I've spent more than half my life helping business policyholders reduce Workers Comp audits by finding and correcting technical errors by insurance companies. Just this week, a small Idaho contractor got a $28,000 refund from his last Workers Comp audit, because I got the classifiction code used retroactively corrected.
$28,000 may not seem like a huge sum to many companies, for this small biz it was a big deal.
Anyway. my point is that it's not just the policyholder I help. Often, it's the insurance agent who sold that Workers Comp policy, because policyholders often unfairly hold the agent responsible when they get what we call a "Shock Audit" for Workers Comp.
That's why we often get brought in by those insurance agents, to help their clients with contentious audits.
I'm a specialized consultant on Workers Comp audits, classifications, experience mods, and related technical issues that impact Workers Comp premiums. But I don't sell insurance.
That means an insurance agent doesn't have to worry I'll try to poach his account, if he brings me in to help. I'm not an insurance producer and I'm not affiliated with any insurance agency or insurance company.
And as part of the process, I can explain why insurance agents aren't to blame when an insurance company ends up developing a large amount of Additional Premium on an audit. I've been an agent, I know just how little authority and influence insurance companies give agents over premium audits.
But policyholders often don't understand that. They only know that the insurance company that the agent hooked them up with is clobbering them with a serious, unexpected bill that feels unfair and unwarranted. And they believe that the insurance agent is in on some kind of nefarious scheme to rip them off by making the back end of the insurance cost a lot more than initially expected.
Policyholders often wrongly think that the insurance agent makes a windfall with these Shock Audits (which isn't true but is a common and poisonous misconception that can really damage the relationship between the insurance producer and the client.)
When an insurance agent introduces me to this angry and frustrated client, a couple of positive things happen.
One, it can enhance the professional standing of the agent with the client. Now, instead of being part of the problem, the agent is part of the solution.
Secondly, the agent doesn't have to get in an adversarial position with an insurer that may be an important market for future sales. Insurance companies already are familiar with my work and they understand that disputing Workers Comp audits is what I do for a living. It shields the agent from negative impacts of an audit dispute because, as far as the insurance company knows, the agent had nothing to do with bringing me into the picture.
After all, we get calls and emails almost every day from frustrated policyholders about one of these Shock Audits for Workers Compensation insurance. So most of our audit disputes originate directly with the policyholder contacting us.
And as part of my work, I can explain the inner workings of premium audits and why insurance agents really don't have much, if any, influence over how a premium auditor determines the audited premium. But the fact that the agent brought me in to help the client can go a long way to smoothing down ruffled feathers.
And if the agent is seen as assisting in some way with my efforts, by helping gather documents and data, the beneficial impact of my involvement can become even more significant for the long term relationship between the agent and the insured.
So to all the insurance producer folks out there, I would suggest that they view me as a resource that can help salvage a difficult bump in the road with a client. It can be a secret weapon that a competitor lacks, turning a negative situation with a customer into a positive one.
No comments:
Post a Comment