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

This article was originally featured in our July Wisconsin Independent Agent Magazine. Read the full issue here. 

An insurtech firm I prefer not to name, other than to say they think they are geniuses when it comes to policies, was founded by two people who believed purchasing insurance was too frustrating. In fact, their website specifically states, “Navigating the world of insurance is confusing, stressful and a step backward in time....”

Because the founders were “consultants to the top insurance companies,” they knew there had to be a better way for consumers to purchase insurance. Their stated mission is help consumers get the insurance they need and feel good about what they got. Sort of sounds like something an agent does, but that’s not the point of this article. 

Towards this goal, the firm publishes consumer-facing articles. I recently read through several of the articles and felt they were relatively well written for consumer consumption and largely correct. What disappointed me was the “level” of credit they gave the writers; each writer was listed as, “Insurance Expert.” 

The title “insurance expert” caught my eye - in a big way. It stands to reason that obviously these writers have many years of insurance experience since they are “experts” Uh, they didn’t. Here are partial bios as examples: 

• [Author’s name redacted[ is an Insurance Editor at [Insuretech name removed] in New York City and an expert in homeowners insurance. Previously, he was working as a freelance writer for the  New York State Nurses Association and wrote for the Michigan 

Information Research Service. [Writer] has a B.A. in journalism from [University Name Redacted.]

• [Author’s name redacted] is the Associate Director of SEO Content at [Insuretech] in New York City. His writing on insurance and personal finance has appeared on Betterment, Inc, Credit Sesame, and the Council for Disability Awareness. [Writer] has a degree in English from the [University name removed].

• [Author’s name redacted[ is the co-founder of [Website name removed], a groundbreaking personal finance site for millennials that was named one of Time’s 25 Best Blogs of 2012. [Author’s] work has been published in New York Magazine, Glamour, The Guardian, BuzzFeed and more.

Am I missing something? Would the background of ANY of these writers qualify them to be considered an “insurance expert”? I don’t think it does, but the public doesn’t know any better. Calling yourself an expert doesn’t make it so. 

Unfortunately, the combination of missing or incorrect policy information and the misappropriation of the title “insurance expert” pushed me to send a rather 

“snotty” email to this group. As of this writing, I have not received a response. Would you like to see what I wrote? Before you read it, remember, I’ve already 

acknowledged I was a bit pompous. With that as prologue, what follows is a slightly edited version of my email.

I was reading through several of your homeowners’ and personal auto insurance coverage articles today and wanted to get in touch with you.

Yes, insurance can be confusing to those not in the business, but there is a way to explain it so the uninitiated can easily and quickly grasp its concepts and realities.

Secondly, I would be very careful calling anyone an “insurance expert” unless he/she has many years of experience in the insurance business - and is well-versed in insurance coverages and concepts. Writing ABOUT insurance in newspapers and blogs doesn’t make someone an insurance expert; neither does being in the financial and investment business. Property and casualty insurance is far more complicated than can be known just writing about insurance. You have to be “covered in the mud of an insurance policy,” you have to have actually read the policy from cover to cover, several times, and you have to know how deep the depths of insurance really are before you can begin to be considered an expert.

Further, a true expert doesn’t consider himself or herself an expert. In fact, those who truly do qualify as experts quickly shy away from being called experts; the reason, because they are so well versed in insurance, they know there is far more to know than they already do. Any person who calls or truly believes he or she is an expert doesn’t know what he/she doesn’t know.

Someone holding himself or herself out as an “expert” without the credentials to back it up is dishonest and harmful to those depending on the information the so-called “expert” has provided.

So, my recommendations are: correct the incorrect information; and don’t refer to anyone as an insurance expert who doesn’t have the necessary time and training to qualify as one.

Just my personal recommendations to you; take them or leave them as you so desire. 

OK, I realize I let my emotions get the best of me. I also realize nothing I said will change their attitude or actions. And lastly, I know that “insurance expert” is just their way to market their “brilliance.” But it needed to be said. 

But this is what I find truly interesting, they note on their site that the information they provide should not be relied upon; in fact, they intimate that agents are the better source of information. Here is the disclaimer: 

[Insuretech’s name withheld] editorial content is not written by an insurance agent. It’s intended for informational purposes and should not be considered legal or financial advice. Consult a professional to learn what financial products are right for you.

I take certain satisfaction in this disclaimer. Evidently, their “insurance experts” are not as valuable as  insurance agents.

Here are some thoughts about being an “expert” of any kind.

• True experts worry more about what they don’t know than what they do know, continually looking for ways to fill their knowledge gap. Self-proclaimed experts ignore the breadth of what they don’t know and are satisfied (mainly because they don’t know what they don’t know). 

• True experts are rarely absolutely certain. Self-proclaimed experts are rarely in doubt.

• True experts admire other experts and desire to learn from them. Self-proclaimed experts don’t see anyone else as an expert, feeling others have nothing to offer. 

• True experts listen to and value the opinions and advice of others. Self-proclaimed experts think theirs is the only opinion that matters. 

• True experts openly admit when they don’t know the answers. Self-proclaimed experts ALWAYS know the answer - even when they don’t.. 

• True experts apply the experience learned from past accomplishments to accomplish more. Self-proclaimed experts rest on past accomplishments. 

• True experts don’t really like being referred to as experts. Self-proclaimed experts revel in such an introduction.

• True experts desire to give all their knowledge away so others can be better. Self-proclaimed experts hold on to their knowledge so others have to come to them. 

• True experts do not proclaim themselves experts - others do. Self-proclaimed experts use the term as a marketing ploy. 

• Be wary of anyone who eagerly takes on the mantle of “expert,” they probably aren’t. If you call yourself an “expert,” you probably aren’t. 

One last thought, if the word “expert” is used anywhere on your website or in your marketing, you better be one because that is the standard/expectation that you have set. Afterall, who do you expect more from, the apprentice of journeyman electrician or the master electrician? The best course of action is to take the term “expert” off all websites and marketing materials.

When you are an expert, you won’t feel like one. If you feel like one, you aren’t one. The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. And people who don’t know, aren’t experts - at least in their minds. 

By: WAHVE Work at Home Vintage Experts 

This article was originally featured in our July Wisconsin Independent Agent Magazine. Click here to read the full issue. 

Today’s employees Zoom, Skype, Jabber, FaceTime, GoToMeetings and chat in Google Hangouts and Webexes. When they’re not videoconferencing, they’re emailing, collaborating in Microsoft Teams, and instant chatting on Slack. They’ve already got the tech tools they need to make it easy and more convenient to work remotely, but do you have the right management tools in place to keep your remote employees engaged?

There’s no doubt that hiring remote employees can benefit your insurance business by bringing in critical skills that you don’t have or can’t easily find. Remote workers can be a boon to recruiting, productivity, business continuity, and improved customer service. But relying on a traditional management style to keep a dispersed workforce motivated and moving forward won’t cut it.

So, what are the best ways to keep employees you rarely see motivated? 

Build a Virtual Water Cooler

The cornerstone to keeping remote employees engaged is proactive communication. When you can’t simply stop by an employee’s desk to chat, grab a cup of coffee, or 

physically sit with them in a conference room, it’s important to make a concentrated effort to make time for casual conversation. It’s not enough to schedule a few

one-hour meetings per week. Communication with remote employees should be fluid, spontaneous and regular. Create a virtual water cooler by continually chatting with people to find out what they did during the weekend, how their family is doing, and what their plans are for time away from work. 

Establish Some “WAHVY Gravy”

When employees are out of sight, it can be easy to unintentionally exclude them, making them feel isolated. And when people feel isolated and not a part of the work

community, productivity suffers.

Go beyond relying on virtual meetings to establish community. If you have an intranet, create a space where people can share news, tips, or pictures of their pets. Many companies dedicate specific Slack channels to support socializing.  Others use virtual coffee breaks, book clubs, TED talks, or online learning courses that everyone participates in to encourage a deeper sense of community.

Another strategy is to incorporate a few minutes for team members to share something personal at the end of meetings. At WAHVE, we call this “WAHVY gravy.” We ask people to share something that’s important to them – whether it be pictures of their artwork, hobbies, or stories about recent vacations. Another idea is to ask employees to share an “ah ha” or an “appreciation” – something they recently learned or someone they’d like to acknowledge. The important thing is to make it fun and personal. This changes how people interact with each other at a human level and builds interest and empathy for one another.

Don’t Forget Face Time

Despite all of the fancy tech tools, there’s still no substitute for face time. When you’re managing a remote team, no matter the size, it’s important to bring the entire team together when you can. Doing this shows on site and remote workers how much you appreciate them, and it builds connection. At WAHVE, we bring our staff together

bi-annually, and we find that these events are invaluable to help the team bond, strengthen our culture, and share goals and future direction with everyone physically present.  

According to an analysis by FlexJobs and Global Workplace Analytics, remote work has grown 44% over the last five years and 91% over the past 10 years. It’s a trend that will likely continue to rise, so there’s no time like the present to adapt your management style to support remote workers, and in turn, the success of your business.

By: Josh Johanningmeier | IIAW General Counsel 

On May 21, 2020, in Emer’s Camper Corral v. Alderman, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a 6-1 majority opinion confirming a rigorous causation standard for negligent procurement E&O claims.  The Court ultimately found that, in order to prevail on a claim for negligent procurement of an insurance policy, an insured must show that the promised policy was commercially available to them.  While this decision is undoubtedly a win for agents, it is critical that you take care when communicating with clients. 

The Emer’s Camper Corral Case and Decision 

Since 2004, Rhonda Emer and her husband have sold new and used camper trailers under the trade name Camper Corral.  Not long after founding the business, the Emers began purchasing Camper Corral’s insurance through the defendant insurance agency.  Starting in 2007, General Casualty Company of Wisconsin insured Camper Corral.  However, before the commencement of the 2012-13 policy year, General Casualty sent Camper Corral a nonrenewal notice after two consecutive years with at least $100,000 in hail damage claims.  

Following the nonrenewal, the Emers worked with their agent to obtain insurance through Western Heritage Insurance Company.  The 2012-13 policy had a $5,000 deductible for hail damage per camper.  However, the agent told the Emers that, if they could go claim free for two years, he may be able to negotiate the hail damage deductible down to $1,000 per camper.  After two claim free years, the agent contacted the Emers with the news that he had obtained a policy from Western Heritage with a $1,000 deductible per camper for hail damage and a $5,000 aggregate deductible limit.  In reality, the Western Heritage policy the Emers ultimately purchased had a $5,000 deductible per camper for hail damage with no aggregate deductible limit.

In September of 2014, another hail storm swept over the Camper Corral lot.  This storm damaged 25 of the campers in the Emers’ inventory.  Because of the actual terms of the Western Heritage policy, the Emers’ deductible amounted to $125,000.  As a result, the Emers sued the agent for negligence, suggesting he had breached his duty to them by failing to adequately describe the terms of the Western Heritage policy.  For damages, the Emers asked for $120,000, i.e., the difference between their deductible and the $5,000 aggregate deductible they were promised.

The case ultimately went to trial.  However, before the jury could deliberate, the agent moved for a directed verdict, arguing the Emers had not satisfied their evidentiary burden.  The trial court agreed, ruling that, without evidence that the policy promised to the Emers was commercially available to them (and not just generally available in the marketplace), they could not prevail on their negligence claim.  The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, and the Emers appealed the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

According to the State Supreme Court, to prevail on their negligence claim against the agent, the Emers needed to prove four well-settled elements: “(1) [the agent’s] duty of care to Camper Corral; (2) [the agent’s] breach of that duty; (3) injury caused by [the agent’s] breach; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the injury.”  However, the only issue left for the Supreme Court to decide was the third: causation.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately held that the Emers had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the causation standard.  In their arguments before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Emers suggested they only needed to prove that a policy like the one they were promised was commercially available.  The Supreme Court, though, found that was one step short.  Not only did the Emers have to prove that the relevant policy was available in the marketplace, but they also had to show that the policy was commercially available to their business.  Put differently, “[w]hether the unavailability is general, or instead particular to Camper Corral, the policy’s unavailability exists independently of any negligence on behalf of the broker.”  Thus, as the Emers did not show that the policy promised to them by the agent was commercially available to their business, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s directed verdict in the agent’s favor.

Now What? 

This decision is a big win for both insurance agents and E&O carriers defending claims under Wisconsin law.  With the additional burden of having to prove specific availability in negligent procurement cases, agents will see fewer judgments against them and, as a result, fewer lawsuits brought in the first place.  Further, only one Justice dissented in the Camper Corral case.  Thus, even as the makeup of the Court shifts slightly over the next few months, this decision is likely to remain binding precedent well into the future.

With this in mind, you should still see this case as a cautionary tale.  Sure, the case ended with a positive result for both the defendant agent, the E&O carrier and insurance agencies around Wisconsin.  But, it took a full trial and appeals all the way to Wisconsin’s highest court to achieve that result.  It is essential that you take great care when marketing policies to your clients.  Doing so will likely save you the hassle of expensive litigation. 

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Emer’s Camper Corral v. Alderman is a huge win for insurance agents and E&O carriers around the state.  This will undoubtedly result in fewer negligent procurement cases brought against agents and stronger defenses in some of the cases and claims that are brought by disappointed insureds.  We will keep an eye on the application of this stringent causation standard—it may well cross Wisconsin’s borders into other states.

By: Roger Sitkins | Chief Executive Officer, Sitkins Group, Inc.

One of the best questions I ever heard came from Andy Stanley, the founder and pastor of North Point Ministries in Atlanta: “What will your story be when it’s time for your story to be told?”

Whenever I’ve asked this question at our senior leadership programs or producer programs, it tends to spur considerable thought. I can see that people are asking themselves, “When the time comes, what is my story going to be?” I think this question applies to you regardless of your role in the agency, whether you’re a leader, a producer, or any other team member.

Although we may not be aware of it, we all are creating stories that someday will be told. Perhaps a better word is “legacy.” What legacy are you going to leave? As I’ve said before, eventually everybody leaves their business.

Granted, most of my readers will be in this business for another 10, 15, or 20 years, if not longer. Why? Because it’s a great business that’s creating opportunities and freedoms that most can only dream of. To seize these opportunities and freedoms, however, you must act! As I’m sure you’ve heard me say in the past, “If you’re going to put the time in anyway, you might as well be great at it.”

So here’s another question: If your agency could talk, what would it say? What would it say today, and what would you like it to say five years from now?

Before you answer that, let me share with you the story of a Best Version Possible (BVP) Agency as it unfolds in my perfect world. It starts with asking “What’s it all about in your agency today?”

The 3 Cs

This is how the BVP Agency responds:

Here at the BVP Agency, we embrace several key themes, the first of which is The 3 Cs:Clarity, Consistency, and Commitment.

Clarity means having a clear view of our vision. It’s what we want and why we want it, based on our understanding of the vision’s purpose and value. In terms of Key Performance Indicators, our agency and all of our team know exactly where we are today, where we want to go over the next three years, and exactly how we are going to get there.

We know the resources and tools we need. We know the personal development plans for each team member. And we know our agreed-upon behaviors and strategies.

We’re all on the same page concerning our business plan. In case you’re wondering how it’s possible for everyone to be on the same page, it’s because our business plan is on one page. Unlike most agencies, we have a single-page summary of our Strategic Business Plan that everyone can rally around.

Further, we believe that direction and destination must match up. Because we have absolute clarity on our desired destination, we have to keep checking to make sure our current direction matches that desired destination. Just like an airplane or a ship at sea, if we get off track just a little bit and “stay the course” without recalibrating, we’ll miss our target by a lot.

Consistency is all about our team members never deviating from our “agency’s way of doing business,” which is quite specific. We have
documented processes and procedures that explain with absolute clarity (there’s that word again!) how things are done in our agency. We know our new business processes in all departments. We know our continuation processes in all departments. (As you know, we don’t renew accounts, we continue relationships.) We know how claims will be handled. We know how all day-to-day transactions will be handled. We know how our technology and automation systems apply to our jobs and how to maximize them.

In all areas, we have identified best practices, which are mutually agreed upon and followed. There is absolute buy-in from all team members. We
accomplish this by asking team members for their input before making any improvements (which is an ongoing process). We know that if they’re
part of the design, they’ll buy in more quickly and enthusiastically.

Commitment holds it all together and starts at the top with our leaders, who are committed to our plans. They’re also committed to continual and never-ending improvement because in our agency, good is never good enough. Our leaders are committed to “over-communication,” which, by the way, can never happen. Most agencies under-communicate, but have you ever seen an agency that communicates too much? (You haven’t, because it doesn’t exist!) Our leaders and our team are committed to our Clients, Colleagues, Carriers, and Communities.

The 4 Cs

We want our Clients to have the absolute best experience that creates raving fans who buy all of their insurance and risk management needs
from our agency. These clients would never think of leaving us, and they love sending us referrals and introductions.

Next, our leaders are committed to all of our Colleagues, our team members. They want to attract and retain the very best. They provide
personal development opportunities for everyone. They truly do provide a “Best Places to Work” atmosphere. It feels like family, because it is!

Further, we’re committed to seeking out the best assortment of Carriers to represent. We want deep partnerships, which is why we don’t represent every carrier out there. We know the 80/20 Rule applies to our carriers, and we believe that less is more. We also are committed to crevice marketing, so we represent carriers that let us specialize, thereby
enabling us to go “narrow and deep” in our marketing.

Our final commitment is to our Communities. They are critically important to us! We live here and work here. We realize how blessed we are, and we want to give back. Although we don’t assist/contribute to 100% of the projects out there, we have a Community Service Committee that helps us identify and select opportunities to support and the ways that we can give back. We’re proud to say that more than 75% of our team members have contributed, whether through time or money, to the community projects we’ve chosen.

Our agency’s overall theme is truly to be our Best Version Possible. It’s a constant work in progress. We’ve simply never allowed “good” to be good enough. And while we’re respectful of our competitors, we believe we’ve become the “category of one” in our marketplace, emerging as the agency that has transcended commoditization and that defies comparison.

We simply don’t want commodity-based clients. If price is the only reason someone comes to us, it will also be the reason they leave us. We’ve raised the bar on everything we do. We’re risk advisors who provide solutions well beyond the simple placement and purchase of insurance products.

We are the feared competition, the point of comparison against which all other agencies are measured.

If your agency could talk, how would it compare to the BVP agency described above, and how do you want it to compare five years from now?

Your BVP is out there waiting for you to arrive. Are you ready for the journey?

The author

Roger Sitkins, chief executive officer of Sitkins Group, Inc., is the nation’s number-one “Agency Results Coach.” He established The Sitkins Network™, a territory-exclusive network of high-performing agencies, and The Better Way Agency, a web-based training program that shows agency owners ways to make significant improvements in all areas of the agency. To learn more, please visit www.sitkins.com.

By: Josh Johanningmeier | IIAW General Counsel

Not since the Thrilla in Manila has a third bout been as eagerly anticipated as the upcoming United States Supreme Court hearing of the latest challenge to Obamacare. Well, perhaps comparing the case to the 1975 finale of the Ali - Frazier rivalry is unfair (to Ali and Frazier), but the case does merit attention. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to again hear a case concerning the validity of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), President Obama’s signature healthcare legislation. If the Court takes this opportunity to overturn the law, the provision of health insurance in this country could fundamentally change. This change would be especially impactful for your business clients. 

Case Background

In 2017, congressional Republicans began their efforts to repeal and replace the ACA. When those efforts failed, Republicans changed tactics and instead, chipped away at one of the act’s most well-known, and unpopular, provisions: the individual mandate. To be clear, Congress did not eliminate the individual mandate itself, but, rather, eliminated the tax penalty for failing to acquire health insurance. President Trump quickly signed this change into law. 

Seeing an opportunity, a group of 20 states brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the entire ACA is invalid because of the changes to the law. In a previous challenge, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as an exercise of Congress’ taxing power. The states challenging the ACA asserted that, with no tax penalty for violations, the individual mandate can no longer fall under Congress’ taxation powers and must be considered unconstitutional as a violation of individual liberty. Going further, the states argued that the individual mandate is a fundamental component of the ACA, and, as a result, the entire law must be overturned. In a December 2018 decision, District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed and ruled the ACA unconstitutional. 

Shortly thereafter, several groups, including Democratic state attorneys general and the House of Representatives, under Democratic control at that point, appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Given a choice between finding the individual mandate constitutional and overturning the entire law, the Fifth Circuit chose a middle way. The court agreed with Judge O’Connor that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider if such a holding renders the entire act invalid. The House and the states led by Democratic attorneys general appealed that the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Based on standard timeframes, the Court will likely issue a decision in spring or summer of 2021. 

Now What? 

Importantly, it is not clear how the Supreme Court will rule on this case. The ACA has come before the Court on two previous occasions, and it has upheld the law both times. While the makeup of the Court has changed significantly in recent years, all five Justices making up the majority in both decisions remain on the Court. However, the law has now changed, and in ways relevant to the Court’s previous opinions. The takeaway: while it is entirely possible the law will be upheld, you and your agencies should be prepared for it to be overturned. 

If the entire law is invalidated, a key impact will be the elimination of the “employer mandate.” As you are likely aware, currently, employers with 50 or more full-time employees, or full-time equivalents, must provide health insurance to 95% of those 

full-time employees and their children that is both affordable and ensures minimum value. Coverage is considered “affordable” if employee contributions do not exceed a specified percentage of that employee’s household income (9.78% in 2020). A plan provides “minimum value” if it pays for at least 60% of covered services (including deductibles, copays and coinsurance). If employers violate their mandate, they face a monetary penalty. 

If the ACA is overturned, however, there will be of course no employer mandate. This will likely result in many of your business clients evaluating changes to their employee health plans. It is critical that you and your agencies work with legal counsel so that you can make informed decisions when it comes time to design plans responsive to your clients’ needs. 

Conclusion

While it is unclear if the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to overturn the ACA, it is crucial to be prepared in the event that it does. Keep an eye on this column and other IIAW publications for developments on this case, and make sure to work with legal counsel to ensure that you and your agencies are able to successfully navigate what could be a complex path forward.