“If you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe.” Simon Sinek. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are 374,700 active insurance agents in the U.S. alone. How can you as an agent find a way to stand out in the highly competitive arena? It starts with finding your voice.   When I say finding your voice, I don’t necessarily mean your tone quality, pacing or vocabulary. I’m talking about the language you speak to yourself, BEFORE you speak it to the world. It begins with your inner voice. How do you speak? Not just the words, but the voice you project. Your voice is a statement and picture of your character, your poise and your persona. It is a statement of belief, confidence and personal power. So how do you make your voice authentically yours?

• When you do what you believe in
• When you do what you are passionate about
• When you work in your chosen field
• When you find your calling
• When you discover something you were born to do

The Myth of Chasing Success I love talking with motivated insurance producers. They have big goals and dreams and work with fearless energy. I often hear about chasing success. As the late great Jim Rohn stated, “Success is not to be pursued, it is to be attracted by the person you become.” The point is that chasing or pursuing success is a daunting task. Where do you even start? It starts with becoming a better you and with your passion for personal growth. When you grow personally by working on your skills and development, you will attract others by finding your unique voice. As your belief system, confidence and passion develop, so does your internal and external voice. If you want to stand out and be noticed in among the crowd of 374,700 other insurance agents, start by looking within.

If you are hurt while working or have an illness caused by conditions at work, you may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Workers’ compensation is a state-run insurance system created to compensate workers for injuries received in the workplace. Employers' participation is mandatory under state law, and they are protected by the workers’ compensation program from being sued further by the injured employee. To qualify for workers’ compensation benefits, you must meet the definition of “employee.” Let’s take a look at what that means. Am I an Employee for Workers’ Compensation Purposes? Any employee is entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits. It doesn’t matter how long you have been employed or whether you are working part-time or seasonally. Regardless of these criteria, if you are an employee and injured on the job you will be eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits. There can be uncertainty, however, as to what it means to be an employee. By definition, an employee is a person hired for wages or a salary. An employee’s duties are typically dictated or controlled by the employer, and the employee receives any job training needed by the employer. Independent contractors, freelance workers and consultants, on the other hand, operate more independently and are just required to deliver a job. The manner in which it is completed is not controlled by the company. These workers are not eligible for benefits under workers’ compensation laws. Special Rules for Certain Workers In some states, there are some special groups of workers who, although they may meet the definition of an employee, are not required to be covered under an employer's workers’ compensation insurance. The criteria will vary by state, so it is best to consult with an experienced workers’ compensation attorney if you have doubts. Some of the groups that may be exempt from workers’ compensation coverage are: Casual Labor – Casual labor is usually defined as work that is not in the usual course of business for the employer. For example, a company may hire someone to do some landscaping or carpentry, which does not directly promote the company’s main business. Domestic Workers – Domestic workers are paid to help with domestic tasks such as cleaning. Agricultural and Farm Workers - Agricultural workers perform physical labor and operate machinery on farms, ranches and other agricultural sites under the supervision of farm or ranch managers. Undocumented Workers – Undocumented workers generally work for cash and are not asked to provide identification or evidence of legal status to the employer. Leased or Temporary Workers - Leased or temporary workers are employed by a professional employer organization (PEO) and not the company they are working for. They usually work under a contract between the company that needs work and the PEO. Workers’ compensation insurance is a helpful program to ensure that employees are suitably and promptly compensated for losses incurred when they are injured in the workplace. A person must, however, meet the legal definition of employee in the applicable state. If you have any questions whether you meet that criterion, consult with a workers’ compensation attorney to find out your rights.

One of the myriad reasons workplace wellness is not performing well is that all humans have about 100 risk factors, of which obesity, high blood sugar, high blood pressure and high cholesterol are only four. If those four are in pretty good shape but the other 96 are out of whack, don’t expect good health results. Further, putting bandages on symptoms of metabolic disease has limitations. Such bandages do not address the root causes of metabolic syndrome. According to Wiki, “Root cause analysis (RCA) is a method of problem solving used for identifying the root causes of faults or problems. A factor is considered a root cause if removal thereof from the problem-fault sequence prevents the final undesirable event from recurring; whereas a causal factor is one that affects an event’s outcome but is not a root cause. Though removing a causal factor can benefit an outcome, it does not prevent its recurrence within certainty.” [Emphasis mine.] One thing sorely missing from most modern wellness methods is RCA. Unless one deals with RCA in metabolic syndrome, it will continue to recur. Some other huge health risks factors are job misery, terrible marriages, very poor money-handling skills, envy, general lack of contentment in life and loneliness. Another health risk is how far you live from a “dial-911 first responder.” Yet another is how safe your neighborhood is. I could go on and on. Worksite wellness does nothing to address the vast majority of personal health risks. My book, An Illustrated Guide to Personal Health, elaborates on such health risks. This article will cover just one of those risks, loneliness, which among other things is a root cause of metabolic syndrome. (Let’s hope this information does not inspire true believers in wellness penalties to look for ways to charge lonely employees higher payroll deductions.) Loneliness harms your immune system, makes you depressed, diminishes cognitive skills and can lead to heart disease, vascular disease, cancer and more. Loneliness is roughly the health risk equivalent of being a diabetic who smokes and drinks too much. Read on. An article from the National Science Foundation explores the health hazards of loneliness. According to this article, “Research at Rush University has shown that older adults are more likely to develop dementia if they feel chronic loneliness.” Moreover, John Cacioppo, neuroscience researcher of the University of Chicago, says of loneliness, “One of the things that surprised me was how important loneliness proved to be. It predicted morbidity. It predicted mortality. And that shocked me.” Dr. Sanjay Gupta recently wrote, “The combination of toxic effects [of loneliness] can impair cognitive performance, compromise the immune system and increase the risk for vascular, inflammatory and heart disease.” According to studies in Europe, loneliness has about the same health risk as obesity. An article in Caring.com says, “A 2010 Brigham Young University review of studies involving more than 300,000 people concluded that loneliness is as unhealthy as smoking 15 cigarettes a day or being an alcoholic. This is a headline in the U.K.’s Express: “Loneliness is as big a KILLER as diabetes.” The article describes how loneliness is like a deadly disease that decreases life expectancy and makes you more susceptible to cancer, heart disease and stroke. The study behind that conclusion was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Here are some personal observations: Why do many people have so few friends as they age?

• Maintaining long-term friendships takes a lot of work and investment of time.
• Don’t let your career stand in the way. Don’t wait for someone to befriend you; reach out.
• Some people have invested their time and energy solely in a spouse, who may predecease them by 25 years, or in children, who fly the nest in time.
• Many people have invested much in work-related friendships, which, while genuine at the time, can wilt almost immediately when they retire or move on.
• In friendships, one has to give more than he takes. Make yourself likable. Who wants to spend time with someone who complains all the time? People like that are often avoided by people around them.
• Be a good listener.
• If you’re lonely, try joining something…a place of worship, a book club, a hiking club, anything. In every community are places where everyone is welcome.

In the end, a true measure of your wealth is the number of lifelong friends you have. Having lifelong friends is a joy and a perfect cure for loneliness.

For most potential jurors, questions of insurance coverage do not usually arise in common conversation. Seldom cut and dried, usually subject to numerous definitions and intricacies, coverage issues can be boring and puzzling for even an experienced adjuster. Asking a lay person to try to classify an “occurrence” as defined by a policy, or whether a third party is covered as an additional insured, may prompt, at best, glazed-over eyes or, even worse, a negative commentary about insurance companies. While it may be best in some situations for a judge to determine the issue of insurance coverage, this is not always possible. Sometimes, coverage questions arise in litigation, and those interpreting policy language and determining the outcome are jurors. If jurors are deciding the issues, certain challenges then arise, such as how to clarify policy language, present a clear and concise argument and overcome negative preconceptions about the insurance industry. Can the Judge Decide Coverage Issues? In Louisiana, general rules regarding issues that are triable by a jury are set forth in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 1731 - 1736. These establish the general rule that a demand for a trial by jury will result in a trial by jury of all issues. However, exceptions to the general rule exist when: (a) the parties stipulate that the jury trial shall be as to certain issues only; (b) a party in his demand specifies the issues to be tried by a jury; or (c) the right to trial by jury as to certain issues does not exist. Where a jury trial has been demanded by one or both parties, the case must be tried by a jury unless both parties consent to trial without a jury or the trial court finds that a right to a trial by jury does not exist. More particularly, La. C.C. P. art. 1562(D) specifically codified the general principle found in La. C.C. P. art. 1736 requiring a stipulation between or the consent of the parties before the trial judge can order that insurance coverage issues be tried separately, with the “court alone” deciding the issue of insurance coverage. La. C.C.P. art. 1562(D) states: "If it would simplify the proceedings or would permit a more orderly disposition of the case or otherwise would be in the interest of justice, at any time prior to trial on the merits, the court may order, with the consent of all parties, a separate trial on the issue of insurance coverage, unless a factual dispute that is material to the insurance coverage issue duplicates an issue relative to liability or damages. The issue of insurance coverage shall be decided by the court alone, whether or not there is to be a jury trial on the issue of liability or damages." The leading case on the subject is Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc., 95-1574 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/3/96), 678 So.2d 936, writ granted, remanded, 96-2000 (La. 11/15/96), 682 So.2d 746 and 96-2007 (La. 11/15/96), 682 So.2d 747. There, the court stated that La. C.C.P. art 1562(D) provided that, if principals of judicial efficiency or justice would be served then the court may order a separate trial on the issue of insurance coverage. However, the trial judge’s discretion is not unfettered. The judge’s ability to take the issue away from the jury is severely restricted because, under the article, all of the following conditions must exist: (1) it would simplify the proceedings, permit a more orderly disposition of the case, or be in the interest of justice; (2) the consent of all parties; (3) the non-existence of a factual dispute material to the coverage issue that duplicates an issue relative to liability or damages; and (4) the order must be rendered before trial on the merits. Therefore, the requirements set forth in the article effectively leave the judge with no discretion, as it requires the consent of all parties. The court further noted that, while the issue of insurance coverage under an insurance policy is a narrow issue of the law between the alleged insured and the insurer, a jury is not prohibited, by statute or otherwise, from deciding this issue. Further, there is no exception to the right to trial by jury for issues that the trial judge may think are too technical or too complex for the jury to understand. Even if the trial judge believes that he is more capable than the jury of deciding the issue of coverage, he cannot take this issue away from the jury once the issue is included within the scope of issues for which a jury trial was requested, unless the conditions of La. C.C.P. art. 1562(D) are met. As such, if a trial by jury has been requested, but an insurer is presenting technical questions of coverage and believes that a judge would be best suited to decide the coverage issue, a stipulation or the consent of all parties would be necessary before the judge could take the coverage issue away from the jury. Unfortunately, often the consent of all parties to separately try the coverage issue cannot be obtained, and the insurer is left with a jury to decide intricate and potentially costly coverage issues. Selecting the Best Jury for Your Coverage Case If coverage issues must be decided by a jury, the persons who make up that jury can make a difference in the outcome of the case. Questioning prospective jurors in voir dire about their current insurance policies and other contracts can provide some insight into how they view insurance companies and the potential for coverage. People often believe that they are “fully covered” under their insurance policies, and that insurers are large, prosperous companies that should be able to “help out” individuals. However, further questioning can reveal that potential jurors do understand that there are limitations as to what is covered under certain policies and what has been negotiated. Questioning a potential juror about a policy he may currently have in place, whether that policy has a limit and if he understands that the insurance company would not be required to pay more than that limit, can show that the potential juror does understand some limitations to coverage. Additional questions may involve who the current policies provide coverage to and the limitations on that coverage. Even simple, and almost obvious, questions can help illustrate a potential juror’s understanding of coverage limitations. For example, discussing how an automobile policy might provide coverage for certain damage to an owned vehicle but would not cover general maintenance, oil changes or a monthly car payment can help provide insight into whether an individual may be able to understand the issues and be a constructive juror. Additionally, general questions regarding the potential jurors’ opinion of insurance companies in general, personal claims experiences or inferences regarding insurers that the potential juror has taken from the media can provide insight into whether the potential juror might be favorable or undesirable from the insurer’s standpoint. Presentation at Trial – Concise and Comprehensible After a jury has been selected, helping jurors understand and follow the language and logic of the coverage argument is vital. The following tips may help simplify the coverage case and overcome obstacles when faced with presenting coverage issues to a jury. 1. Walk Jurors Through the Basics Although often complex, insurance policies are simply contracts. They define a relationship between parties and outline who will do what, when and under what circumstances. Presenting the insurance policy as a simple contract, by identifying the promise between the parties and what each may receive in exchange for their promise, may help jurors be less apprehensive when approaching coverage issues. A good place to start is with the basics of the policy and how it is structured. Discussing the declarations, insuring agreement, exclusions, definitions, conditions and endorsements allows jurors to get comfortable with the policy. After the policy and its purpose are explained, the specific provisions at issue can be addressed. An effective way to do this is by using demonstrative evidence, such as blowups of certain pages or Power Point presentations illustrating specific language and what it means. Presenting the policy through large exhibits helps break down the technicality for jurors and show that it is a logical and consistent contract. Further, preparing an exhibit naming and listing the experience of all of the individuals who are involved in creating the policy, the claim investigation, adjustment and the coverage decision shows that time and thought of real individuals went into creating a well-organized document and making a well-thought-out coverage decision. 2. Humanize the Issues Jurors often bring their own experiences to the courtroom and, sometimes, a bad impression of insurance companies. Further, oftentimes coverage disputes are coupled with bad faith claims, exacerbating the notion that insurance companies are malicious. To overcome these perceived notions and prejudices, it is key to humanize the insurer’s operations and show the jurors that real people have drafted the policies and handled the claims. Showing that the insurer is not just a large, faceless corporation, but individuals making decisions and doing their jobs, will help negate the insured’s presented image of an uncaring, profit-seeking business entity. While testimony from a vice president may be impressive, the agent who issued the policy or the adjuster who handled the claim may help put a more relatable face to the company. Additionally, many insurers have adopted vision statements outlining a code of ethics or a commitment to the community. Using this at trial, and showing how the company is committed to its values or involved in the community, helps dispel negative ideas of an uncaring corporation. Lastly, insurers should be careful about attacking the insured’s credibility or positions. While it may be necessary, the way this is presented to the jury can have a big impact and can erroneously further the negative ideas about the insurance company. 3. Show All Negotiations Jurors will generally understand the concept of “you get what you pay for.” They know that if they contracted with their cable company and pay for only the basic channels, they do not get premium channels, such as HBO. It follows that jurors should understand that if underwriting documents or other evidence show what was discussed and understood between the parties, and this is reflected in the contract, this should be what governs. If evidence of negotiations is available, this should be presented to the jury. This concept may be particularly helpful in litigating commercial policies, where there is usually more negotiation, and in showing the application of policy exclusions. 4. Keep It Simple As a general rule, the simpler the better. It is important to keep the insurance policy language from sounding too technical. Avoid overuse of legal terms and phrases, as this will only confuse jurors and may cause them to fall back on the generally accepted legal principle that “any ambiguity must be construed against the insurer.” A straightforward presentation, relying on only one or two strong coverage arguments, should be used. Presenting every argument possible is not always the best strategy, as this could bog down the jury and cause them to lose focus. When one or two key arguments are made, the case is tight and allows jurors to concentrate on the big picture, rather than trying to follow several moving parts. Another tactic that may help bring the issues to a comfortable level is to compare the policy to other contracts jurors may have entered into. Outlining the limits and duties imposed by contracts that jurors may be more familiar with, such as a purchase agreement for a car, or a lease agreement for an apartment, may also help jurors realize that there are also limitations and duties imposed by insurance contracts, just like the contracts with which they are more familiar. Additionally, working backward from the result being sought provides a road map for a streamlined argument and helps create a unifying theme throughout the litigation. Starting from the verdict form or jury instructions helps to keep concentration on the elements that need to be established or explained. 5. Apply Basic Jury Concepts Basic concepts of persuasion, which apply to all jury litigation, can also be used effectively in a coverage case. Fairness must be stressed and run as a theme throughout the presentation of the coverage case. Jurors want to be fair and will try their best to do so. Additionally, any obvious weaknesses in the case should be addressed. Holes in the case, if not admitted to or explained, will create doubt. Presenting a coverage case to a jury is sometimes unavoidable, but need not be too difficult or incomprehensible for jurors. Carefully questioning and selecting potential jurors, along with presenting a simple yet logical argument, while humanizing the insurance company, can help achieve a successful presentation of the case in the courtroom and, with that, a successful result.

A new study shows that three in four Canadians are not on track for retirement. With the recent economic turmoil, many working Canadians are struggling to make ends meet as it is. The same survey indicated that half the population is living paycheck to paycheck, and very few have any emergency savings built up. Living in the moment means that they’re not focused on retirement goals, and many expect to be working several more years as a result. Although workplace pensions, the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), Old Age Security (OAS) and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) can provide funds, it’s often not enough. Moreover, the higher your income is now, the less likely you are to have your future needs met by these types of programs. If you’re among the 75% who are not on track to retire, here are the changes you need to make now: Take a Hard Look at the Money Coming In You’ll need to set a budget, but long before you get to it you must have a full accounting of how much money is coming into the household. Then, you’ll need to deduct between 20% and 30% of the gross for emergency expenses and retirement. Focus on building emergency savings that will cover you for three to six months first. Eliminate Bad Debts Carrying a balance for a mortgage or vehicle isn’t usually a problem, but more and more Canadians are maxing out credit cards and racking up other smaller debts. These things should also be knocked out of the way first. Say Goodbye to Luxury Spending While the older population is much better at assessing value and affordability, the younger generation is geared toward luxury items. Expensive cars, lavish clothing and trending technology add to debt. If you aren’t on track for retirement, and you’re carrying unnecessary debts, you should get yourself back on track and only purchase essential and value-oriented products. Reevaluate Your Investment Choices Unfortunately, many investment firms take a chunk of payments, and they fail to deliver in returns. Do a cost-benefit analysis and see if you need to consider moving your money to another firm or program. Diversification, both on a local and international level, is essential, as it provides a kind of insurance in case the economy falters. Think beyond stocks, as well. Bonds, commodities and real estate holdings can provide extra layers of security. Use a Budgeting Program There are numerous options available, but they all serve the same essential function. Using software or an app to track expenses takes the brainwork out of it and enables you to stick to your budget without having to work so hard. Incrementally Increase Retirement Savings As you pay off your debts and eliminate your mortgage, and your children become self-sufficient, you’ll obviously have more money to spend on yourself. Many people jump into doing the things they’ve been holding off on, like vacations and home remodels, but this becomes a slippery slope. As you find yourself free of expenses and debts, it’s imperative to increase your retirement savings, as well. During your last decade or two of work, your goal should be buildings toward setting aside 60% of your income for retirement. Some of the cash should go into savings, but a fair amount should be invested into dividend-paying stocks, which will add a steady trickle of supplemental cash as your non-working days progress. Reevaluate Your Goals and Get Expert Advice Even though most people can benefit from visiting with a financial planner, very few people do. You don’t have to be wealthy to benefit from one, either. A financial planner can help you figure out ways to minimize debts and how to save and may be able to help you get lower interest rates on the debts you already carry. If you choose not to visit a financial planner, you should still reevaluate your budget and strategy on a regular basis. This way, you can find ways to increase your savings if you aren’t setting aside enough, or enjoy more of your income now, provided you’re on track for retirement. There was a time when a person could outright retire at a certain age, but it’s not like that any more. Today’s workers have to contribute more on their own to be able to maintain the same standard of living, and they have to work longer to be prepared. It’s still possible to retire at about the age your parents and grandparents did, but it requires more planning on your part.

Fifteen years ago, the idea of having access to any bit of information you could possibly want at your fingertips was outrageous. In 2001, you could get access to the Internet from your phone, but the experience would be slooooow, and it might cost you hundreds of dollars. Dial-up Internet from desktop computers – remember them? – was still very much a thing. Now, people carry smartphones that give them instant access to just about anyone, to every bit of news and to almost all the knowledge in recorded history. People use those devices mostly to watch videos of singing goats and people failing at dunking a basketball, but that’s a different story. The point is that technology, such as smartphones and smart watches, has created an on-demand world where gratification needs to be instant. When someone decides he wants something, he doesn’t want it in two hours. He doesn’t want it in 20 minutes. He wants it now. And, he wants it at the push of a button. As the trajectory of the last 15 years shows, the trend toward on-demand will only continue, perhaps even accelerate. The main driver, as usual, is good, old Moore’s Law, which has seen the computing power of a chip double every year and a half to two years since the 1960s at no increase in cost. Moore’s Law is why a gigabyte of memory, which cost $300,000 in the mid-1980s, today costs less than a penny, and why, despite some technology headwinds for Moore’s Law, we’ll have devices hundreds of times as powerful as today’s before kids born this year enter high school. Other “laws,” such as Metcalfe’s, continue to drive the value of networks at an exponential rate. So-called “network effects” are why millennials rarely have their phones more than a foot away and why there is so much effort to make devices even more accessible – in front of your eyes, a la the failed-but-not-forever-dead Google Glass, or on your wrist as a “watch.” Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of the MIT Media Lab, has argued for years that we’ll eventually wind up with cellphones surgically implanted behind our jaws, where they will have easy access to our vocal cords and our ears. But Moore’s Law and Metcalfe’s and the others that have driven the unbelievable progress in computing are just the start. Now, three more factors are kicking in, increasing the pace toward the on-demand world. First, sensors and cameras are wiring more and more of the world every day. Second, people are coming up with new business models that build on these new capabilities in surprising and powerful ways. Third, the effects will spread to what is sometimes referred to as “the next billion” (and the billion after that). Those of us in the developed world won’t have all the fun; the rest of the world will join in. Sensors and Cameras Fitbit et al. track every step you take and every calorie you burn, and they’re just the beginning. People have begun talking about the “Internet in Me.” The idea is that you might ingest some small sensor that will report from inside your blood stream about blood pressure, blood sugar, etc. A wireless signal – powered by the abundant electricity inside us – would send the information to your phone or watch, which would relay any necessary information to a doctor or some sort of healthcare provider. Drones are everywhere. They can check crops, monitor disasters or do whatever. In fact, woe to the next generation of teenagers – parents can now just keep a drone in the home and have it fly around from time to time to see if Junior is having a party while they’re away. Our mobile phones constantly provide information on traffic flow, based simply on how fast they’re moving in our cars. (When is the last time you saw a traffic copter, let alone a thin rubber hose across a road that tripped a counter every time a car ran over it?) Waze has layered crowdsourcing on top of the data from mobile phones, encouraging people to report accidents and other delays, to fine-tune maps and so forth. Nauto, a start-up, is trying to add another layer by getting fleet operators—and, eventually, individual drivers—to put cameras in vehicles (one looking at the road, one looking at the driver) with the initial goal to improve safety. If enough of Nauto’s cameras are on the road, they will provide a real-time look at the world. Want a parking spot right now? Nauto can tell you about the one that opened up 30 seconds ago a block away. Google is gathering information in real time about diseases like the flu – it can report when and where a lot of people start searching for information about certain symptoms. Even our thoughts and emotions are getting wired. Historically, in presidential elections, people conducted the occasional opinion poll, so you’d have a sense of the result of the debate a week or so later. Now, people monitor Twitter streams and Google searches in real time to assess who won and who lost. Those feelings then get aggregated in prediction markets that are far more accurate than political observers ever were. Of course, a lot of effort gets put into figuring out presidential elections because of the stakes involved, but this kind of wiring and immediate response will spread into other areas, as well. The physical world is being folded into the digital one through hacks such as QR codes, which let magazine readers scan them to figure out where they can purchase an outfit or whatever else is in an image. Amazon’s voice-activated Alexa sits in the middle of a room and allows people to buy something through Amazon right when they think of it, even if they don’t have their phone near them. Our lives divide into two parts these days: Those that are wired and those that will be wired.  New Business Models Just Google “the Uber of,” and you’ll see how much a single inventive business model can change things. You’ll be prompted with companies offering the Uber of trucking, dog walking, laundry, snowplows, tennis partners dentistry and much more. There is a powerful example in the insurance industry: WeGoLook, which is being called the “Uber of claims handling.” If a carrier needs a picture of a car, it can send someone out from the office, or it can draw on the tens of thousands of freelancers affiliated with WeGoLook and have one of them take the necessary pictures and gather the information. Especially in rural areas, it can be a lot cheaper to have a local person gather the information than to send someone out from a regional office. And, through the wonders of information technology, WeGoLook can be so thoroughly integrated into a carrier’s system that the person asking for the photos, etc. doesn’t need to even think about whether the request is being fed to an internal person or to WeGoLook. Even without totally new business models, tweaks are accelerating the pace of the economy. Seamless, the on-demand food delivery service, has shaken things up by making it much easier for customers to order food for takeout or delivery. Venmo has become popular among millennials by greatly simplifying the process of sharing costs and, in general, making small payments to each other. Amazon went from “delivery some time” to mostly two-day delivery, via Prime. Now it is working hard to get to same-day delivery and is even experimenting with drones that could deliver within perhaps 20 minutes. These business model changes will keep unfolding, too, in many cases like a slow-motion train wreck. You can already see some of the ways that 3D printing will step up the pace – you just click on the image of a hairbrush you want and have it start printing in your office immediately. Or look at the news business. Remember weekly news magazines like Time, Newsweek and BusinessWeek? Not only have they gone away but even daily publications like the Wall Street Journal have had to switch to instantaneous publication online – no more holding the big stories for the print edition the next morning. Those of us of a certain age remember what a big deal it was when Monday Night Football showed highlights from the day before. Now, we don’t even have to wait for Sports Center at the end of a game. We can just call up a highlight on our phones. If you look at the changes going on at CNN, you can see that its mission has changed, because there is a new form of 24-hour news network: It’s called the Internet, and it's "on-demand" -- no need to keep Wolf Blitzer droning on in the background. The Next Billion As more and more people from countries such as China and India and places in Africa enter the middle class, they will get access to all the technologies that drive the on-demand economy in the rest of the world. In some cases, they will even leapfrog us. In Kenya, for instance, growth in the traditional sort of banking is stunted even as the economy grows, because people use their mobile phones to exchange money. Who wants to go to a bank and wait for a teller? And these changes in technology, business models and demographics are just the things we know about. You can be quite sure that lots of clever people are already at work on other ways that will speed the move toward the high-speed economy. Think of the shift in the economy as the move from the demand curve to the on-demand curve.

The vast majority of insurance companies lack the infrastructure to mobilize around a true prescriptive analytics capability, and small- and medium-sized insurers are especially at risk, in terms of leveraging data insights into a competitive advantage. Small- and medium-sized insurers are constrained by the following key resource categories:

• Access and ability to manage experienced data scientists
• Ability to acquire or develop data visualization, machine learning and artificial intelligence capability
• Experience and staff to manage extensive and complex data partnerships
• Access to modern core insurance systems and data and analytics technology to leverage product innovation insights and new customer interactions

Changing customer behaviors, non-traditional competition and internal operational constraints are putting many traditional insurance companies—especially the smaller ones—at risk from a retention and growth perspective. The marketplace drivers create several pain points or constraints for small and medium size insurers, such as can be seen in the following graphic: This is excerpted from a research report from Majesco. To read the full report, click here.

If you are thinking that what’s next for the life insurance industry has something to do with the experience surrounding buying and owning life insurance products, think again. Yes, the life insurance industry has a big opportunity to improve the customer experience. Companies are improving the complex and inauthentic language used in communications, improving engagement levels with consumers, reducing friction in the underwriting process and creating the ability to transact in an omni-channel way. We are even seeing new peer-to-peer models cropping up for other insurance lines, and it is just a matter of time before life insurance becomes a focus within them. And, yes, the life insurance industry now at least has a handle on what needs to be done to improve the experience. Companies are putting significant effort into catching up to other categories. Some of the progress is coming from within the established carriers, and even more of it is coming from disruptors that are improving the model rapidly, giving established carriers new capability to buy instead of building. So the industry is just a short time away from meeting the demands of today’s consumer. Bravo! But the industry needs to get beyond improving today's experience and focus on what's next. And what is that? Are you ready? Well, here it is: Death just isn’t what it used to be. Social, scientific and technological advances have dramatically reduced the probability of death for those under the age of 55. This is the group of people whose untimely death would cause the greatest financial burden on families and businesses and is the group we depict as needing life insurance most. Granted, many life insurance policies sold are issued on older people to implement tax strategies. However, the original intent of the insurance industry was to protect families and businesses from becoming destitute as a result of the loss of a breadwinner or key person. What happens if that probability is significantly reduced? Do we continue to try and find more “death pool” needs. Or, do we find new needs that our unique skills and competencies can solve? What’s next, in my opinion, lies in the latter. We can define our business more broadly. Are we in the business of "insuring" lives or “assuring” them? In other words, are we assuring that someone will live longer by avoiding or recovering from the things that are likely to cause death, such as drug use, cancer and suicide? What does this question mean for what's next in the insurance industry? First, let’s examine avoidance. Could life insurers use technology and probability to help individuals and communities further reduce the likelihood of accidents? We need to go beyond driving and household safety tips and into true early warning systems or algorithms that can enable consumers to be proactive. Could we better predict the likelihood of suicides or accidental drug overdoses? Could we help people understand the role of new, emerging risks such as “hackccidents”? (This is my term for an accident that is a result of human intervention into a computer system that may be controlling a car, a train, a plane or some other technology.) Secondly, let’s examine recovery. Suppose someone has an incident, and death is now imminent. Could the life insurance industry guarantee access to the latest technology? Could it design investment futures (similar to investments in gold or pork belly futures) in the ability to get an organ transplant or expensive medicine or to be frozen until a cure arrives? This may all sound far-fetched, but how far-fetched did the innovations of today sound just 10 years ago? Hmmm. This article first appeared in National Underwriter Life & Health Magazine

As the saying goes, there are two kinds of motorcyclists: Those who have fallen off their bikes and those who will. The insurance industry assesses the corporate world’s cybersecurity risk much the same way. Everyone is equally at risk, and, therefore, everyone pays the price for higher insurance premiums. Not a day seems to go by without news of a high-profile security breach. It’s no surprise, then, that the cybersecurity insurance market is expected to rise to $7.5 billion by 2020, according to PwC. Even worse, the industry does not have effective actuarial models for corporate cybersecurity, say Mike Baukes and Alan Sharp-Paul, the co-founders and co-CEOs of UpGuard. The two audacious Australians have developed what they say is a better way to assess the risk for cybersecurity breaches. Alan Sharp-Paul (L) and Mike Baukes (R), Co-Founders and CO-CEOs, UpGuard The pair’s company recently unveiled its Cybersecurity Threat Assessment Rating (CSTAR), the industry’s first cybersecurity preparedness score for businesses. UpGuard’s CSTAR ranking is a FICO-like score that allows businesses to measurably understand the risk of data breaches and unplanned outages because of misconfigurations and software vulnerabilities, while also offering insurance carriers a new standard by which to more effectively assess risk and compliance profiles. According to Baukes and Sharp-Paul, many companies forego available policies due to perceived high cost and uncertainty that their organizations will suffer an attack. With countless patches and endpoint fixes slapped onto IT infrastructure to hastily remediate breaches, companies have found themselves with less visibility into their core systems than ever before and, as a result, no way to understand how at-risk they are for hacks. With CSTAR, businesses are able to regain transparency into their own stack and take the appropriate steps to bolster their cybersecurity. Insurance carriers, meanwhile, can make smarter underwriting decisions while accelerating the availability of comprehensive and cost-effective cybersecurity insurance policies for businesses. It’s a win-win for both the insurance industry and for businesses. After spending years in financial services in Australia and the U.K. and witnessing the disarray of corporate IT, Up-Guard's two co-founders decided they could make a difference by developing a better way for corporations to understand their software portfolios and their associated potential risk for security breaches. Baukes says, “Our experience showed that that there were thousands of applications and thousands of machines powering all of this critical infrastructure. And the thing that we learned throughout all this was just how hard it is for an IT organization to understand and get a handle on what they’ve got." “Today, everything is out in the cloud," Sharp-Paul says. "We’re all more connected. Employees are connected 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Now what keeps CIOs and CEOs up at night is, ‘If we get breached, I could get thrown in jail. I could get sued.’ It’s a very, very different world we live in today. We built a system to help companies understand and prevent downtime, and helping them save on project costs is just as relevant today from a security perspective." The two initially started a consulting company to help companies catalogue and manage their software platforms and applications. According to Sharp-Paul, “We realized the biggest problem companies have from an IT perspective is that they don’t really have appropriate visibility into what they’ve got and how it’s changing because so many things are changing daily in these environments that it’s really hard for them to know what 'good' looks like." Sharp-Paul and Baukes's consulting led them to develop software to automate the process, providing the means to quickly and effectively crawl every server and software application to present a profile of what needed to be updated or patched and to identify the system holes that allowed for security breaches. As Baukes tells it, “Getting that all to mix well and be safe, secure and capable of pinpointing where problems go wrong really quickly is an incredibly difficult task. So, we built up the first commercial version of the product—a very rudimentary version—and we shopped it around, and people were very excited at the time." From there, the pair realized their software had commercial potential and implications more far-reaching than what they had first thought. “We started with that very simple version with a few sales and no sales force—just Alan and [me] at the time—growing to the point now where we now have 3,000-plus customers, and the team is steadily being built,” Baukes says. Now, the company has nearly 50 employees and is growing fast. The Mountain View, CA–based company attracted early seed funding from the likes of Peter Thiel, Dave McClure and Scott Petry, leading to a near $9 million Series A funding underwritten by August Capital. The co-CEOs admit the co-managing arrangement is unconventional and would be challenging to make work under different circumstances. However, Baukes and Sharp-Paul feel their skills and temperament complement each other. “To be honest, when people ask us about it, my first response is always that it’s a terrible idea," Sharp-Paul says. "And that’s not because it’s been a horrible experience for us. It’s because I kind of think we’re really the exception. And the only reason I say that is that I know the unique things we went through and the type of people we are that makes this work. I can’t imagine that being a common thing at all." Baukes is generally a more aggressive and strategic thinker, while Sharp-Paul describes himself as more pragmatic and conservative. Sharp-Paul and Baukes first worked together at the Colonial First State Investment firm back in Sydney, where the two lived the DevOps experience before DevOps became the buzzy concept that it is today. There, Sharp-Paul was a web developer, and Baukes was a systems administrator, and they talked a lot about things like continuous integration and continuous delivery. “Now these are all fantastic things," Sharp-Paul says. "But you need a foundation or a basis of understanding what you have. I mean, we like to say you can’t automate what you don’t understand. Or you can’t secure or fix what you don’t understand. And that’s always missing. Everyone’s trying to rush to this goal of DevOps or moving to the cloud. Everyone wanted to be there, but companies and vendors in particular weren’t helping businesses on the journey there." Baukes says, “Once you have that base understanding of what you have, then that opens everything else up. You can think about DevOps. You can think about automation. At the time, we were thinking, ‘Why hasn’t anyone thought to do this before?’ It seemed like such a foundational, basic thing. It was almost like it was so foundational that everyone just moved past it, and they were looking at the next shiny thing down the road. I think that was the white space. That was our opportunity. We jumped on it." As it turns out, in the world of corporate IT, applications never get retired. Even worse, the people who manage them move on because the life cycle of an employee at a company is short. As as result, the institutional knowledge about these applications is lost. “Corporate memory is so short typically," Sharp-Paul says. "They often get to this point five years down the track where they rediscover this server or this application, and everyone’s too scared to touch it because they don’t know what it does. They don’t know how it works. The people with the knowledge just left with it all in their heads. We come across that all the time." Sharp-Paul and Baukes had always seemed destined to do something on their own. “I always had a healthy disrespect for authority. Throughout my corporate life, I was looking outside to see what else is [WAS?] out there," Sharp-Paul says. "I actually started the first step of creating a business on my own—with something as mundane as a French language website that I used when I moved overseas for a couple of years. ... It taught me that I can actually build something myself that makes money.” Baukes agrees. “The big difference is that I grew up in an immigrant family in the middle of nowhere, effectively. I won’t say the Australian Outback, but really rural," he says. "We built everything ourselves. My father was a great wheeler and dealer. So, I learned a lot of from him. I fell into all of this by playing computer games and was really good at it, frankly. For me, that was a springboard into an accidental corporate life. I always knew that I would do something else.” Now, for the future? Baukes says, "It makes good business sense to quantify the risk in your company’s IT systems and report it effectively. And I think that for us, we could continue growing our business with that in mind—giving people visibility, helping them get to the truth of what they’ve got, teaching them how to configure it, and showing them if they’re vulnerable. That is beginning to accelerate for us, and we’re incredibly proud of that. "We truly believe that, over time, CSTAR will be adopted as an industry standard that companies and carriers alike can rely on to make critical coverage and cybersecurity decisions."

Workers’ compensation is one of the most highly regulated lines of insurance. Every form filed and every payment transaction is an opportunity for a penalty. Claims can stay open for 30 years or longer, leading to thousands of transactions on a single claim. Each state presents different sets of compliance rules for payers to follow. This bureaucracy is adding significant cost to the workers’ compensation system, but is it improving the delivery of benefits to injured workers? Lack of Uniformity Workers’ compensation is regulated at the state level, which means every state has its own set of laws and rules governing the delivery of indemnity and medical benefits to injured workers. This state-by-state variation also exists in the behind-the-scenes reporting of data. Most states now require some level of electronic data interchange (EDI) from the payers (carriers or self-insured employers). There is no common template between the states; therefore carriers must set up separate data feeds for each state. This is made even more complex when you factor in the multiple sources from which payers must gather this data for their EDI reporting. Data sources include employers, bill review and utilization review vendors. The data from all these vendors must be combined into a single data feed to the states. If states change the data reporting fields, each of the vendors in the chain must also make changes to their feeds. Variation also exists in the forms that must be filed and notices that must be posted in the workplaces. This means that payers must constantly monitor and update the various state requirements to ensure they stay in full compliance with the regulations. Unnecessary Burden Much of the workers’ compensation compliance efforts focus on the collection of data, which is ultimately transmitted to the states. The states want this information to monitor the system and ensure it is operating correctly, but is all this data necessary? Some states provide significant analytical reports on their workers’ compensation systems, but many do little with the data that they collect. In a world concerned about cyber risk, collecting and transmitting claims data creates a significant risk of a breach. If the data is not being used by the states, the risk associated with collecting and transmitting it seems unnecessary. Another complication is that there are multiple regulators involved in the system for oversight in each jurisdiction. Too often, this means payers have to provide the same information to multiple parties because information sent to the state Department of Insurance is not shared with the state Division of Workers’ Compensation and vice versa. Some regulation is also outdated based on current technology. Certain states require the physical claims files to be handled within that state. However, with many payers now going paperless, there are no physical claims files to provide. Other states require checks to be issued from a bank within those states. Electronic banking makes this requirement obsolete. How Is This Driving Costs? All payers have a significant amount of staffing and other resources devoted to compliance efforts. From designing systems to gathering and entering data, this is a very labor-intensive process. There have not been any studies on the actual costs to the system from these compliance efforts, but they easily equate to millions of dollars each year. States also impose penalties for a variety of things, including late filing of forms and late and improper payment of benefits. The EDI process makes it possible for these penalties to be automated, but that issue raises the question of the purpose of the penalties altogether. These penalties are issued on a strict liability basis. In other words, either the form was filed in a timely manner or it was not. A payer could be 99% compliant on one million records, but they would be automatically penalized for the 1% of records that were incorrect. In this scenario, are the penalties encouraging compliance, or are they simply a source of revenue for the state? A fairer system would acknowledge where compliance efforts are being made. Rather than penalize every payer for every error, use the penalties for those that fall below certain compliance thresholds (say, 80% or 90% compliance). The laws themselves can be vague and open to interpretation, which leads to unnecessary litigation expenses. Terms such as “reasonable” and “usual and customary” are intentionally vague, and often states will not provide further definition of these terms. How Can We Improve? One of the goals of workers’ compensation regulations is to ensure that injured workers are paid benefits in a timely manner at the correct rate and that they have access to appropriate medical treatment. There was a time when payers had offices located in most states, with adjusters handling only that state. Now, with most payers utilizing multi-state adjusters, payers must be constantly training and educating their adjusters to ensure that they understand all of the nuisances of the different states that they handle. The ability to give input to regulators is also invaluable, and payers should seek opportunities to engage with organizations to create positive change. Groups such as the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC) and the Southern Association of Workers' Compensation Administrators (SAWCA) provide the opportunity for workers’ compensation stakeholders to interact with regulators on important issues and also provides the opportunity to seek uniformity where it makes sense (EDI, for example). There needs to be better transparency and communication between all parties in the rule-making process so that regulators have a better understanding of the impact these rules have on payers and the effort required to achieve compliance. Developing standards in technology would be helpful for both the payers and the states. If your systems cannot effectively communicate with the other systems, you cannot be efficient. Upgrading technology across the industry, particularly on the regulatory side, has to become a priority. Finally, we need to give any statutory reforms time to make an impact before changing them again because the constant change adds to confusion and drives costs. In the last 10 years, there have been more than 9,000 bills introduced in various jurisdictions related to workers’ compensation. Of those, about 1,000 have actually been turned into law. People expect that these reforms will produce the desired results immediately, when in reality these things often take time to reach their full impact. These issues were discussed in depth during an “Out Front Ideas With Kimberly and Mark” webinar on Feb. 9, 2016. View the archived webinar at http://www.outfrontideas.com/archives/.