Nearly every time you turn on a light switch today, you are witnessing the power of trends upon shifting markets. Though lighting isn’t going away, the types of bulbs we use and their supply chain has been in flux for the past two decades.

On May 27, 2020, General Electric stopped making light bulbs entirely (after 130 years), selling its lighting division to smart home company Savant Systems. All of the other major lighting players have also been negotiating a market and industry in the midst of change. Government mandates for lower energy bulbs have removed most incandescent bulb manufacturing operations from the market. LED bulbs not only use much less energy, but the bulbs last far longer — so the sales of bulbs will drop over time.

Philips Lighting, another stalwart industry player (125 years old), decided that instead of leaving the business it would develop Philips Hue, a connected lighting solution. Smart homes have now given rise to smart lighting, including smart bulbs — digitally driven bulbs that can adapt themselves to the experience that a customer wants. Many can be controlled via home networks and mobile phone apps. Philips also chose to spin off a whole new brand, Signify, that would embrace sustainability and energy-efficient lighting.

Auto insurers are going to have choices like this to make. Auto insurance, coincidentally, is also a 120-year-old “established” industry, based around a policy transaction. Will insurers continue to provide traditional insurance in traditional ways until they are forced down a dead-end path, or will they embrace new trends, new technologies, new services and perhaps a new mobility ecosystem approach? Will they reinvent themselves to become next-gen mobility customer experience providers?

In Majesco’s most recent thought leadership report, “Rethinking Auto Insurance: From a Transactional Relationship to a Mobility Customer Experience,” we use customer primary research and recent trend data from other sources to answer two pertinent questions:

• What are the trends pushing auto insurers to adapt their business models?
• Why should auto insurers begin creating mobility ecosystems and customer experiences that will transform their purpose and their profits?

We consider five trending points that are driving change, including:

• The Auto Insurance Buyer – A Shifting Demographic
• Vehicle Technologies
• New Data Sources
• Ownership vs. On-Demand Mobility
• New Auto Insurance Sources and Providers

Let’s briefly consider these trends and how they may affect auto insurers.

Trend 1: The Auto Insurance Buyer

For purposes of simplifying analysis within the Mobility Survey, we created two generational “super segments” by combining two different age groups, Gen Z and millennials and Gen X and Boomers. As expected, the Gen X and Boomer segment is more active than their younger peers in buying or influencing purchases of household services, insurance and financial products. Three exceptions were in individual life insurance and voluntary benefits, where the segments purchased at equal rates, and Amazon account usage, where Gen Z and millennials have a slight lead.

The older super segment has sizable leads in personal lines P&C insurance (auto and home/renters), employee benefit health insurance, investments and annuities. All of these products are good fits for the 30- to 60-year-old “sweet spot” for insurance and financial products, given they are at a life stage with the greatest insurance and financial planning needs as they establish households and families and accumulate wealth and possessions that need protection.

See also: The End of Auto Insurance  

In 2021 – one year away – millennials, all by themselves, will meet and begin to surpass the older super segment. The young super segment’s dominance will accelerate four years later when the first members of the Gen Z generation also turn 30, vaulting this new generation to buying dominance. Providers of household services, insurance and financial products that have not adjusted their business models, products and customer engagement experiences to meet the needs of this new “sweet spot” buyer market will find themselves challenged and left behind.

The insurance industry will need to adapt to this new super segment of new customers.

Figure 1: Insurance buyer “Sweet Spot” populations by generation in 2000 vs. 2020

Trend 2: Advanced Technologies for Vehicle Safety

Nearly 60% of Gen Z and millennials and half of Gen X and Boomers who own or lease a car have at least one type of newer safety or convenience technology in their vehicle. Navigation systems and blind spot detection are the most popular among both segments. The Gen Z and millennial vehicles have higher rates of collision avoidance systems, surround view systems, automatic braking and automatic parking.

These technologies were expected to depress auto insurance premiums thanks to fewer accidents.  However, insurers’ experience to date has not matched this expectation. The cost of repairing or replacing these more sophisticated vehicles with advanced technologies is greater than the savings derived from lower frequency. Some of these technologies have indeed shown benefits, but the translation to lower premiums has been minimal. For example, NAMIC found that electronic stability control saves a customer an average of only $8 on the annual premium. And, “those who pay for blind spot warning, driver alertness monitoring, lane departure warning, night vision or parking assistance systems save nothing at all.”

Is it possible that eventually the impact of these technologies will overtake the cost of maintenance and repair? In theory, yes. The greater number of high-tech vehicles that are on the road, including the autonomous vehicles of the future, the greater the chance that vehicular accidents will drop. There are, of course, an unknown set of circumstances related to COVID-19 and auto use. Will a significant percentage of the workforce stop commuting? Will public transit commuters begin to use their vehicles to avoid exposure? Or, will technologies such as driverless vehicles create an entirely new commuting scenario?  Lilium, a German aviation startup “unicorn,” has plans for bringing flying taxis to the skies by 2025, which will further change the mobility options. The answers may lie in the rise of mobility ecosystems, which we’ll examine later.

Trend 3: New Data Sources

Connected devices (and other data sources) are enabling underwriting and pricing based on mileage, location and driving behavior, which could lower premiums, while also making them potentially less predictable. Surprisingly, there are very similar levels of interest in these new data sources between the two generational super segments.

The COVID-19 shelter-in-place actions slashed the number of miles driven – by an estimated 50% between mid-March and mid-April. This is spurring speculation and debate about the pandemic’s longer-term effect on mileage-based or usage-based insurance. Although streets and roads have fewer vehicles on them, numerous states and cities have reported increases in speeding and reckless driving and fewer but more severe accidents. From an insurer perspective, broader usage-based/UBI models would be the preferred approach post-COVID-19, rather than simply tracking miles driven.

Despite the growing acceptance of new data sources, with the potential for variable premium by the month, the traditional six-month term with a set premium is preferred by both generational groups. However, Gen Z and millennials have a higher interest in a usage-based model that is automatically triggered by sensing when the car is parked or being driven.

Within the Gen Z and millennial segment, 28% of respondents indicated they have used a device or app to record their mileage or driving behavior as compared with only 15% of the older super segment. Both generational super segments showed strong interest in a smartphone app that provides real-time alerts and advice about driving behavior and conditions. Interest is even higher if following the advice leads to discounts on the next insurance bill.

Trend 4: Ownership vs. On-Demand Mobility

There is growing popularity and use of non-owned vehicles and alternative mobility options like rideshare, rentals (traditional and shared economy) and other local or urban rental options like scooters and bicycles. With their increased usage comes the threat of an offsetting level of private vehicle ownership and leasing, leading to a declining need for personal auto insurance.  This declining ownership could accelerate if more people work from home, eliminating the need for the traditional “two-car family” and using alternative, on-demand mobility.

All-inclusive vehicle subscription services are a relatively new mobility option offered by several auto manufacturers (currently, most are luxury brands) and third-party services. Most allow the customer to switch vehicles on a periodic basis and pay a set monthly fee that covers the vehicle, maintenance and insurance. A surprisingly high number (30%) of Gen Z and millennials indicate they are using or have used a service like this – nearly four times higher than the older generation, indicating interest in different access to mobility options as compared with “owning” a vehicle. Some of these users likely correlated these experiences with micro-term car-sharing company’s such as Zipcar.

See also: Insurance Innovation — Alive and Kicking  

Nearly 26% of Gen Z and millennials and 20% of Gen X and Boomers indicate they would or definitely would consider a vehicle subscription the next time they go to purchase a vehicle. When you add in the “maybes,” these numbers jump to 71% and 61%, respectively.

Figure 2: Usage of mobility technologies and participation in mobility trends

Gen Z and millennials use car-sharing services more frequently than Gen X and Boomers. Over a third (35%) traveled this way for five or more days in the previous month, compared with only 18% of Gen X and Boomers. Clearly, this is an established mobility preference within the younger generation that will fuel a growing market for on-demand rideshare coverage and indicates, once again, the potential decrease in car ownership by this younger generation. 

Trend 5: New Auto Insurance Sources and Providers

Most of the consumers we surveyed said they still own or lease one or more vehicles. The traditional purchase methods for auto insurance are still the most preferred channels — agents/brokers or direct via an insurer’s website. This is consistent from the last couple of years from our consumer research.

However, Gen Z and millennials also indicate strong interest in insurance embedded in the purchase cost of a vehicle, or buying insurance from a vehicle manufacturer’s website, an affinity group, car dealership, or car shopping website – about 25% higher than the older generation. Interestingly, this group also showed strong interest in purchasing insurance from three of the “tech giants,” Amazon, Google and Facebook – a wake-up call for both insurers and those selling vehicles. For a better glimpse, see Fig. 3 below.

Figure 3: Interest in traditional and new sources of auto insurance

If we look at all five of these trends in aggregate, auto insurers are facing a light bulb moment. Many of these trends will likely accelerate as we reconsider our work lifestyles moving to the home coming out of COVID-19.  If changes are going to occur in demand levels, channel types and service offerings, can auto insurers compensate by bringing the right kind of change to the market? Can they invent their own supply chains of opportunity?

In our next mobility blog, we look at this supply chain in depth. Auto insurers are redefining themselves as mobility companies and in the future will be seeking to own the mobility experience using a vast mobility ecosystem, ideally building those ecosystems around their brands. Those who will lead the mobility shift are the ones who have prepared their business systems and models that will focus on the customer mobility experience and foster non-traditional products and services.

Now is the time to start this conversation within your organization! Use Majesco’s “Rethinking Auto Insurance” report as a kickstart for your internal brainstorming or view the replay of our webinar on the research. 

On Jan. 7, 2020, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Montrose v. Superior Court, 14 Cal App. 5^th 1306, 2017. The issue in the underlying continuous environmental contamination damage claim is whether the upper excess layer of coverage should participate in funding only after all directly underlying excess coverage during the coverage continuum exhausts. This is known as horizontal exhaustion. 

On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, finding that vertical exhaustion is appropriate. 

On my very first day at Admiral Insurance, ove,r 26 years ago, the first claim I reviewed involved the Stringfellow Acid Pits Superfund Site in California. Admiral’s insured, Montrose Chemical, was a major contributor of toxic wastes to the site and a major target of the EPA. I had the opportunity to attend oral arguments before the California Supreme Court in the subsequent coverage litigation against Admiral which is the subject of this article. 

One can only speculate about how many hundreds of millions of dollars of transaction costs were paid, i.e. attorney fees and other expenses, arising from the many underlying claims against Montrose, including Stringfellow, and the ensuing coverage litigation against Admiral and Montrose’s other insurers. 

In July 1995 (modified Aug. 31, 1995), the California Supreme Court in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. Admiral Insurance Company, 10 Cal. 4th 645, turned the concept of fortuity on its head, eventually compelling the insurance industry to respond with significant policy modifications. 

It’s Fundamental - Known Loss and Fortuity 

The concept of fortuity, or chance, is the cornerstone of insurance and its operation. Individual losses must be unpredictable and, through the magic of the law of large numbers, these individual losses collectively must be predictable. 

Unless a loss is fortuitous, it is not insurable. Otherwise, those who knew a loss would occur or could somehow influence the occurrence would buy insurance and those who knew that a loss would not occur would not buy it. This “adverse selection” plays havoc with sound actuarial predictions. 

It is that simple. Or is it? 

Montrose v Admiral affected the principle of known loss and caused the insurance industry to react with a variety of “Montrose Exclusion” endorsements and the Insurance Services Office to change the insuring agreement in the CGL policy. Its impact was, and still is, felt beyond California’s borders. 

Montrose v. Admiral involved underlying environmental contamination claims and insurance coverage. The court’s rulings cast a wide net that affected construction defect claims, as well. The underlying litigation involved several claims against Montrose, referred to as “the Stringfellow cases” and the “the Levin Metals cases.” This article will focus on Stringfellow. 

Montrose Chemical manufactured DDT, dichloro-diphenyltrichlorethane, a very effective pesticide, at its plant in Torrance, CA, from 1947 until 1982. (I visited the site in the mid-'90s and vividly recall the eerie fenced-in property with skull and crossbones warning.) In August 1982, the company received a PRP (potentially responsible party) letter from the Environmental Protection Agency, followed by a lawsuit, with respect to contamination and response costs at the Stringfellow Acid Pits site. The Admiral policies commenced in October 1982 and expired in March 1986. 

The Stringfellow site opened in 1956 and closed in 1972. James “Jimmy” Stringfellow owned the site and operated Stringfellow Quarry. He was approached twice by the State of California in 1955 to use the property as a hazardous waste disposal site. Stringfellow declined twice. But the third time was a charm. State officials touted the property as “a ‘natural’ for a waste disposal site because it was underlain by impermeable rocks.” They weren’t. State investigations conducted the investigation and designed the dump site. But not very well. In fact, in the subsequent complex litigation, United States v. Stringfellow, the special master, in the State Share Fact Finding Hearing, called the state’s conduct “grossly negligent, if not reckless.”

Chemical wastes generated by Montrose at its plant were deposited at Stringfellow between 1968 and 1972, when Montrose paid a hauling company to transport byproducts of its DDT manufacturing process to the state-approved and licensed disposal facility. As early as 1970, toxic wastes were detected seeping from the site, and in 1975 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board declared the site a public nuisance.

According to the allegations in the CERCLA complaint, the property damage began in 1956 and continued throughout the periods when Admiral’s CGL policies issued to Montrose were in effect.

The following chronology is helpful to understand the coverage issues: 

1947 -- Montrose began manufacturing DDT

1956 -- Stringfellow Acid Pits opened

1968 -- Montrose began depositing DDT wastes

1970 -- Toxic wastes seeping from site detected

1972 -- Stringfellow closed

1982 -- Montrose ceased manufacturing DDT

8/31/82 -- EPA notified Montrose that it was a PRP

10/13/82 -- 3/20/86 Effective dates of Admiral policies 

In applying a continuous trigger, the California Supreme Court ruled that it is when the property damage occurs that determines which policy(s) is triggered. In the case of continuous and progressive property damage or bodily injury, all of the policies in effect at the time the damage or injury occurs are triggered. Of course, determining when property damage, caused by contamination that is continuous and latent, begins and ends is not easy. 

See also: P&C Insurance Is Losing Importance  

Essentially, at issue was the termination date of the triggered period relative to the timing of the Admiral policies. Given the dates of operations, the termination of which occurred before the first Admiral policy, and the manifestation of the contamination occurring before the Admiral policy (certainly no later than Montrose’s receipt of the PRP letter), it seemed reasonable to conclude that any trigger period should not extend beyond the date of the PRP letter. At that point, the loss became known and was not insurable. 

But the court saw it another way: 

According to Admiral, Montrose's knowledge of the problems at the Stringfellow site defeats coverage. In particular, Admiral points to the fact of Montrose's receipt of the PRP letter from the EPA on Aug. 31, 1982, prior to the inception of the first of Admiral's four successive CGL policies issued to Montrose. Admiral misses the point. The PRP notice is just what its name suggests -- notice that the EPA considered Montrose a "potentially" responsible party. While it may be true that an action to recover cleanup costs was inevitable as of that date, Montrose's liability in that action was not a certainty. There was still a contingency, and the fact that Montrose knew it was more probable than not that it would be sued (successfully or otherwise) is not enough to defeat the potential of coverage (and, consequently, the duty to defend).  

Citing the “loss-in-progress rule as codified in sections 22 and 250,” the court asserted that the loss in question in a liability policy is legal liability and that known liability is not insurable. When liability is known occurs when liability is “established” with certainty: 

"We therefore hold that, in the context of continuous or progressively deteriorating property damage or bodily injury insurable under a third party CGL policy, as long as there remains uncertainty about damage or injury that may occur during the policy period and the imposition of liability upon the insured, and no legal obligation to pay third party claims has been established, there is a potentially insurable risk within the meaning of sections 22 and 250 for which coverage may be sought. Stated differently, the loss-in-progress rule will not defeat coverage for a claimed loss where it had yet to be established, at the time the insurer entered into the contract of insurance with the policyholder, that the insured had a legal obligation to pay damages to a third party in connection with a loss." 

Montrose's receipt of the PRP letter prior to its purchase of Admiral's policies did not establish any legal obligation to pay damages or cleanup costs in connection with the contamination at the Stringfellow site, such as would implicate the loss-in-progress rule and preclude Montrose from seeking to obtain the liability coverage sought. The PRP letter did no more than formally place Montrose on notice of the government's asserted position and initiate proceedings that could result in subsequent findings and orders.

In this author’s opinion, the court pushed the envelope in its interpretation of what constitutes a contingent or unknown event in the context of liability coverage. The court concedes that “an action to recover cleanup costs (may have been) inevitable” at the time Montrose received the PRP letter, yet defines the contingency underlying the fortuity principle only in the context of the establishment of legal liability and not the happening of the event, i.e. the discharge of hazardous wastes at the site, which initiated the PRP letter being sent to Montrose in the first place, followed by the probable inevitability of liability being established and damages awarded. 

The insurance policies at issue provide coverage for damages the policyholder is legally obligated to pay as a result of an occurrence. If the analysis were to stop here, and if one accepts the court’s depiction of the contingency that underlies fortuity and insurability as the establishment of legal liability as opposed to the event that ultimately led to the establishment of legal liability, the ruling seems reasonable. 

However, the analysis cannot stop here. In addition to coverage for the legal liability of the insured to pay damages, the policy also provides another vital type of coverage, and that is defense. The insurer’s obligation to defend does not depend on a finding of legal liability. Rather, it is “triggered” when there is a potential that an insured can be found legally liable, and the defense obligation commences when a suit, or its equivalent, is served upon the insured. So, if a PRP letter is tantamount to a suit the defense obligation would be triggered. 

However, Montrose received a PRP letter prior to the inception of the Admiral policy. With respect to defense coverage, there was no longer a contingency. The obligation to defend existed prior to a finding of liability and was triggered at the time Montrose received the PRP letter unless this occurred prior to the inception of the Admiral policy. It did. 

CA Ins. Code, § 22, defines "insurance" as a "contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage or liability arising from a contingent or unknown event." The court rewrote the law by restricting, in a liability policy, the contingent or unknown event to the establishment of legal liability rather than the event that resulted in legal liability and despite the fact that insurance defense coverage is triggered long before a formal finding of liability. The subject of the code, the event, resulted in the receipt by Montrose of the PRP letter. As of the date of the policy, which is after the receipt of the PRP letter by Montrose, the event, otherwise triggering a duty to defend, is no longer contingent and, therefore, no longer insurable. 

The court cast its net broadly and specifically brought construction defect claims within its decision by nullifying the previously applied manifestation trigger in such claims. The industry first reacted with a variety of so-called “Montrose exclusions,” and ISO subsequently amended the insuring agreement in the CGL policy. The manuscripted exclusions varied but the common thrust was that losses in progress (known and, sometimes, unknown) were not covered. ISO modified the insuring agreement to preclude coverage for known losses and was less draconian than the “known and unknown” version of the “Montrose exclusions.” As to the former, the burden is on the insured to demonstrate a potential for coverage. In the case of the exclusion, the insurer has the burden to demonstrate that the loss is excluded. 

The intent of the “Montrose exclusions” was simply to limit coverage in the case of one occurrence to the first policy during which the property damage or bodily injury first began. Neither the manuscripted exclusions nor the ISO modification are a “one size fits all” remedy to the Montrose court’s corruption of the fundamental insurance principles of fortuity and known loss. Application of either requires a (very) fact-intensive analysis within the context of the duty to defend (“potential” criterion) versus the duty to indemnify (“actual” criterion), and the differences between them. 

See also: 10 Tips for Moving Online in COVID World  

Some factors to consider when handling these types of claims: 

• What are the underlying facts? What is the insured’s role in the cause of the injury or damage? 
• Bodily injury or property damage? What is the injury or damage process? For example, the injury process of asbestos is different than the damage process of construction defects. 
• What is the trigger of coverage? Continuous, exposure, injury-in fact and their variations? 
• Number of occurrences? Is it the cause or the effect that determines the number of occurrences? Are there additional factors that affect a cause application, i.e. timing of the injury or damage, number of products, trades, homes, claimants, etc.? 
• Are there multiple effects of the same cause, or are the effects the same? Does the “sameness test” affect the number of occurrences even if there is a single cause and the loss occurred in a “cause state”? 
• While injury or damage may precede the policy inception, did the insured's product or work contribute to the existing injury after policy inception?

Any views expressed here are mine and do not necessarily represent the views of Admiral Insurance Group or any of its affiliates.

In a world where messaging tends to overcomplicate things, too many acronyms and too many buzzwords all work against what should be the primary objective: clearly illustrating value. I've found this to be true when it comes to artificial intelligence or, AI.

Generally speaking, the word "artificial" doesn't call to mind a positive image, does it? Listed meanings include "insincere or affected" and "made by humans as opposed to happening naturally." 

Artificial intelligence is, in fact, created by humans. The term was coined by John McCarthy, Stanford computer and cognitive scientist, way back in 1955.

AI is not intended to simply be a digital worker, certainly not within financial services and fighting financial crime. Yes, AI can automate various functions. We're all familiar with the concept of "bots" and virtual assistants. However, those are rudimentary examples of robotic process automation. True AI is human-led and a continuous, instantaneous learning process that drives tangible value. AI is not merely a play to cut costs or replace human capital. Rather, AI enhances the bottom line by keeping compliance staff costs flat in the immediate term and enables our human experts to more appropriately manage their time, by focusing talent on investigations that matter the most.

One of the most valuable aspects of AI, in the context of anti-money laundering and compliance, is the speed by which it can be deployed. We're talking about time to market and time to value in a matter of weeks. Not months, not multiple quarters -- simply weeks. But I don't mean a generic, black box concept. I'm referring to a highly precise, tailored AI solution that has extensive proof points and, more importantly, far-reaching global regulatory approval.

AI shouldn't simply be an extension of legacy rules-based routines, nor a way to further automate the process of scoring or risk-weighted alert suppression. That simply dilutes the true value of AI and does not maximize the cost and efficiency benefits.

See also: 3 Steps to Demystify Artificial Intelligence  

The cost of compliance continues to grow at a staggering pace, particularly for financial institutions and insurance companies. Equally of concern, the impact of fines for non-compliance has also skyrocketed in the last decade, to the tune of $8.4 billion last year across North America alone.

What if you could literally solve every single name screen, sanction and transaction alert? What if you could achieve this without sacrificing any aspect of control and security? What if you could increase the throughput, efficiency and accuracy of your compliance operations without adding a single dollar of staff expense to your budget?

Artificial intelligence isn't scary. It isn't a black box. And it isn't the futuristic world of tomorrow. It is the here and now, and it's battle-tested.

Businesses worldwide are facing new and significant risks due to the pandemic and its many ripple effects. At the same time, work-life has undergone drastic changes -- many have had to shift to remote working overnight or find other inventive ways of getting the job done despite the current situation. In these distressing times, business leaders are dealing not only with significant change but also attempting to navigate an evolving risk landscape. 

Reacting effectively to these changes and risks is absolutely essential, but it is difficult to know what the right reaction is, and many are reacting differently. Some have stayed calm, acting quickly and decisively, while others have failed to act, mishandled things or aggravated the situation by making bad choices. Why do some experienced leaders have this problem or react differently under stress, especially now? 

There are multiple reasons for these differences, and, I'm happy to say, there are also ways to shift to more effectively handle risk and change -- now and into the future.

Why leaders aren’t all on the same page

Decision-making is always somewhat difficult in that it inherently involves uncertainty. But the number of unknowns related to the pandemic means that leaders are experiencing uncertainty more than ever before. They have fewer details and evidence at their disposal to make decisions, and so leaders have to lean heavily on their individual experiences, knowledge and intuition.

Secondly, there’s the matter of time. Leaders are used to being able to evaluate options objectively in a step-based manner, selecting a final choice after good, organized analysis and feedback. Now, the pandemic is forcing leaders to make decisions quickly. They do not necessarily have time to check all the parameters beforehand.

Choices also are more complex for leaders, regardless of whether they have to happen at the local, regional or global levels. Choices can have consequences that are quite significant compared with normal circumstances. And although crisis leadership has always been a valuable skill, most business leaders simply are not prepared for the level of risk-taking and change management capability necessary to respond to the pandemic at a worldwide level, because the COVID-19 crisis is unlike anything most leaders have experienced.

Lastly, current risk management culture is largely defensive rather than opportunistic -- that is to say, most business leaders don’t have the risk management function to drive a culture of resilience and agility. That generally means that leaders react more slowly and in a more limited way to crises. 

See also: Step 1 to Your After-COVID Future  

How to shift to more effective decision-making

Making more effective decisions during COVID-19 and beyond will require leaders to rethink their mental and logistical approach to operations. The first step is to surround yourself with others who have the skills necessary to help you make your choices. Because traditional hierarchical structures will not be self-assured, you must reach out to experts and informed, qualified professionals at every level. Well-rounded insights from a variety of sources will put you in a position to consider options from a broad perspective and to feel confident that you have considered many points of view or potential ramifications.

Leaders also need to commit to maintaining a long-term perspective, even if it means fixing decisions later when new information emerges or the situation changes. This is because the ultimate goal of crisis management isn’t just to get through the crisis -- it’s to recover and thrive well into the future. Leaders have to understand how their choices influence the future path of the company and try to make decisions that offer the right balance of stability and flexibility.

Additionally, situations arising due to the pandemic can naturally present leaders with agonizing moral choices. Companies might have to choose between cutting wages for everyone or paying full salaries and keeping just a portion of their team, for instance. Sometimes crises mean that legislators relax regulations that would keep less scrupulous behaviors at bay -- for example, dumping chemicals, skipping oversight hearings or approving a vaccine without sufficient testing. There are also good examples of leaders supporting the people during this difficult time to draw from, such as CEOs and executives giving up their salaries to redirect funds to their workers. But all leaders should strive to make ethical decisions that are data-driven, address the wellbeing of people and consider those who are most affected by the virus.

Finally, leaders need to embrace the digital future with a focus on building resilience and adjusting to change as quickly as possible. This might look quite different depending on what your company’s mission and industry is. But good examples can include setting up secure remote networks, focusing on business continuity, and even learning to interact virtually with clients for conducting business. As you figure out how technology can serve you to improve both general operations and crisis management, remember that it’s crucial for employees to be able to disconnect for their happiness and health.

See also: We Are Open for Business; Now What?  

Leaders can approach business in a wide variety of ways, which is part of what makes business so exciting. Even so, few leaders are well-positioned to make decisions during and after the pandemic smoothly, as challenges like lack of experience and the sheer complexity of choices create unstable ground.

The bulk of us will need to take deliberate steps to improve the odds that our decision-making will be better. By reaching out to skilled people, maintaining a long-term perspective, dedicating yourself to ethical action, and using technology in innovative ways, you can make judgments to be proud of through this crisis and for years to come.

In an effort to meet the educational needs of financial regulators during these challenging times, the Katie School of Insurance is collaborating with The Institutes Griffith Insurance Education Foundation to deliver a series of 8 non-partisan, non-advocative webinar programs during the month of June.  Because of significant overlap with the informational needs of legislators, we are pleased to provide complimentary access to legislators, staffers, and interns, as well.

Please note: This webinar series is being offered in place of the on-site, multi-day conference, which was to have taken place at the Katie School of Insurance in early June.  That event has been cancelled because of the COVID-19 crisis.  

• The programs are offered without charge to public policymakers. 
• A program calendar appears below, containing information about each webinar.
• Pre-registration for each session is required.

The webinars will be moderated by Frank Paul Tomasello, JD, Senior Director at The Institutes Griffith Foundation, and Jim Jones, Executive Director at the Katie School of Insurance and Risk Management, Illinois State University.  All sessions will begin at 1:30 pm Eastern time.

Please click on the links below to learn more and register:

• June 1 | Identifying Troubled Insurance Companies
• June 3 | The Financial and Solvency Implications of COVID-19 for Insurers
• June 5 | The McCarran-Ferguson Act: Considering the History, Role and Continued Relevance of this Legislation
• June 8 | Reinsurance: An Examination of Its Origins, Evolution, and Impact on Solvency
• June 12 | Captive Insurance: Exploring Underpinnings and Evaluating Opportunities
• June 15 | Insurance Company Rating Agencies: An Overview for Public Policymakers
• June 17 | College of Supervisors: Legal Framework and Practical Experience – A Case Study from Home and Host Perspectives
• June 19 | Wrap-Up Session: Addressing Open Items from the Webinar Series and Seeking Input from Financial Regulators

The Katie School of Insurance at Illinois State University, which has hosted and facilitated a multi-day event for insurance-centric financial examiners and analysts, for the past 15 years, is eager to resume this tradition in the years ahead, upon resolution of the COVID-19 crisis.

There’s been a lot of talk about how the coronavirus pandemic may permanently affect aspects of daily life and fundamentally alter entire industries. The future of the insurance industry deserves particular attention, considering its critical ability to help businesses weather times of extreme hardship and uncertainty. It’s also a sector that, for the most part, has clung to outdated manual processes and, like many long-established industries, has been reluctant to fully embrace digital transformation. Recent blossoming of the insurtech sector has led to what feels like the beginning of a revolution, but, for most insureds, the experience has been as time- and paper-intensive as it was decades ago. COVID-19 may prove to be the much-needed impetus for change for insurance organizations that have been operating (and largely thriving) based on decades-old procedures and tactics.

According to a recent NFIB survey, 92% of small businesses have been hurt by the outbreak of the coronavirus. 80% of those employers report slower sales, and 31% are experiencing supply chain interruptions. A survey by Goldman Sachs found that, while 81% of small businesses are continuing to operate, the pandemic has forced them to cut their workforce by 37%. The promise of insurance protecting businesses has clearly not been fulfilled during this crisis. Insureds are left holding the bag, and, worse, there’s no recipe available for protecting businesses more effectively during any future crises. To survive in a post-pandemic world, insurance organizations can’t continue to conduct business as usual. Businesses are too shell-shocked from pandemic-induced loss of income, forced layoffs, supply chain interruptions and remote work challenges -- not to mention the stress of maintaining some semblance of mental and physical well-being. 

Below are five key characteristics insurance organizations should prioritize to remain relevant and most effective to customers and prospects in the months and years ahead:

1. Be customer-centric.
   Being customer-centric isn’t just a mindset or facet of company culture. There are concrete steps insurance organizations can take to be truly customer-driven and provide meaningful support, such as taking the time to ensure all user experiences and customer funnels are easy to navigate, designed with quality and enjoyable. Insurance organizations should also responsibly collect customer feedback and execute on it as much as possible, and provide free resources such as informative and relevant blog posts or webinar content. Another example of being customer-centric is to prioritize customers’ needs first. When a crisis like COVID-19 hits, insurance organizations need to look out for their customers by offering coping mechanisms such as payment flexibility and premium givebacks. Everything else -- including the threat to insurance organizations’ books -- needs to come second.
2. Go digital.
   Going fully digital and providing an online experience aligns with how consumers purchase goods and services, now more than ever. Also, by providing a digital experience, insurance organizations can be more nimble in accommodating customers for whom time really matters. Small businesses and contractors, for example, typically require insurance (or even the ability to display proof of insurance) very quickly. They also often request immediate changes to their policies as a result of bringing on a new client or taking on a new type of project. By going digital, insurance organizations can satisfy such customer requirements in a seamless and scalable manner, even offering instant price adjustments if needed. 
3. Leverage cutting edge technology.
   Technology like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning is vital for simplifying historically complicated, human-intensive and time-consuming purchasing processes. For instance, the technology can be leveraged to automatically assess and determine what a prospect truly needs to thoroughly protect the business. AI, data science and analytics can enable 24/7, instant, customized purchase experiences and products, as well as providing more accurate pricing, thereby improving affordability for prospects and customers. The way to truly transform the industry and customer experience is to provide a technology-driven full stack service that can address the entire value chain all under one roof. 
4. Learn from unprecedented events.
   One of the many things our industry has learned from the coronavirus is that there’s an appetite for insurance coverage that helps address once-in-a-lifetime events. Now is the time to investigate how some form of government assistance or a consortium of reinsurance providers can be leveraged to provide such coverage and help share the risk so that insurance can remain affordable for smaller businesses -- even during tumultuous times. This is a hard problem that hasn’t been solved yet. Insurance organizations and government entities may need to collaborate (as was done with TRIA) to obtain a solution for this very real need. 
5. Simplify customer experiences.
   For small businesses, acquiring and maintaining insurance coverage has always been an incredibly complex task, as they typically have multiple policies and carriers involved. There’s a timely opportunity for insurance organizations to simplify and streamline the small commercial insurance experience, especially given all the challenges this demographic will continue to face as a result of the pandemic.

See also: We Are Open for Business; Now What?

Ultimately, insurance is a social good. To adapt to our “new normal” and be successful over the long term, the insurance industry needs to embrace this ethos and prioritize helping businesses in practical, meaningful ways. Rather than focusing solely on getting our revenue numbers back up, let’s collectively invest more in optimizing customer experiences and providing digital offerings that are fast, intuitive and transparent. This doesn’t mean losing sight of foundational priorities like ensuring profitability and compliance -- those pillars are as important as ever -- but they’re no longer sufficient on their own. By using technology to take insurance ownership into the future, we have the potential to significantly contribute to the rebuilding of our economy and better equip our customers for whatever lies ahead.  

Ransomware attacks and ransom payments for data continue to spike, with The New York Times reporting a 40% increase between 2018 and 2019.

As cyber threats go, ransomware is especially insidious, because these attacks, hitting everything from municipalities to banks to small businesses, often go unreported. That means less shared information and fewer actionable insights for insurers or insureds trying to arm against an ever-morphing enemy.

We saw a gap — leading incident response experts who work with the cyber insurance industry didn’t have a forum to exchange information about what was happening on the front lines of these attacks.

We needed a way to get our arms around this problem to better support our cyber insurance carrier partners, a way to keep up to date and better understand the data trends from the expert’s vantage point at ground level.

Enter the Cyber Insurance Ransomware Advisory Group, which NetDiligence assembled in early 2020. Featuring 20 members from leading breach incident response service providers — consisting of Arete, Charles River Associates, Crowdstrike, Kroll, Kivu, Tracepoint, MOXFIVE, Tetra Defense and others.

The group meets quarterly and at select NetDiligence Cyber Risk Summit conferences to discuss emerging trends and best practices and make these insights available to the cyber insurance industry.

The Emergence of the Maze Variant

One of the key takeaways from the inaugural meeting was the emergence of the Maze variant and a “new normal” of data exfiltration, often including stolen private customer information.

Whereas previous generations of ransomware have been designed by threat actors to encrypt data and extort an organization for bitcoin in exchange for the decryption key, Maze significantly increases the pressure on the victimized organization and threatens to make the stolen data public by releasing it on the internet.

This has magnified the potential loss exposure and has led to a host of new privacy data breach risks for insureds — with accompanying notification requirements.

Even clients capable of restoring files from secure backups may find themselves subject to privacy data breach impacts, such as the need to comply with state breach notification laws that include attorneys general and the victimized population, which significantly increases claim costs.

See also: 5 Questions That Thwart Ransomware  

Ryuk Is Still Ever-Present

Another dangerous variant, Ryuk, continues to plague organizations with its tendency to attack both servers and workstations.

Experts expressed concern about organizations responding to Ryuk attacks with complete network shutdowns rather than impact isolation.

When assisting small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), experts often find it challenging to convince management of the necessity of deploying automated malware eradication and remediation tools and to ultimately convince these organizations to keep endpoint protection in place once the immediate incident is resolved.

What Other Ransomware Concerns Are Out There?

Other specific ransomware types encountered include DopplePaymer, Sodinokibi, Revel and Netwalker, as well as the continued rise of ransomware as a service (RaaS).

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, the impact of ransomware could prove devastating to an organization that may already be struggling.

Many of the widely held notions about ransomware are changing, we found. After paying the ransom, some organizations may never receive the promised decryption key (in the past, certain threat actors were believed to be reliable).

Even with reliable threat actors, experienced negotiation can be critical.

Threat actors are also extorting organizations to pay for their encrypted administrator-level credentials. And, increasingly, ransomware affects the backup files, as well, encrypting or otherwise making them unusable for data recovery.

The experts reported that more than 50% of the time backups had already been exploited.

To Pay or Not to Pay

Nevertheless, recovering from a viable and segmented backup repository is still the preferred method of the majority of experts rather than paying the bad guys.

In fact, reported time for business interruption is much longer for cases where the ransom is paid — lasting from three to 15 days. If backup is used, business interruption typically spans one to 10 days, experts say.

This was a bit of a surprising finding. Members advised that the negotiation process itself, as well as problems encountered with the unreliable decryption keys, have contributed to delays with the bitcoin payment path and extended the business interruption.

A Need for a Cyber-Ready Team

A continuing concern for handling ransomware remediation is the difficulty for SMEs to respond in a timely manner toward the essential task of paying larger amounts of bitcoin — or authorizing a third party to pay — for the ransom demand (averaging $100,000, but based on severity ranging from $400,000 to $8 million, according to group members) within the given timeline for response.

SME clients often don’t have the liquidity for these significant payments, even if their cyber insurer will reimburse them.

What’s more, SME-sized IT departments are often unprepared to deal with this type of business interruption and may at times lack a functional understanding of cyber policy coverages and the supporting claims process, which forces them to learn on the fly during the crisis — underscoring that preparation is key.

Finally, the expert group reported that leading cyber security deficiencies that continue to haunt organizations include the usual suspects: lack of multifactor authentication, lack of next generation anti-malware endpoint protections, open remote desktop protocols, unsegmented backups and lack of employee training.

One thing is certain: The ransomware scourge is no fleeting trend. Experts believe that it’s here to stay, inflicting damage as long as companies are willing to pay.

With the onset of COVID-19, ransomware attacks continue apace. While the nature of the attacks has altered slightly, their frequency has not, said Winston Krone, global managing director of Kivu Consulting.

See also: A Dangerous New Form of Ransomware  

The Ransomware Advisory Group will continue to stay on top of these threats so that carriers and their policyholders can defend against them.

Quick Takeaways for Cyber Carriers and Covered Entities:

• Ensure that policyholders’ management has in place an actionable data breach incident response plan that can be accessed at a moment’s notice and includes vital third-party experts known to their cyber insurer.
• Offer a loss control checklist for SMEs of some baseline must-have cyber security measures to mitigate ransomware, such as multifactor authentication (especially in O365), endpoint protections (example Crowdstrike’s Falcon Prevent), close remote desktop protocols, cloud-based backups and employee training.

You can find this article originally published here on riskandinsurance.com

We must act.

This is the plea we are hearing from our streets. It’s the realization we hear in our own heads during quiet moments of self-reflection. And it’s the refrain we are starting to hear from some corporate C-suites that are coming to grips with the reality that establishing Diversity & Inclusion roles and Employee Resource Groups simply isn’t enough to support racial equity. 

For the insurance sector, this moment could go either way. We could retreat to familiar ground and tell ourselves that, despite lots of efforts, black, brown and other minority job-seekers simply don’t find the insurance world interesting or attractive. After all, we’ve been telling ourselves that on talent broadly for generations. Or we could embrace our role in society and treat institutional inequality as one of the most insidious—yet pervasive—risks facing the communities we’re here to protect. To take this approach would require that we reflect the diversity of those communities, which in turn will require new ways to recruit from traditionally underserved talent pools, as well as new efforts to develop, retain and promote diverse talent.

Luckily for any insurance executive taking these issues seriously, there is such a new way—it’s called apprenticeships. Simply put, apprenticeships are ways to allow new employees to earn while they learn, drawing a full-time salary while they advance their education and work. Long a fixture in European job markets, the model is growing fast in America, with over 710,000 apprentices hired since 2017.

Some industry leaders like The Hartford, AON, SECURA and Zurich have established their own apprenticeship programs that now employ hundreds of apprentices. The programs have proven successful against metrics such as retention, employee engagement and upward mobility.

See also: Step 1 to Your After-COVID Future  

More than their operational success, these programs have exposed their sponsors to new pools of talent that we traditionally overlooked: people returning to the workforce after a hiatus for family reasons, veterans returning to civilian life, racially diverse people who didn’t previously see a path to college and service or retail workers who want to move from jobs to careers. At their core, these programs are rooted in the principles we must collectively embrace to effect systemic change, including equal employment opportunity, diversity and inclusion and social impact.

The truth, however, is that establishing apprenticeship programs can be complicated. Beyond simply the internal HR programs and financial investment, sponsors need to select community colleges, develop curriculum and file for certification with government agencies. It’s why only a few of the industry’s largest players have had the resources to make such programs happen.

Earlier this year, that all changed with the launch of Insurance Apprenticeship USA (IAUSA), an industry effort backed by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association that aims to catalyze local efforts to bring together insurers, reinsurers, brokers, agents, risk management functions and others dependent on insurance talent to jointly establish local apprenticeship programs. 

In fact, during the last business trip I took before COVID-19 changed the world, I had the honor to stand before 300 industry leaders and seek commitments on who would be willing to organize such discussions in their home markets. In a matter of minutes, we had volunteers in 14 cities across America, and you could feel the energy in the room as a grassroots movement was born before our eyes. 

However, within two weeks we were coming to grips with the most destructive global pandemic in a century, and soon thereafter an economic collapse faster than the Great Depression. Among the many corporate casualties was any new initiative not directly related to COVID-19, as we all adjusted to new ways of functioning and took stock of how deeply our lives, companies and society had changed.

It is why many contemporary historians began calling this the Great Reset, or the Great Pause. We saw the fragility of modern life and realized just how tenuous the underpinnings really were. 

And then — just as we thought the COVID-19 crisis was leveling off — we witnessed the brutal murder of George Floyd, bringing other police-involved killings of black people to the fore, and in a matter of days a 400-year-old struggle with oppression seemed to transform from a series of isolated causes to a cohesive national movement. Personally, the reason I believe it’s different this time is that we’re different this time. We’d just redefined what “essential” meant, and in coalescing against a common enemy we self-identified as humans first.

It’s in the face of these new truths that we all must ask ourselves, “Are we doing enough?” Are we as individuals making that shift from passive resistors of hate to aggressive agents of change? Are we as companies fully understanding the power of opportunity that is truly accessible to all? Are we as insurers using all the tools we possess to adequately prepare society for the complex risks it faces, be it from new vicious pandemics, continuing social inequality or the looming climate crisis?

See also: 2020 Outlook for U.S., Americas  

Insurers have the opportunity under the IAUSA banner to literally change the face of the industry within just a few years. The first IAUSA program kicks off this August in Manhattan, and with industry support we could spread this model to dozens of cities across America. It’s not a panacea and will need to be only one of many actions we take—as individuals, companies and an industry—but it’s the type of institutional step we can take now to capture this moment in history.

Never forget that we’re the industry that drives toward the storm when everyone else is driving away from it. It’s that spirit that led us to create Underwriters Lab (UL), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). And it’s that same spirit that should drive us now to stand proudly on this history of societal risk leadership and take concrete steps to tackle social inequality and move toward greater equity. 

We must act.

The speed with which money moves in today’s economy affects every industry. Advances in digital payment infrastructures are powering more efficient processes and heightening consumer expectations around funds access. In fact, research points to the digital payments market reaching $132.5 billion by 2025, based on a compound annual growth rate of 18%. 

Insurance providers that capitalize on the opportunity stand to realize notable operational advantages as well as a competitive edge with clients. Some of the largest carriers have already moved toward more simplified, expedient payment processes to address disaster situations, requiring only a debit card and email address to receive funds within hours. 

Beyond just faster payments, insurers need to recognize that the era of real-time payment is not that far off. Consolidation trends coupled with the financial industry’s introduction of a real-time payments systems and person-to-person (P2P) models—such as Zelle—have some industry experts suggesting it’s well under way.

A recent Engine Insights and VPay survey across 502 consumers who had filed an insurance claim in the past three years found that more than half would be willing to switch insurers to gain access to instant claim payment; that figure included more than 90% of Gen Z and 68% of millennials.

Simply put, the era of real-time claim payment is inching ever closer, and insurers need to evaluate readiness and consider the best strategies for sustainable alignment.

Consumer Expectations: A Closer Look

The vast majority—more than 95%— of survey respondents said that ease of payment, speed of payment and the ability to access funds quickly affected satisfaction with an insurer. More than two-thirds said that the ability to receive same-day claim payment is somewhat or very important—including 82% of millennials and 81% of Gen Z. 

Regarding a willingness to switch insurers for real-time payment, a majority “yes” response was seen across multiple categories, including gender, income level and nearly all regions of the U.S. The desire for instant payment from insurers includes more than half of respondents with incomes higher than $50,000, which suggests that the concept of instant claim payment isn’t just important to those with lower incomes or among younger generations.

The survey also uncovered a glaring shortfall: 60% of respondents received their last claim payout by paper check. Consequently, today’s insurers need to think seriously about how they are either going to get a digital payment strategy off the ground or expand their current offerings.

Moving Toward Real-Time Payment

Automated clearinghouse (ACH) has represented the first step into digital payment offerings for many insurers in recent years. But carriers should not consider this single step a mature strategy going forward. 

See also: The Pandemic and a New Ecosystem  

From an operational efficiency standpoint, insurers are leaving money on the table when ACH is the only option, as it typically only covers a percentage of transactions; high-cost, legacy paper-payment processes have to cover the rest. Because an ACH payment is disassociated from important data such as remittance advice, these models can also create additional tasks related to reconciliation. Finally, ACH cannot compete with the turnaround times of emerging digital payment options, which enable payment in near real time on any day at any hour as opposed to within one to two banking days. 

As insurers consider how best to advance their digital payment footprint, three strategies are central to future positioning: 

1. Offer more digital touchpoints and payments options.

Push-to-debit, virtual card and mobile payment options are becoming important complements to ACH offerings, simplifying and speeding claim payment. Push-to-debit allows payment to flow instantly into a consumer’s bank account by simply obtaining the consumer’s debit card number. Alternatively, virtual cards enable same-day processing via a unique 16-digit card number that can be sent directly to service providers and run on their card terminal. 

2. Personalize the payment experience.

The VPay survey found that choice was important to the claim experience for more than half of survey respondents, suggesting that generational differences and preferences should be taken into consideration to build trust. Customizable options that personalize the payment experience allow policyholders to select their preferred form of payment on a “claim-by-claim” or “all-claims” basis, whether a digital offering or paper-based check.

3. Stay abreast of technological advancement.

Technological advances will ultimately usher in greater opportunities to pass real-time payment on to policyholders, claimants, members and service providers. Peer-to-peer (P2P) models are a good example of how more consumers are embracing disruptive payment models, and progressive fintech companies are leading the way to introduce these options to the industry with configurations that fit into existing claims workflows. While 23% of survey respondents — primarily within older generations — were not familiar with payment methods such as push-to-debit and Zelle, 47% noted a preference for receiving payment this way, suggesting that new digital models are gaining traction. 

See also: Data Security to Be Found in the Cloud  

The digital payment landscape is rapidly evolving and stands to leave the insurance industry behind if carriers do not act now. It’s simply a matter of time, as consumers and service providers will increasingly expect the same frictionless payment experiences they have in other sectors of the market. Carriers that embrace the move toward real-time claim payment and take steps now to align with current trends will be best positioned to keep and gain market share in the future.

Many insurers still have systems that grind away for ages before they cough up group benefits quotes. Brokers and underwriters insist on predictable, fast responses, and they are even more important today, with more people working from home because of the pandemic, straining networks.

If an insurer can’t streamline its process, clients will soon start getting quotes elsewhere. Brokers and MGAs are demanding. Time is money for them.

Complexity drives need for streamlining and AI

Streamlining group quotes is challenging to begin with. It’s more challenging when voluntary benefits with various options are added. Added complexity makes it even more important for insurers to choose a robust, responsive platform. It must let users quickly compare plans and see all options and rates for each employee division and class. 

Whenever possible, census data should be used to get a more accurate rate and facilitate straight-through processing from the quote to the proposal, onboarding and enrollment. That calls for artificial intelligence. AI can correct and supplement census data obtained during quoting. It can train the census scrubber to make smart decisions regarding missing and incorrect data, saving a lot of manual work.

You can’t sacrifice accuracy for speed. The two are equally vital. A more streamlined system must also help manage risk effectively. An insurer must be able to readily update it with underwriting and regulatory changes. 

Insurers need a system designed for accuracy and built for speed.

Likewise, security can’t be sacrificed. Hackers are more relentless than ever. Streamlining doesn’t mean taking the easy way out and leaving huge security gaps that put your client data at risk. Streamlining should increase security.

See also: 3-Step Framework to Manage COVID Risk  

Algorithm cuts touchpoints for better, faster results

Quoting group insurance sometimes seems more like an art than a science. But, if you boil it down to its essential steps, there is a definitive rules-based process that can be built into a responsive algorithm. This is the best method for providing comprehensive, quality quotes, fast.

Streamlining the entire process reduces the number of touchpoints among systems, which makes for a faster, more accurate experience. This, in turn, boosts usage, which ultimately leads to writing more business in less time. It also helps cut costs.

How much time can insurers save?

Here are some examples: 

• At a medium-sized Canadian insurer, producing a typical quote for 300 lives with a menu of voluntary benefits used to take four hours. Now the same job takes just 20 minutes. That is a 92% decrease.
• A large U.S. insurer cut quote processing times by 70% to 80%.

These and many other companies are providing more detailed, accurate and rapid service. They are selling and retaining more business.