| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 11/26/2002 : 18:53:36
|
I have just finished a couple of interesting discussion sessions, with varied groups of insurance people. The topic was licencing. There seems to be a move afoot to "licence" all handlers of insurance - brokers (our term for agents), all staff claims people (telephone, examiners, road, and all levels of management), I/A's, and all lines of underwriters.
All brokers here must have a licence before they can deal with the consuming public or the carriers they use. Probably the most rigorous testing is done in Ontario. Brokers here have a one tier licence level, unless they are a principal of their firm. CE hours are required each year, and are a verifiable requisite item for annual licence renewal.
I/A's have varied licencing requirements across the country. Again Ontario, followed closely by Alberta has the most indepth or "toughest" licencing requirements, and those areas have tiered licencing by insurance product line; i.e. the type of claim allowed to handle.
There has been periodic cycles of discussions over the past 15 years concerning licencing of staff employed adjusters, but the carriers have always - before now - lobbied successfully that they could train or police their own. However, many of the issues that have been discussed on CADO - re the emerging lack of depth and experience anymore inside the carrier fold - has led the carriers to more eagerly discuss this licencing component. Carriers have taken great, and at times heavy, steps to encourage, cajole, persuade, hang carrots, and force employees (claims & underwriting) to take their insurance institute courses and exams. However, due to a blend of employee career attitudes, personal time willing or unwilling to devote to home or night class study, and the lack of financial rewards; is causing an escalating decline in the knowledge base of carrier staff.
Inhouse training, from specialized (claims a/o u/w) courses, to the teaching inhouse of institute classes themselves was weighed as a solution. Clearly, the economics will not allow much of an increase from the current level of inhouse training, which at some carriers is substantial. It is not the cost of training, but the cost via lost productivity in active staff while they are in the training rooms and not at their desks.
The vast majority of each carrier employee (claims or u/w) has clearly defined authority limits. Be it any form of adjuster with or without set settlement authority by line and a different check signing authority, if applicable; and this includes up the ladder to leads, supervisors, branch and every other level of claims management. Similarily with underwriting, regardless of the line of business being dealt with, their binding authority is defined by class within the line of business they underwrite, as well as their renewal authority.
The evolving early concensus is to combine "letters of authority", with a licencing status. With the vast movement in personnel these days, carriers see a benefit from this standardization of licencing in that some claims person from Company ASD with an "A" licence has a defined standardized ability to Company RTY; subject then only to people skills and the many facets of attitude.
There seems to be a broad agreement on a two tier licencing by line, or a two tier licencing ("A" & "B") with "proficiency stamps" per line of business qualified to at that tier. Unbelievable, the amount of debate just over that sub issue - which is the easiest way to organize, administer and track.
Now, I took the time to bring this to your viewing pleasure for a number of reasons.
First, realize that between 80% and 90% of carriers doing business here are either multinational carriers or wholly owned subsiduaries from the land of the Star Spangled Banner.
Therefore, this could, is, will, come to an office tower near you.
How near to you? Well, like all "good ideas" that evolve after hours (i.e both after hours of debate and after "office hours"), suddenly someone pops an idea from 6 other ideas and says, ".... if there is going to be underwriting licencing, tie and tier it with broker/agents licencing ....". Then another says, ".... if there is going to be claims staff licencing, tie and tier it with I/A licencing ....".
Still don't feel the breeze? Consider the licencing requirements across your country for I/As. A lot of people say Florida is the toughest, i.e you have to know more (a lot more?) than a little something about insurance and claims to get through the process. A lot say Texas is a laugh to get a licence, I tend to agree. But, as you all know there are a number of States where no I/A licencing is required, unless that has changed recently. Now, consider a carrier in any State, requiring out of State I/A work. They are "used to" or accoustomed to a certain level of expertise in their home region (for better or for worse). The same applies up here, with considerable concern, and hence it has strongly re-enforced those waving the flag for standardized licencing and qualifications everywhere.
So what, I'm a CAT adjuster? You say you are FWUA, THIG etc "certified", and that you have passed "exams" for State Farm, Pilot etc; I'm qualified! Who are you really qualified for or for not, or qualified at what, to do what? We all must defend ourselves and sing our own virtues - but look at the big picture.
Some of you will say, I'm busy enough with the training I have. Others will look at the time and money they incurred to acquire their FWUA and THIG "papers", and wonder with some disappointment what that did for them. You all should look at the available workload in your marketplace, and then turn your head slowly for 360 degrees and look at all the other folks around you scratching for the same bit of work. Much has been said about the "newbie" taking some crumbs or pieces of the pie, while the call center initiatives are taking still larger slices.
This is a bandwagon you people should get on, before your niche in general is passed right by with redundancy stamped all over it.
As a group, God forbid associated with each other collectively in any way, you best develop some standards for education and qualifications.
If I haven't given you enough to argue about already, I'll go one step further into the pit.
I'll presume, for all general intent and purpose that active CADO adjusters are property adjusters.
First, keep the vendors out of any development that may come positively from this. Their input for the debate is fine, but I suggest that if there is ever movement on this that it be limited to adjusters. Of the small handful of vendors I know, I say that honestly and with respect to them. This should be an adjuster initiative.
Second, to get abreast of, to get on the wave, gosh - maybe to be leaders in your industry, develop a two tier "licencing / endorsement" system. One for residential and one for commercial, each with an "A" and "B" level of proficiency.
The time has come ladies and gentlemen. Don't let your niche erode any further. Don't waste energy on your disgust of others taking work from your plate that you think is more valued. Do something, position yourselves and define your proficiencies.
Hockey game starting soon, I'll look in with interest later. |
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 23:03:19
|
| This Licensing procedure would be good if the fee schedules reflected an "A" and "B" rate for adjusters. Kind of hard to swallow getting paid the same as a greenhorn with no experience after years of training and experience. Just my thoughts. Your ideas seem to have a lot of merit Mr. Carr. |
 |
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 23:10:11
|
| Clayton would your idea not elevate the adjusting profession up to the level of beautician, electrician, plumber, realtor, dentist, etc? There would be state licensed schools to attend and that would cost money and limit many from getting into the profession. It would raise everyone homeowners insurance rates because the smaller number of adjusters would increase the pay for adjusters. Since so many CADO members are homeowners your idea will never fly :) |
Edited by - Gale on 11/26/2002 23:59:00 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 01:28:43
|
Justin, welcome and thanks for your comments, I see it is your first to CADO and I hope you will add many more.
An "A" and "B" rate schedule could be a resultant affect if the CAT group did something about this to show themselves to carriers and vendors that utilize them, that the body count has a standardized level of proficiency.
Remember, this is not my idea, I am just the messenger of what's going on, with a simple urging that the CAT community do something and don't get left behind.
First, if the carriers roll with this concept next year, again its primary purpose is to standardize proficiency levels at defined steps. Anyone that has gawked at thousands of FNOLs over the years or in just a few years over the span of 5 or 6 good storms, can with some measure of accuracy categorize those FNOLs into general severity levels. This is a major issue to carriers and should be to the vendors they utilize - match the claim assignment to the skill levels available. That I suggest, is where the first implementation of the "A" and "B" proficiency / standard level will be considered.
Realistically, under the instructions of the carrier, the best practice of this system would not see a "junior" or "B" level adjuster assigned to losses with an apparent potential of $10K, for example. This is all generalities, but it portrays the concept. Other carriers, and I know this happens now with day to day I/A work and defense litigation, want only senior people regardless of the depth or severity of the loss. It is the carriers choice who they utilize, and I would suggest a blend of those two application concepts would be used by them.
Gale, I'm confused by your first sentence, but as I considered it I got your email and now understand it better; and respectfully disagree.
With regards to state licenced schools etc, remember this is a carrier whim, which at this time is more progressive than I've seen since it first surfaced 15 years ago, and is as alive as it is today due to the reasons I stated in my first post. The carriers don't need, nor do they want regulated state licenced schools to accomplish this practice; nor do I suggest any adjuster would need those services including the CADO community if they chose this as an issue to get on board with.
There are plenty of ways to develop and define "A" and "B" proficiency / standard levels on either residential or commercial, without the bureaucracy of state licenced schools.
Also timely to throw in my opinion, with regards to any initiative CADO folks may take with this - it is important for all to embrace the concept that the goal is not to create proficiency / standard levels to eliminate a segment of the willing workforce, while at the same time ensuring an adequate level of proficiency that is standardized to meet or exceed the expectations of the carriers.
I will throw on the table a number of components that could be the parameters of a "B" level of proficiency / standardization for residential. Again, this is very general just to illustrate the idea.
This would be my notion of a "low" set of criteria for residential "B"
(1) a minimum of 3 carrier current "certifications"
(2) and, 13 weeks from the preceeding 78 weeks of verifiable satisfactory storm claims work
(3) or, (1), plus a minimum of one year employment from the preceeding two years, with a carrier claims department doing property claims in the field
A less modest notion of criteria for residental "B" could be
(1) a minimum of 3 carrier current "certifications"
(2) and, satifactory completion of the State farm basic course, or reasonable equivalent
(3) and, 26 weeks from the preceeding 78 weeks of verifiable satisfactory storm claims work
(4) or, (1+2), plus a minimum of two years employment from the preceeding three years, with a carrier claims department doing a minimum of one year of property claims in the field
I won't get into my suggestions of the "A" level residential criteria at this time, but logically it is an enhancement of the above, with more importance put on courses taken and verifiable skills acquired and experience gained.
My concept is the same with different criteria for commercial, with greater emphasis placed on education levels, courses, verifibale skills and gained experience in commercial claims.
A component of the carrier measuring stick will be the existing job descriptions for every conceivable claims job in an average claims department. They spell out in great detail what education, training, and skill sets are required to perform as an "Intermediate Road Adjuster", for example. They have the benefit of these administrative HR tools in place to help them define standardization levels. Others will have to try and mesh and blend with this style of measuring tool.
Finally to finish my broad thoughts on this specific element of the idea, there should be "grandfather" clauses that would supercede some criteria. Just a few of those that come to mind are AIC completion and other such designations, and 10 or more years of progressive claims experience with a carrier.
So Gale, I want to emphasis again, that I do not believe state licencing schools are required in the proficiency / standardization criteria method that I envision, nor are the carriers discussing this method. The concept is to use the "measuring tools" available - the courses available, specialized and the AIC variety, "certifications" available, detailed job descriptions, and verifiable satisfactory work experience.
|
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 11:16:11
|
| Clayton I now better understand the background of were you are coming from on this issue and what you are talking about sounds like a major step forward for all parties, including the insured. |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 12:10:37
|
| Gale, who's side are you on anyway? Personally I think adjustera are CURRENTLY raised well above the level of plumbers beauticians etc., that was kind of a slam. Your statement about costing more for insurance because it would raise the amount of money adjusters are paid just does not make any sense. Sure SOME CADO members are homeowners but ALL CADO members are adjusters, DUH |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 13:00:46
|
Gale, yes it is a major step, and yes it is a forward step. It is a carrier initiative if it rolls forward, but it would certainly impact I/A vendors as well; who I suggest would not waste any time in aligning with it. In my opinion, it will adversely affect the CADO community if they do not attempt the same initiative, and if they did it would be a tremendous step forward for them. The remaining component, the insured, would be the beneficiary of a value added benefit to the service they receive as the end consumer.
The biggest obstacle the carriers face once they committ to this proficiency standardization, is the unification of the standards. There are many inter-company agreements in place regarding all things from coverage overlaps and primary issues, to IT interfacing and meshing user systems so the independent agency force does not have to bear the burden of multiple systems. However, these agreements and co-shared projects took a long time to reach a concensus; this project will be no different. For example, 10 or more carriers will each have a very detailed but very similar existing defined job description for an "intermediate road adjuster", but like anything else , its meaning is in the eye of the interpreter.
Again, a lot of the concept boils down to the very important issue of matching the claim to the right adjuster, and this issue is driven by the lack of sufficient depth of education and training, and adequate experience prevailing (in the general big picture) by carrier staff and outsourced claims personnel with all other types adjuster service providers.
So one of the first "meat and potatoe" issues the carriers will face will be to define what an "intermediate road adjuster" should "know" in order to do "intermediate" claims; and of course whatever the parameters of an intermediate claim is. However, carriers are much better positioned to successfully create this change. If a core group develops the resolve to do it, they will find a way to get it done, and they have many administrative, HR, and cooperative tools at their disposal to ensure it gets done. Carriers are also aware of what the licencing requirements are for I/As in different jurisdictions, and have that skill set data, from where it is an important component part of licencing.
The only "entity" where there is little or no "sticks of measurement" to consider a universal base point, is the independent contractor found within the CAT community.
This is why, aside from being the "messenger" yesterday, I urged the CADO community to seriously consider this issue.
Whatever the CADO community does with this information will have, I believe, a profound effect on their future survival. To do nothing, whether through in-action or resistence, I feel will escalate their current decline as a useful resource base in the insurance industry. To react in a pro-active way and take positive professional action to create a professional standardization, I feel will - in one phrase - be their salvation.
It is up to each person in the CADO community to assess this information and suggestion, then to decide their viewpoint and willingness to not only state it, but invest time in its ultimate resolution.
|
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 15:25:56
|
I've held my water as long as I can...
Clayton, your concept is quite sound and overflows with merit. For CADO to heed this call to action will require the one thing the folks here will not do, organize into a cohesive group. It will take organization to bring together the basic logistic materials and forms and everything else to achieve this goal. If an organization is accomplished, the next step in the evolution would result in the carriers and vendors worst nightmare, we would become a trade association, just like the dentists, teachers, police, plumbers, etal. Then the dam would burst on the carriers heads concerning that nasty ol' issue of $money$.
I ask you, is that what 'they' really want? I don't think so, if anything the carriers and vendors need for us to stay an UN-organized and ignorant/stupid rabble. That way control stays in their pants, not ours. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 18:39:39
|
| Justin, perhaps I can understand the way you feel about adjusting and agree with you. For an extreme example it so happens in 3 minutes I can drive to a state where with only a sub GED education I can legally adjust a property loss but can’t legally cut a head of hair or pull a tooth although I have more experience doing both. To the non-adjuster viewing this situation the adjuster might not look like the most professional vocation of the three could be a distinct possibility. Thanks for supporting enhancing the profession. Compared to barbering and dentistry the adjusting industry is a young and immature profession but your post on this thread shows it is getting serious about maturing to a new level. Few carriers are over 100 years old after all. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 22:37:34
|
Good gosh Ghost, you have carved the first mark on the wall, and it's on the "nay" side. But, it seems you over held your water or had your hand up your cold turkey too long, because there are ancient ice crystals blowing with your smoke.
Lets have a look, you say, ".... for CADO to heed ....will require .... will not do .... cohesive group ....". Maybe, if enough of the community thought they should do something about this, and got some communication and data gathering going, and the evolving chat groups focused on the solution, maybe that work towards the solution would result in a "cohesive group" as opposed to any formal organization prior to tackling the issue.
Carriers have many more "nightmares" - presently and on the immediate horizon - to concern themselves with, long before any CADO type association would make it to their top 20 list of concerns. I would suggest to you, any type of CADO community initiative that resulted in a professional proficiency standardization, under the tight or loose blanket of any type of association, would certainly be a warm sweet breeze of welcome to the carriers.
As for vendors, they are at the whim of the carriers, but they as well would exhale a breath of freshness if they knew with professional certainty that they could call on 500 "widget adjusters" who have a known and standardized level of proficiency.
I think the compensation issue would take care of itself as a resultant factor, if this initiative was embraced by the CADO community; and in a number of ways. I don't see "the dam bursting", but if a commodity (and that is what we are) is respected for its reliability and professional consistent proficiency standard of operation, it is often chosen first over a similar product that has proven over time to have no batch lot control or consistency, and hence that respected commodity often garners some form of premium over the other.
So is that what they really want - a known, measured, and standardized level of proficiency - yes, I think so.
However, if your characterization of "us" remains as "ignorant / stupid rabble", yes their "control" will continue. But look at what that "control" has evolved into in the last few years. Look at the available work count, and look at all the other initiatives that have pecked away at that volume. That "control" you speak of is the increasing reliance on other methods to accomplish the same job that you traditionally did 2, or 3, or 5 years ago. That "control" is the increasing negative selection option, wherever possible. What other types of "control" would you envision being worthy of or being placed on an "ignorant / stupid rabble"?
I've been told - since Chris was a Corporal - that you get what you give. In our community, we are judged generally by our shortcomings. If the carriers have developed a negative perception of our value both in tangible and intangible measurement, it won't change until "we" change it for them. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Standardized Licencing of Insurance Personnel
Forum Locked
