in business to pay legitimate claims, not deny them! We’re not here to play Santa Claus with the corporation’s money, but taking unfair advantage of our customers who do not know their rights, or those who can not fight to enforce them, should never be an option. Your article gave some really good concrete examples, and I agree with the vast majority of it. I do question the statement of “Reject the notion that perception is reality, and that insurers will never be respected.”
First off, I think its been proven that the wording of a poll question affects the way people answer it. I think that banking and government are full of thieves, but I still have a great deal of respect for both institutions. Your point was to remake a negative image based on a positive reality, not based on a PR fantasy! Which brings me to my other point of question – you sound far more optimistic about this very fractured industry changing its set in concrete habits than I am. Not to say that it can’t happen, or that it won’t ever happen, but I’d say there is no evidence to suggest we’ll see it in our lifetimes. Then again, I said that about the Berlin wall. I was so happy to be wrong about that one!
Your comment about finding a super hero is interesting, because I think most often heroes are the product of some creative imagination rather than reality. In a society literally obsessed with sex and violence, it’s hard to imagine a story about any insurance agent gaining popular interest. Your ideas about insurance adjusters and SIU types seem more likely. What Frank Capra did for banking with “It’s A Wonderful Life” is very much what it would take to rewrite the image of insurance companies from the greedy wolves preying on the down trodden to the saving angels of finance who allow commerce to happen, and financial devastation to be over come.
I’m not sure if the antitrust exemption would prevent insurers from co-funding such a film budget, but there’s my contribution. I also thought of Superman – obvious for his integrity, and Lassie – who always succeeded in getting stupid Timmy out of trouble. How about Mr. EDddddd?
On diversity in the board room, I expect that like all of society, from sports franchises to Congress, we still see the dominance that reflects racial and gender discrimination, but that is generally not true in the ranks. I hope that we will see a day when the majority agrees with Martin King that the content of our character is more important than the color of our skin etc. On a more professional note: jargon is a barrier. I’d scratch carrier for insurer every time.
People have an idea of what an agent, or broker is because those terms are used in many other fields, but “Producer”? Everyone knows a producer is someone who puts on shows! Shame on the agent/broker associations for ever letting that one get traction. Plain language insurance policy. What a joke! This is of course one of the few true improvements made in the later 20th century, but it never went far enough.
I didn’t see the Bloomberg Markets article you noted “The Insurance Hoax: When Disaster Strikes, Insurers Use Secret Tactics to Cheat Homeowners.” Unfortunately, I expect that there was more truth to that charge than most agents would realize:
Q: Why do insurers hate public adjusters? A: Because they know all of the insurer’s tricks.
Q: Why do insurers hate policyholder’s attorney’s? A: They increase the cost and difficulty of settlement.
Q: Why can’t the contract just be clear and simple? A: Because the law is not clear and simple!
How many agents understand that regardless of what you think you sold coverage for, and what you think the insurer intended to provide coverage for, it is ultimately state court precedents that will determine what is covered, and for what limit? In absence of a policyholder knowing their rights which are not fully explained in most policies (your obligations are though), it is my impression that most insurers routinely attempt to settle routine claims as quickly, and for the least amount possible. And in most cases, the overwhelming nature of the losses contributes to the policyholder’s cooperation to their own detriment Everyone’s happy, case closed!
In those few non fraud cases where people either know their rights, or question the fairness of the settlement, things tend to get nasty. From what I’ve read about them and their positions on this subject: I get the impression that Sen. Trent Lott, and Rep. Gene Taylor would be extremely difficult policyholder to deal with. I was sorry to learn that the NFIP did not have a set up to provide for all independent adjusters which would prevent a private homeowner’s adjuster from the ability to shift wind claims to water thereby lowering it’s own losses. In my mind that is a criminal act.
I’m not clear if FEMA has changed that practice to this day? It would also help greatly to have both FEMA, private insurers through ISO, and the courts work together to craft a clear rule for when damage will be considered caused by flood, and when by wind driven rains, etc. Having said all of that, during my 37 years in the business, my claims handling experiences have been dominated by professional and compassionate insurance company claim reps.
On the few occasions when I have been forced to read their own plain language policy terms to them after a claim denial, they have promptly reversed course and paid the claims (ie: 1. lightening, 2. asbestos, 3. burglary). I have the honor to now represent a small local firm, CSE Ins. Group (San Francisco, Calif.), which has literally thrown down the gauntlet to the industry–while not eliminating common policy protections, they have volunteered to pay total loss claims to wildfire victims with large lump sum advances for all coverage parts forgoing the requirement for the insured to list every item and prove it’s value. Now that’s service in your time of need. And this company president (not V.P.) has actually gone to see the smoking hole in the ground, and met the policyholders. I know of no others who have done this in my thirty-seven years – I hope there are many!
That said, they all need the major PR overhaul you proposed. Note: Of the very few things that the federal government does well, effective regulation of ANYTHING, is not one of them, but it seems that the majority of people are ready to roll over and let this monster replace one of the few regulatory systems that is pretty effective (states). If you don’t understand why this makes sense, it likely that your pay check does not come from a federal agency!
You seem to believe that people outside the “industry” believe that insurance is the devil incarnate. You are right and people outside the industry should continue to do so as long as long as you and others continue to scam the public about the wonders of insurance while the insurance industry is lying and cheating the public.
You treat insurance and you tout it as a public service. This is a sick joke. For example. the same issue of NU where your editorial appears has an article about Edward Liddy in which he is featured as the savior of AIG. Mr. Liddy as never had any real insurance experience and his insurance experience has been grossly anti-policyholder.
Without insurance experience or training ( he was a management consultant) he backdoored into becoming the head of Allstate where he with the aid of another management consultant, Mc Kinsey & Co., put in place a rule–pay 60% or less or let them litigate. That is Good Hands?
That anti-policyholder and anti-public attitude permeate the industry, the National Underwriter and you, Mr. Friedman. Do not polish the image–clean up the act.
There was a time more than a generation ago when insurance was a profession on par with the clergy. Fortunately, churches still condemn deviant behavior. Not so with insurance, indeed you praise and promote it. This, too, will change.
Get the industry to understand.
SAM RESPONDS:
Gene, I think you missed my point. If you read my cover story carefully, one of the key points I make is that when the industry does screw up, it should ‘fess up, and stop clamming up and covering up.
And I do think you exaggerate the scope of the problem. The overwhelming majority of claims for the vast majority of carriers are rather routine, and are paid fair and square.
Plus credit is never given to the industry for all the work it does to promote public safety–whether through the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or FM Global’s research facility or property loss mitigation, or all the fine efforts workers’ comp insurers have made to drive down the frequency of accidents and injuries on the job. But you only get the cases of those who are or feel aggrieved, so you extrapolate that all insurers are bad all of the time, which just ain’t so.
Also, keep in mind NU has a major consumer audience–we have over 15,000 corporate insurance buyers as part of our subscription base. If they felt we were shilling for the industry, they would tell us to take a hike. But we try our best to play it fair and square. If anything, insurers tend to think we are overly critical with our editorials. I never hesitate to tell the industry where they have gone wrong.
I appreciate the candor contained in your article. As a 30-year insurance professional, I fully understand and appreciate the many scenarios presented in your article.
In addition to some of your suggestions, I believe there is a huge opportunity for the CPCU Society to assist in improving our overall industry reputation. Although the Society is based on education and ethics, it has become imperative they “educate” not only those in the industry, but step up their involvement with educating the general public.
Through positive advertising our image certainly would improve. Maybe the Society has already recognized the role they could play and are currently developing a strategy.
I concur that many approaches must be undertaken in order to reach out to all facets of our society. The insurance industry has a lot to offer, both as a career and a social need, and we need to seize the opportunity. The CPCU Society should definitely be helping lead the charge!