In this week's Big I Buzz, we have news about the success of the WEDC "We're All In" small business grants that the IIAW assisted eligible members with obtaining, IIABA's new Agency Cyber Guide 3.0 from ACT and a new report shows that the average age of cars Americans drive is about 12 years.

WEDC "We're All In" Small Business Grant

The WEDC Reviewed more than 30,500 applications for the 'We're All In' grants for small  businesses. The IIAW assisted hundreds of Wisconsin insurance agencies in obtaining this grant. 

 ACT Releases Agency Cyber Guide 3.0

Handling sensitive information is now one of the most critical responsibilities faced by the modern insurance agency. Independent insurance agents and brokers must properly collect and protect sensitive client information every day. This means complying with state and federal regulations as well as adhering to customer service best practice standards, and compliance with Data Privacy Laws as mandated in all Agency/Company contracts. 

 Average Age of Cars Americans Are Driving Nears 12 Years: IHS Markit

Americans are hanging on to their cars and trucks longer, pushing the average age of vehicles on the road to the highest level in nearly 20 years even before the coronavirus hit, according to new data from IHS Markit Ltd. That is not good for emissions or safety, but t could give a lift to companies that manufacture and sell repair parts.  

For more news, check out the Action News section of our weekly e-newsletter Big I Buzz. If you aren't subscribed, click here to add your email to our emailing list. We hope that everyone has a great rest of their week! 

Read the July 29 edition of the Big I Buzz Here

By: Mallory Cornell | IIAW Vice President and Director of Risk Management

This article was originally published in our February 2020 Wisconsin Independent Agent magazine. Click here to read our magazine, Wisconsin Independent Agent. 

recently read an article on PropertyCasualty360.com titled “Why Insurance Agents Must Monitor Online Consumer Reviews”. The last line of the article reads, “Your customers are online. Are you?” 

I appreciate this statement and have already used it during several conversations with agents. For me it resonates on a few different levels.

The relationship is not dead. Your customers, or prospective customers, still want to work with an insurance agent they can build a relationship with.The idea is that relationships just look a little different than they have in the past. Its much easier for a customer or prospect to “get to know you” because they can find more information about the person or the agency by going online. But what if they can’t get to know you by going online? What if they can’t find anything about you because you’ve decided its easier to just avoid being online? The article in PropertyCasulty360.com stated that “more than a quarter of millennials say they learned about an agent through digital engagement (online search, reviews or social media).” This demographic should be a key target for an agency looking to grow and be sustainable. To not have an online presence is immediately diminishing opportunities with this key customer group.

2. Agency presence versus individual presence. As an online admirer of independent insurance agents (does that sound creepy?), I appreciate the opportunity to see what agencies are doing in their community or how employees are being celebrated around the office. When an agency does not have a strong online presence, its usually because they don’t recognize the importance or they do not have an internal staff member interested in managing the page (which is an key piece). That’s fair, but what about individual pages? Should a commercial lines insurance professional always have a LinkedIn page? I would argue yes because business professionals want to see and know who they are working with. It can also highlight your experience and education in the industry. Individual Facebook pages are not the same as individual LinkedIn pages. User beware, if you are going to have a public Facebook page or be “friends” with customers you are increasing your exposure to knowing more than you would like to about your customer! And don’t forget, they can learn more about you as well.  Facebook (as well as Twitter and Instagram) is a much more social platform while LinkedIn is a professional social media site. There are risks associated with each and having a clear goal for using social media as an agency or as a professional is key. An agency Social Media Policy is another essential piece to this puzzle. (Need a template? Visit www.iiaw.com/AgencySolutions and find one under “Operational Resources” or reach out to any IIAW staff member)

3. Efficiently Grow Your Network. I applaud the industry professionals who take the time to attend networking events, local community groups and meetings and who spend time face to face with customers and prospects. Your time is more precious than ever, and these commitments take you away from your desk, the office and even your family on a regular basis. This is where social media and digital marketing are different. You can connect, engage and stand out online faster and easier than in a crowded room. It may take some practice, but the tools and resources exist to help you get started. 

What’s next?

If you are looking to become more active on social media and engage in the digital world, develop a plan and educate yourself. What is the commitment your willing to make and what will successful execution look like? Know the risks but also appreciate the reward.

By: Aggie Alvarez | Caliper

This article was originally published in our February 2020 Wisconsin Independent Agent magazine. Click here to see all of our magazines. 

Happy employees positively affect workplace operations. Statistics show that companies that foster employee happiness outperform their competitors by 20%. It’s no surprise, then, that some companies are taking more active measures to promote positive employee experiences. 

In 2015, Airbnb became one of the most notable companies to tackle the topic of employee happiness by hiring someone whose role was specifically dedicated to managing and improving their employee’s experiences. At the time, they transitioned their Chief Human Resources Officer into their shiny new position, the Head of Employee Experience. 

The Head of Employee Experience combines traditional human resources processes and the responsibility of focusing on their new initiative — the “workplace as an experience” vision. Airbnb worked to achieve this vision by creating a group of employees in most offices that worked as a “ground control,” focused on bringing the company’s written culture to life. 

So why are companies focusing so much on employee happiness and their experience at work? Beyond ranking well in Forbes’ Best Places to Work List, there are a number of benefits that outweigh the cost of investing in employee happiness. However, most offices can’t afford to hire a Head of Employee Experience. Often, departments delegate responsibilities to a single person or a team of individuals to ensure that tasks don’t fall through the cracks. At the end of the day, you want your employees to be both happy and productive. So, what are you doing to promote their happiness?

Productivity, happiness, and your bottom line.

A report titled The Financial Impact of a Positive Employee Experience dove into the correlation between financial returns and employee satisfaction in their current role.
It was found that companies who ranked in the top 25% reported nearly three times the return on assets, and doubled their return on sales. These findings make it
clear: Your employee’s experience is not just tied to happiness, but also productivity throughout the workplace. You can drastically improve your company’s bottom line by increasing your employees’ experiences. A happier workforce is a more productive workforce, which in turn creates a more profitable environment. 

If you notice that productivity is low and it seems you’ve done all you can do to promote employee happiness in the workplace, take a look at your hiring practices and see if there needs to be more precision when hiring. Sit down and take the time to assess gaps in your hiring process, and determine ways in which you can improve. Moving forward, this can tremendously impact your employees’ future happiness and productivity.

A work-life balance is integral toward fostering a happy workforce. Being able to separate work and personal life provides untethered freedom, allowing employees ample time to unplug and recharge. Finding small, simple ways to promote a healthy work-life balance can help combat burnout and can help your employees feel as though work doesn’t permeate every aspect of their lives. When employees aren’t having to worry about work outside of the office, it increases their drive. Allowing employees to recharge gives them the opportunity to come in with a fresh attitude instead of being bogged down. Having a clear break between life and work is an easy way to promote happiness.

Engagement, happiness, and a retained workforce.

The average cost-per-hire for companies is $4,129 per new employee, according to Hire by Google’s latest research, and the cost-per-hire of executives is exponentially higher. Recently, the Work Institute looked at trends in employee turnover and predicted that in 2020,  1 out of every 3 workers will leave their current jobs. When it costs nearly
a third of an employee’s salary each time someone leaves their position, it is critical for companies to find ways to engage and retain their current human capital. 

Employees are more likely to stay in an organization that offers them opportunities to develop in their professional careers and create meaningful relationships with their coworkers and supervisors. Developing and enforcing friendships can have a great impact on your organization. Work friendships help employees to become more engaged and more innovative. 

A highly engaged workforce has resoundingly positive effects on your company. Employees will have higher ratings of profitability, productivity, and satisfaction in their roles. Additionally, a highly engaged workforce is 59% less likely to move onto a new role at a different company. Retaining your top talent will help your bottom line — rather than spending your budget on hiring and onboarding new employees, you can invest in your current workforce at a much more cost-effective rate. Take this cost-savings approach when it comes to factoring in your budget for employee happiness. 

Ask your employees for suggestions.

Your employees know what they want out of their employer better than anyone else. Take the time to ask why they enjoy their jobs, and what they would like to see changed. Doing so offers valuable insight that you can’t gather anywhere else. The classic “suggestion box” isn’t a groundbreaking tactic, but at its core, it opens up the discussions that are necessary to understanding the mindset of your employees. 

Offering your employees the support and opportunity to ask questions and suggest improvements in your organization can serve as a big win for your company. This strategy allows your employees to tap into their resources, technical savvy, and creative expertise. Their suggestions may highlight things you’ve missed in your organization, or uncover tools and resources that your employees need to become more productive and successful in their jobs. 

By inviting employees’ best ideas, you are continuing to foster and promote a more collaborative culture that sparks creativity. 

It might be strange to envision happiness as something you can offer to your employees, but by tweaking different aspects in your workplace, you can find ways to both not only improve your organization and benefit employees. It’s possible for your employees to be happy and productive in the workplace, and it all starts with active listening and ensuring that your employees feel engaged and valued. 

Caliper offers tools and resources that your company can use to assess, track, and improve employee engagement in your workplace. Get started with our scientifically-verified assessment and reports, and see how Caliper can help transform your workforce.

By: Chris Boggs | Big "I" Virtual University Executive Director

“Who owns the building?” Asking this rather basic, four-word question can save your insured, you, and your errors and omissions carrier a major heartache and undue costs following a building damage claim.

Never assume a small, closely-held corporation is as simple as it appears on the surface. Exposure and legal realities often exist, the importance of which are not fully understood by the “business owner.”

Consider the following example, George Bailey owns Widgets, Inc., a manufacturer of widgets (who would have guessed?). The manufacturing operation is conducted in a building that, according to Mr. Bailey, is “owned by the insured.” However, Mr. Bailey owns the building individually.

Understand, Mr. Bailey is not attempting to mislead the insurance carrier or misrepresent the facts. In his mind, there is no distinction between the operations of Widgets, Inc. and the ownership of the building. To Mr. Bailey, it’s all the same because he owns both. Such belief is more common than many agents realize.

But within the realities of insurance and law, two separate “persons” are involved in this all-too-common situation. Potential insurance coverage gaps arise from the existence and participation of two separate

“persons.” Each natural person and legal person must be accounted for and managed separately within the insurance policy. (Natural persons are flesh and blood individuals. Legal persons are created by the filing of specific legal documents such as articles of incorporation or articles of organization.)

Natural persons and legal persons have the same rights; the right to sue, to be sued, to own property, etc. Therefore, each “person” presents his/her/its individual risk exposure that must be analyzed and specifically insured.

Unless each person’s exposure is properly addressed, the property policy may not respond to a property

claim for one of two reasons:

1. Lack of insurable interest; or

2. Lack of insurance protection.

Property insurance policies do NOT respond to a claim if insurable interest does not exist at the time of the loss. Likewise, if the party with insurable interest is not an insured, the policy does NOT pay.

Insurable interest, in a property insurance context, exists when a “person” suffers direct financial loss as a result of damage to or destruction of the specified property. If the “person” with insurable interest is not covered by a property policy, the loss must be paid out of that “person’s” resources. Insurable interest in real and personal property is created in one of three ways:

1. Ownership;

2. Legal liability: Responsible for someone else’s 

    property – like a dry cleaner is responsible for its 

   customer’s clothes; or

3. Contract: A lease agreement making another party 

    responsible for insuring the property.

Returning to the initial scenario: George Bailey owns the building individually, but Widgets, Inc. is the policy’s only named insured. If the building is damaged or destroyed by any covered cause of loss, the property policy covering the building owes – nothing. The legal person listed on the policy as the named insured, Widgets, Inc., did not have insurable interest; and the natural person with insurable interest, George Bailey, is not covered in the policy as an insured.

Beyond the individual (natural person) ownership of a building, one of several possible ownership scenarios

could exist that must be considered, anticipated and/or researched, including:

1. The building is owned individually by the “owner” of 

    the business operation (as in our example above);

2. The building is owned by several individuals;

3. The building is owned by a separate legal person; or

4. The building is owned by any combination of natural 

    and legal persons.

Attorneys often recommend such separation for various reasons. But sometimes, the building is not owned by the named business entity because it was purchased first, willed to the individual, or any number of reasons. Again, never assume ownership.

How is building ownership confirmed? The simplest way is to ask the question; specifically, “who or what entity owns the building.” Even Mr. Bailey in our example knows he owns the building individually, he just didn’t see or understand the need to tell the agent. Explain the need.

A second method requires individual effort, but it’s quick and painless in most circumstances. Research the county’s online tax, GIS, or other public record system. Most counties offer access to at least one public record. Once the proper site is located, an address search can be done. Depending on the county, massive amounts of building information can be found when such an online search is done:

• Year built;

• Square footage;

• Construction (sometimes);

• A photo or footprint drawing; and

• Who owns the building.

Once you become familiar with a particular county’s website, these searches can be conducted in a matter of minutes. A few minutes of work to save thousands of dollars in uncovered claims, E&O deductibles, and court time seems like a fair trade.

Managing and insuring the separate ownership exposure is the delicate and tricky part. Since the same “person” or groups of persons who/that own the operation also own the building, it is unlikely they will want to purchase a separate Lessors Risk Only (LRO) policy, which is an option.

In most “common ownership” situations presented previously, the owner(s) want the building insured on the same policy as the operation. Two main methods to accomplish this are:

1. Name the building owner as a named insured; or

2. Legally lease the building to the business. Naming the building owner as a named insured. As simple as this seems, this is often an improper or unavailable option – especially if that person (natural or legal) is involved in other ventures or activities. Remember, the specific operation was underwritten and adding named insureds has the possibility of extended protection to unintended or unexpected exposures.

Many underwriters are unwilling to extended what is  essentially LRO coverage in a package policy because of the uncertainty surrounding the breadth of the building owner’s operations. Underwriters may also be unwilling to add the additional named insured because it may own several building or be involved in other operations.

Legally lease the building to the business (named insured operation). This is the most proper way to manage and cover the building owner’s exposure. Remember, insurable interest can be created by contract. The lease agreement can and should be used to create insurable interest by making the tenant operation responsible for insuring the building. Once the tenant has insurable interest by legal contract, the building is properly covered and the building owner’s exposure can be protected by attaching specific endorsements:

• CP 12 19 Additional Insured – Building Owner: This is 

   a property endorsement extending property coverage 

   to the named building owner; and

• CG 20 11 Additional Insured – Managers or Lessors of 

   Premises: A general liability endorsement extending 

   additional insured status to the building lessor/owner.

Creating a proper lease and attaching the proper endorsements extends the necessary protection to the building owner without the need of a separate policy. This is also the best option because many underwriters are unwilling to add the building owner as a named insured on the operation’s (Widgets, Inc.) policy.

To end, never assume building ownership. Always ask what seems like a “duh” question. If the question isn’t asked, research ownership through the county’s website. Once ownership is known, insure the exposure.

By: Chris Boggs | Big "I" Virtual University Executive Director

Some plaintiff attorneys are almost giddy over the fact that several jurisdictions used the term “property damage” in their respective emergency declarations to justify closing “non-essential” businesses. These attorneys are hopeful that such wording gives them the ability to trigger a business income claim. Given the facts as that have developed since the situation began and those that are continuing to develop, pinning any hopes on such wording appears futile (but it’s entertaining to watch).

Insurance Journal’s article “Business Interruption Claimants Like How Some Localities Worded Emergency Orders,” introduced this discussion, but it doesn’t address the question, does the government calling the presence of a virus on a surface “property damage” factually make it property damage? Does stating something is blue in an emergency declaration make it blue?

Neither local, municipal nor executive orders appear to carry the force of a law, nor is it likely such orders change the facts of physical science. Property damage and what constitutes property damage is not dependent on terms used in an order intended to close businesses not seen as essential to the public good (other than the “public” who happens to own the shuttered businesses). 

Examples of these orders appear to be limited to counties or local orders rather than statewide orders. Orders applying “property damage” wording often read similar to this from New Orleans’ second order:

• Whereas, there is reason to believe that COVID-19 may be spread amongst the population by various means of exposure, including the propensity to spread person to person and the propensity to attach to surfaces for prolonged periods of time, thereby spreading from surface to person and causing property loss and damage in certain circumstances.....

Obviously, certain assumptions were made in the crafting of these declarations. The first is that the virus has a “propensity to attach to surfaces for prolonged periods of time.” This has since proven to be incorrect. A University of Alabama study published in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that the maximum amount of time the virus can live on certain surfaces is up to three days. Further, the CDC states that property to person infection is not a primary cause of infection.

Given this, the first presumption appears to be incorrect - lessening the effect of this hoped-for lifeline towards providing property damage. 

Second, the more disappointing for plaintiff attorneys, simply saying something causes property damage does not change the requirements of physical science. “Damage” is generally understood to mean a physical change in condition such that repair is required. In the case of the presence of a virus, what repair is required? The only possible type of required “repair” is cleaning the surface or the loss of the virus’ viability.

Additionally, the business income form requires more than just “damage” to trigger coverage, there must be “direct physical loss of or damage to property.” This is more than simply saying, “hey, there is damage.” The Big I through its Virtual University has penned several articles detailing the specifics of business income and what is required to trigger coverage. 

Lastly, the jurisdictional authorities seem to have hedged their bets with the closing phrase, “in certain circumstances.”

Simply, such wording in these executive orders does not appear to provide any benefit to the plaintiff attorneys. Improper assumptions and declaring a “fact” without evidence or the support of physical science does not change the reality. After all, if the executive order said the sky was green, that would not make it green.