What do you think about this statement?

[Uppsala9496]

Time to feed my daughter. I'll check back in a couple of hours unless I fall asleep on the couch.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

But that's my style. I never claimed to be polite or courteous. In fact, I like to make it damn hard to agree with me.

I don't like it, but I can accept it.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
I currently underwrite directors' and officers' liability, employment practices liability, fiduciary liability and crime.
My wife currently underwrites employment practices liability, tenet discrimination and E&O (and yes we do discuss work at home since we work for different carriers - fun to talk about things sometimes).

All of the policies I underwrite are within state and federal guidelines. I am also 100% in compliance with my authority levels which means I am in compliance with SOX. I'm also in compliance with all SEC rules and regulations.

So you are saying you can in fact CHANGE POLICY LANGUAGE (like remove a word or paragraph, reinsert something else, make it up yourself)?

I will take your word for it and retract my statement about you being a liar, but that is something I have never heard of. I will also have to stop assuming things about your employer.

My experience has always been that any policy, must be approved in it's exact entirety by the state commission (for whatever state it's for sale in), and beyond that, most legal department want to have a look too. Your statement about changing language is absolutely fantastic to me! Dollars I can see. No state commissioner says you have to remain profitable, but language... However I acquiesce on this point.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
So you are saying you can in fact CHANGE POLICY LANGUAGE (like remove a word or paragraph, reinsert something else, make it up yourself)?

I will take your word for it and retract my statement about you being a liar, but that is something I have never heard of. I will also have to stop assuming things about your employer.

My experience has always been that any policy, must be approved in it's exact entirety by the state commission (for whatever state it's for sale in), and beyond that, most legal department want to have a look too. Your statement about changing language is absolutely fantastic to me! Dollars I can see. No state commissioner says you have to remain profitable, but language... However I acquiesce on this point.

I think it varies by state. Some, like Texas and Louisiana I believe, require all forms to be vetted by the DOI. Others, like Nevada and California (I think) recommend that the DOI approve of them, but do not require it. I do believe that a third group of states, like Colorado, approve of the general form but not the specific language to be used.

I do find it interesting if Uppsala can change language, just because I would think most companies would want their attorneys to review it. Even if you had a Juris Doctorate I could see them disallowing it.

Actually Sphinx, when you think about it, it makes sense that individual state DOIs don't review the language. If they did, then they would never side with the insured or claimant during a DOI complaint. I think they just follow the basics of contract law and state that so long as it doesn't violate specific conditions, an Insurer can use whatever language they want, but any vagueness (is that a word?) is interpreted against the insurer.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Disgruntled, a question. How does it take an insurance company 3 years to start making money? Maybe I'm a bit ignorant but what type of upfront costs do you have that make it cost 3 years worth of premiums to make a dime?

I'm guessing the sales commission is front loaded.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
OMG I just read what SMOGZINN wrote in this thread. LOL WOW!

I thought we had eugenic failsafes to protect against situations like this?

And I thought people spanked children that talked out of line. See we can both type insults behind the anonymity of the internet.

Insurance is an upfront payment on the statically low probability that something bad will happen. No one can deny this, the only responce you can come up with is OMG WHAT IF I TRIP OVER A PORCH AND HIT MY FACE ON THE SIDEWALK, AHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGRRRR!!!

Looking at this like a balance sheet where you are trying to come out "ahead" is a pretty mangled understanding of insurance.

So, how am I supposed to look at it, as some kind of charity? I SPEND money in order to gain something. If I am spending too much for too little protection, or if the odds of me needing that protection is not high enough, then it is a bad investment. It is a balance sheet, and we are being scared into putting to big of a value on their services by fear mongering. Insurance companies do not come up with thier rates and terms by drawing numbers out of a hat, they know the odds and play them.
Insurance is very, very similar to a game of chance, and you can work the odds just like you do for a horse race or poker game.
Fear is no reason to invest. Logical analysis will show where a investment like insurance is actually valuable, and with current laws and limitations on most policies, coupled with the price of insurance, I do not think it is a good investment in most cases.