Are we responsible for...(Theoretical question)

[shawnmwalker]

Wow, I got to say when an agent states they are not worried about the profitability of their book, that concerns me.

 

[Travis Price]

Its not like you present yourself as a field underwriter, However, it is part of the duties you are in fact doing it, Among other things as it is just a part of the whole

If you look back at the Op, to me it's reading as do you do more sales based activities (which field underwriting is a part of) or do you think you have a duty to ensure profitability and select the best business and are more of a field underwriter.

That's a P&C thing in regards to Loss ratio. Which again, I didn't know I was in the P&C forum.

For Seniors, we review and ensure they're going to pass underwriting.. but, at least for me, I don't look at a whole mess of other attributes to determine if they're a good risk or not.

P&C, at least to my understanding, because I was only in it for a year can have a cap on new business for a specific agent. If I'm wrong about that, totally correct me.

For Medicare, we can write all and every day if they pass U/W. As for as I know, we aren't penalized if in the future the book starts having claims because of an illness.

I can totally be off base and we can disagree. My interpretation may be different than intended.

 

[shawnmwalker]

It took me some time to understand your perspective but after reading through it, I am all good. The reality is many feel they have 0 responsibility to the carrier to help generate profit.

And that is a mistake.

 

[vic120]

If you look back at the Op, to me it's reading as do you do more sales based activities (which field underwriting is a part of) or do you think you have a duty to ensure profitability and select the best business and are more of a field underwriter.

That's a P&C thing in regards to Loss ratio. Which again, I didn't know I was in the P&C forum.

For Seniors, we review and ensure they're going to pass underwriting.. but, at least for me, I don't look at a whole mess of other attributes to determine if they're a good risk or not.

P&C, at least to my understanding, because I was only in it for a year can have a cap on new business for a specific agent. If I'm wrong about that, totally correct me.

For Medicare, we can write all and every day if they pass U/W. As for as I know, we aren't penalized if in the future the book starts having claims because of an illness.

I can totally be off base and we can disagree. My interpretation may be different than intended.

Ahh I get it now

I do not then underwrite for preventing loss ratio in any way, I do look out for the client first if that is what is meant

As a side note Yes we can be penalized, I had got termed from Everest January or feb due to the fact that I wrote diabetic prospects; that needed lower rate, They passed underwriting legitly, However, They were not competitive enough, to write them healthy clients in many areas they were citing too much paid on claims as the reason for the term

Also I have read on this forum that some carriers Term if you send them too much GI cases

 

[Travis Price]

It took me some time to understand your perspective but after reading through it, I am all good. The reality is many feel they have 0 responsibility to the carrier to help generate profit.

And that is a mistake.

I have a responsibility to ensure the client is place with a company that is best suited for them based on their situation.

However, I only present an application based on set of standards. I do not accept risk. I do not set premium criteria. I do not complete actuarial duties.

If the insurance company accepts them, great. Health is different, imo

Ahh I get it now

I do not then underwrite for preventing loss ratio in any way, I do look out for the client first if that is what is meant

As a side note Yes we can be penalized, I had got termed from Everest January or feb due to the fact that I wrote diabetic prospects; that needed lower rate, They passed underwriting legitly, However, They were not competitive enough, to write them healthy clients in many areas they were citing too much paid on claims as the reason for the term

Also I have read on this forum that some carriers Term if you send them too much GI cases

Thanks for that insight.

Frankly, Everest ended up being stupid anyway.. you were probably better off in the long run.

As for too much GI business, I can totally understand spreading that pool out.. but ultimately, I'd worry less about that.. just my opinion.

 

[Newby]

We do field underwriting as a part of our sales process. It's not a job title unless you are trying to mislead someone. You are a licensed Insurance Agent. You are never a licensed Field Underwriter.

You also fax applications as part of your sales process. But you don't call yourself a licensed faxer.

 

[marindependent]

. I hate the term Field Underwriter.

Totally Agree.

 

[shawnmwalker]

I have not faxed something in Years. Maybe a Decade....

 

[Newby]

I have not faxed something in Years. Maybe a Decade....

You young whippersnappers with your laser beam apps and your smart cars will never know the struggle.

 

[rousemark]

You young whippersnappers with your laser beam apps and your smart cars will never know the struggle.

Can't say I miss the days of "snail" mailing apps in to the HO and then waiting for them to mail back the policy, their request for information, or even the decline notice. Could take weeks to get a simple med supp issued and get paid on it.