It’s the beginning of May. That means over the next month a huge group of college students hit graduation day and begin a new journey in their lives. I have many friends who are graduating, and I can already start to sense some panic about what lies ahead for them after graduation. For many of my friends who do not have a clue what field they want to pursue, I often suggest careers in insurance. Aside from working in the industry and selfishly wanting to recruit some friends to join me in the field, I give my friends four other big reasons why they should join the insurance industry: 1. Opportunities Simply said, the talent in the insurance industry is graying. It is estimated that nearly 60% of the insurance industry’s current employees are older than the age of 45 and that by the year 2020 there will be more than 400,000 job opportunities. Those are some substantial numbers, and these numbers are on many insurance employers’ mind. The industry is hungry for young, driven talent to fill the pipelines before current staff disappears. As a young professional, I see the endless opportunities in terms of future leadership roles in the industry. I suggest getting in early and soaking up as much knowledge as you can from many of these soon retiring professionals. 2. Job Security The insurance industry provides a considerable amount of job security, in my eyes. I don’t see insurance going away any time soon. I would argue quite the opposite. No doubt the industry will have to evolve as risk changes (e.g. self-driving cars), but risk assessors and risk advisers are here to stay. 3. Job Variety and Flexibility Insurance is everywhere. You won’t be limited to a particular list of major cities when looking for a career in insurance, and the industry offers an array of professions to pursue, from actuaries analyzing the numbers to the creatives who are fighting today's marketing wars. (Side note: I’m a big fan of Flo from Progressive and Mayhem from Allstate). Whatever your passion is, you can pursue it in the insurance field. Many sales and underwriting professionals in the industry pursue their interest specializing in advising for not-for-profit organizations, tech companies, medical professionals, breweries, etc. Being able to relate and understand how a business works is the essential feature of what makes an insurance professional great. If you aren’t up for an intellectual challenge, I highly advise not pursuing a career in insurance. There is a vast amount of information to learn just to get started, and laws and regulations are changing every day. I learn something every day. But if learning motivates you, come join the fun. 4. Altruism I don’t believe there is anything more satisfying in the industry than the stories I hear about how insurance saved people’s livelihoods. Some accidents are just unpredictable, and whenever insurance companies step up and provide the financial support to rebuild someone’s home or business it really reenergizes my dedication to the industry. The insurance companies that have stuck around for many years are those that are out to make a difference in their customer’s lives whenever those customers call needing help.

Outside accountants – including auditors, those providing other attestation and compilation services, tax preparers and even mere advisers – are increasingly facing allegations that they served their clients in a fiduciary capacity. These are not simply idle observations: In general, they are made by clients and third parties seeking to obtain monetary damages from the accountants as a result of, inter alia, errors in financial reporting, tax positions that are subsequently rejected by the IRS or other authorities and losses incurred by clients or third parties following advice presented by the accountants. The reason adverse parties seek to impute fiduciary obligations to the accountants is that this offers them the opportunity to seek larger settlements or court-imposed awards, if the defending accountants are found liable. Fiduciary duties pose major risk for accountants and for those writing insurance coverage for them. Traditionally, accountants were not considered to be fiduciaries, and in some instances still cannot be held to be such, either because of the nature of the services being rendered or the character of the client organization. However, over time the threshold for finding (or, at least, being permitted to argue in litigation) that the accountants were de facto fiduciaries has been lowered by court rulings. The implications for the accountants are serious – and they warrant taking steps to mitigate, by use of appropriate engagement letter language, and by exercising greater caution in taking on clients and in performing services for them. Those underwriting accountants’ malpractice insurance should be equally concerned with how well, if at all, their insureds have dealt with this risk factor. What makes a party a fiduciary? Fiduciary status is not well defined under the law, and this lack of precision has led, over time, to a creeping extension that now sometimes even reaches to outside accountants. A fiduciary relationship gives rise to fiduciary duties, the primary one of which is that of loyalty. As expressed more expansively in a number of key court decisions, “[a] fiduciary relationship carries with it the duty of candor, rectitude, care, loyalty and good faith.”[1] Fiduciaries are required to hold their beneficiaries’ (i.e., clients) interests uppermost. Generally, fiduciary relationships are characterized as involving two parties, with the one (the fiduciary) acting on behalf of another (the beneficiary). The acting party exerts control over a critical resource that belongs to the other party – for example, the fiduciary invests funds belonging to the beneficiary, or controls the official filings (e.g., financial reports or tax returns) that are the obligation of the other party. The other party must have a relevant vulnerability (lack of investing expertise, technical knowledge, etc.) that places the beneficiary in what amounts to a subservient position vis-à-vis the fiduciary regarding the object of that relationship. A fiduciary duty arises by either of two means: by operation of law or by application of legal factors. The first of these connotes a formal relationship between the parties, whereas the latter arises from informal relationships. Furthermore, in matters that have been elevated to the domain of litigation, there have been various ad hoc determinations that fiduciary obligations have attached, beyond those set forth in established law. Examples of formal relationships to which fiduciary obligations will be ascribed include trusts, guardianships, agency arrangements, partnerships and joint ventures, corporations (regarding the duties of directors and officers) and counseling relationships (this being the most controversial). Counseling relationships may be those of attorneys and accountants and their respective clients, medical doctors and psychiatrists and their respective patients and even clergy and their parishioners. More generally, counseling relationships may include any others where the giving of advice in confidential settings is a central defining condition. Informal relationships may also be interpreted as requiring the duty of loyalty. To rise to this status, there must be “trust” or “confidence” reposed by one person (or entity) in another, and there must be a resulting “domination,” “superiority” or “undue influence” of or over the other party (the putative beneficiary of the fiduciary relationship). It is important to stress that neither trust nor vulnerability alone suffice – it is widely held that both must be present to successfully assert that such an informal relationship creates fiduciary obligations. More generally, if any person solicits another to trust her in matters in which she represents herself to be expert as well as trustworthy, and the other party is not expert and accepts the offer and reposes complete trust in that person, a fiduciary relation is likely established. However, sharing expertise with another party is not, per se, enough: It is clear that not every expert is or can be held to be a fiduciary.[2]  There is a wide range of informal relationships, not all of which will connote fiduciary obligations. As the Restatement of Trusts notes, “Although the relationship between two persons is not a fiduciary relationship, it may nevertheless be a confidential relationship. Conversely, a fiduciary relationship may exist even though the parties do not enjoy a confidential relationship.” Thus, this is a grey area in the law, and this very ambiguity is what creates risk for the unwary. For example, a financial reporting expert may advise a client on the various ways a particular transaction or event might be reported, or even opine that only a single approach would meet professional standards, but the ultimate decision remains that of the client, who may reject such advice or seek other opinions. The accountant does not dictate how the transaction or event has to be reported in the client’s financial report (although, if serving as independent auditor, the accountant may elect to render a less-than-unqualified opinion if the client elects an improper method of accounting having material impact on those financial statements). As already noted, determinations establishing fiduciary obligations have been sometimes made on an ad hoc basis by the courts. Of greatest relevance to the present discussion, this tendency has increasingly brought accountants under the fiduciary duty umbrella, sometimes to the accountants’ great surprise and dismay. Most commonly, in the author’s experience as a practicing accountant, this has involved tax preparers who may rather casually offer investing advice to their clients. For example, upon noting a particular client’s high tax bracket, some tax preparers will make offhand comments about the virtues of, say, municipal bonds or real estate as investment options, or wax enthusiastic about a specific bond issue or mutual fund, which is more of a concern. More recently, this logic – applying fiduciary obligations to accountants offering investment counseling – has been extended to those offering a range of non-tax services, even if tradition and professional standards clearly prohibit the accountants performing those services from also serving in a fiduciary role. What are the duties of a fiduciary? Being defined as a fiduciary (whether or not a formal fiduciary relationship has been documented) brings with it a range of obligations. As noted, the most significant of these is the duty of loyalty. The interest of the principal (the beneficiary, or the client) must come first – even to the exclusion of the interests of the fiduciary. For example, if our hypothetical tax preparer suggests a certain class of investment to his client, it must be believed that this is an optimal investment strategy for the client, unrelated to the accountant’s own investment interests. Touting an investment in the hopes that, e.g., an increased demand will lift prices and thus benefit the accountant’s own holding of the same asset would clearly be a breach of this obligation. In addition to making (or seeking to make) a hidden profit from advice given to the beneficiary, competing against the beneficiary (e.g., putting in a bid for property sought by the beneficiary, or “front running” an investment in securities), or simultaneously acting on behalf of another party whose interests are adverse to the beneficiary, would constitute breaches of the loyalty obligation. Because accountants typically have a large number of clients, there is a real risk that this prohibition could inadvertently be contravened. A fiduciary also has a duty to disclose all relevant facts to its beneficiary. Again harking to the tax preparer/adviser situation, if the accountant is positioned to benefit if the client follows this investment advice (e.g., will obtain a referral fee or commission), this must be clearly communicated to the putative beneficiary. If an accountant is placed in the role of a fiduciary, the duties to exercise reasonable care and to maintain client confidences, found in the professional technical and ethical standards, must still be observed. Additionally, the fiduciary has a duty to maintain client confidences, which might carelessly be disobeyed even in the course of casual conversations with the accountants’ other clients. Why is being held to be a fiduciary a risk for accountants? Being held accountable as a fiduciary has one very crucial implication. Whereas assertions of failure to exercise due care (the normal standard to which outside accountants are held) lie within the domain of tort law, assertions of failure to meet the requirements of loyalty are found within fiduciary obligations. In the instance of allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent accountant, who must show, inter alia, that all material facts had been provided to the beneficiary and that all other fiduciary obligations have been satisfied. In the event of a finding of failure to exercise ordinary due care, as defined in the professional standards with which the accountant is obligated to comply, damages are limited, typically, to actual damages suffered by the plaintiff, assuming that the tripartite required demonstrations of liability, reliance and damages have been achieved by the complaining party. In contrast, a failure to meet fiduciary obligations may result in punitive damages as well as the awarding of plaintiff’s legal fees, and thus presents a significantly greater financial risk for the accountants and for their insurers. The burden of proof, coupled with the potentially greater monetary damages, makes defending against well-founded accusations of having been a fiduciary and having breached associated duties to the beneficiary a much more serious concern. The evolution toward fiduciary obligations for accountants has accelerated over the past few decades. During the 1970s and 1980s, claims against CPAs were commonly based on fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence (i.e., professional malpractice), as well as on contractual breaches (in the case of suits by clients against their accountants, who had purportedly failed to perform the assignment for which they had contracted). The 1990s witnessed an increase in claims made against CPAs that argued that they had served as financial advisers. This led to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and a range of other assertions, such as functioning as an unlicensed investment adviser. In the early 2000s, courts readdressed fiduciary duty claims, as they might pertain to CPA liability matters. In a seminal case, Miller v. Harris, decided in 2013,[3] a state appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court’s dismissal of a complainant’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against the respondent accountants. It found that contracts (such as that between the accountant and his client) between litigating parties do not control a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, because the latter are not based on contract law. This distinction is a vital one, establishing an important principle. Further, the court stated that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty must allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship and a breach of duties imposed as matter of law as a result of that relationship. The net effect of the Miller v. Harris appellate decision was to set a new, lower bar for fiduciary status by operation of law (i.e., for an informal relationship). Given this decision and others, there is an enhanced likelihood that future actions against accountants will attempt to assert as fiduciary those relationships that, in the past, were not deemed to be such. Accountants, and their insurers, thus would be wise to give increased attention to this risk, and take steps to mitigate it, where possible. What steps should be taken in actual practice to guard against this risk? Although the record has been mixed, there has been some expansion of fiduciary duties over past decades to include accountants. Traditionally, of course, accountants generally had not been deemed fiduciaries. Indeed, their obligations to third parties and requirement for independence historically confirmed non-fiduciary status on accountants, inasmuch as duties to third parties could not coexist with loyalty to the client entity’s management. Whereas at one time any attempt to attribute fiduciary status to accountants, for the purpose of alleging breach of fiduciary duty by them, would have been almost automatically dispensed with, today accountant defendants are very unlikely to obtain summary dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claims. Instead, courts are holding this matter to be a fact issue to be resolved at trial. For the accountants, one important implication is that, even if the defense ultimately prevails, they will be forced to incur costs to defend against such claims. In litigation, even when you win, you often lose. The existence of a fiduciary relationship is now defined to be a question of fact. If the facts support the assertion that an accountant acted as a fiduciary for the client, that accountant will be exposed to liability for breach of fiduciary duty, which may result in economic harm greater than in the situation of a garden-variety failure to exercise due care in a professional negligence suit, including the possibility of punitive damages and attorney’s fees being levied. The burden of proof is essentially placed on the defending party once the existence of a fiduciary relationship has been established by the complainant. Summary dismissals of fiduciary obligation claims against accountants are now unlikely to be obtained, meaning costs of defense must be borne even when ultimate exoneration is achieved. Engagement letter limitation of damages language will often not be effective in precluding punitive damages, so this risk element cannot easily be protected against, if a fiduciary relationship can be established by the complaining party. Contractual language defining the assignment as not implying fiduciary duties may not be sufficient to defend the suit. Nevertheless, having a well-crafted engagement agreement with clients remains an important defensive strategy – and such letters are mandated under professional standards for most ordinary accounting and auditing services. In the author’s opinion, the role of “adviser” should be avoided or severely constrained, if later allegations of breach of a fiduciary relationship-based obligation are to be averted.[4] If advice is provided in circumstances in which the client can later plausibly claim to have been in a subservient role – thus, where the accountant was effectively making decisions for the client – there will be risk. Obtaining “informed consent” for recommendations made to the client would be one procedure providing some reduction in such risk. All recommendations should be couched in language that requires the client to consider and then independently conclude upon the matter, by either accepting and acting upon it, or rejecting it. Finally, for both insureds and insurers, it would be wise to consult with a qualified attorney regarding the language used or proposed for accountants’ engagement letters for the various services being offered. Only in this way will risks, including that of being held accountable for breach of fiduciary duties, be most effectively addressed and, to the extent possible under evolving legal standards, contained.

The human brain thrives on what work gives us: activity, routine, social contact and identity. The act of working gives employees far more than just the benefit of earned income. The World Health Organization names it as a health factor that, when present, contributes to health and, when absent, can increase the chances of ill health. This is particularly relevant in the discussion about mental health. What is it about work that contributes to mental health, and why should employers and insurers consider the health benefits of work? Activity When human beings are engaged in doing things, areas of the brain related to attentiveness are stimulated. When someone is off work, it is harder to find regular daily activity—it is not as easy to find the many everyday behaviors we do when we are working. Work provides a structure that tells us what to do. We then engage in hundreds of behaviors every day. Being in the act of doing these behaviors keeps us healthy. When we are not working, it can be hard to answer the question: “So what did you do today?” This absence of activity can have a profound impact on a person’s sense of accomplishment and purpose, which has an impact on mental health. Routine Work forces us into a rhythm and regular behavioral patterns that are actually good for us, even if sometimes we may resent the structure. Our bodies and brains enjoy the routine and benefit from the repeated predictable patterns of behavior. If we don’t have something to get out of bed for, it can be difficult to get out of bed. When someone is off work for any reason, the lack of daily direction can have a significant impact on well-being. Social contact We spend more waking hours with the people we work with (when we are working full-time hours) than with the people we love and live with. Human beings as mammals are social creatures and seek and thrive on social contact. Neural activity related to social contact is crucial to mental health, and social isolation is a risk factor for mental illness. We are connected to our co-workers because we are social beings who are genetically programmed to monitor and build social connections. We rely on the hundreds of exchanges inside the social context at work to meet our needs for belonging and connection. When people are off work, they lose this continuing social contact, and the isolation has a significant impact on well-being. Identity Work gives us identity. When we work we have a title, a position, a clearly defined set of tasks and a label that provides information to the world about who we are, this informs us about who we are in relation to others, and in how we view ourselves. Loss of this identifier has a significant negative impact on self-esteem and self-worth, with a predictable risk to mental health. When employees are off work, it is hard for them to answer the common question: “So, what do you do?” Any person facing unemployment experiences changes in all of these factors and is at risk for developing mental health issues. A person who already is experiencing mental health challenges, and then goes off work, may find it difficult to build steady recovery, because the essential health need of work is not present. Many disability plans have an all-or-nothing approach to an employee’s ability to work. If employees are off work, they are deemed not able to work. If employees wish to find regular daily activity to help build their recovery, they may put their claim at risk. This approach to disability management may actually be making employees stay off work longer. The longer an employee is off work, the harder it is to return to work. Systems that do not allow employees who are on a disability claim to work, even to perform volunteer work, are preventing employees from tapping into the health benefits of working and may be contributing to needless work disability. Employers may also have the mindset that an employee who is sick should be off work. When it comes to mental health issues, it is not best practice to use this all-or-nothing approach. The key here is for employers to have the capacity to address individual employee needs as they return to work or, better yet, have flexible processes and structures that allow employees to stay at work. Staying at work during early days of recovery could be part-time, with the disability benefit covering the balance of an employee’s income from salary. Continuing activity, routine, social contact and identity build employee recovery and can reduce the cost of the disability claim. There is less work disruption, and continuity can be maintained for the employee and the family, the work team and the organization. This contributes to increased employee health. And healthy employees are productive and engaged employees.

“Innovate or die,” the saying goes. But as companies try to sharpen their competitive edge with new product and service ideas, many don’t realize that their efforts are fundamentally misguided. That’s because their innovation process is often missing one essential ingredient: their customers. Companies establish innovation incubators and idea labs. They hold brainstorming sessions and ideation off-sites. They produce and analyze reams of market research. But if you wander through any of these innovation-fostering instruments, you’d be hard-pressed to run into an actual customer. What you would see are lots of executives and employees discussing what they think customers need and what products or services will help them. Seldom, however, do companies directly include customers in the innovation process, and that is a dangerous misstep. The most brilliant customer insights—the ones that drive game-changing innovation—rarely come from focus group rooms or market research surveys. They come, instead, from observing customers in their natural habitat. Nothing—not the most intense ideation session nor the most robust market research report—can compare with what you learn by simply going out “into the wild,” watching and listening to customers as they navigate through their day, as they use your products and services and as they (sometimes) bastardize those products and services to accommodate their needs. Automobile manufacturer Chrysler owes its dominance in the consumer minivan market to this concept of customer observation (technically called “ethnographic research”). For more than 30 years, the company has been the U.S. minivan sales leader, a position fortified over the decades by a tradition of customer-centric innovation. That approach was perhaps best exemplified by Chrysler’s 1996 introduction of the Dodge Caravan, the first U.S. minivan with two sliding doors. Previous models were equipped with only a passenger-side sliding door. Whereas other auto manufacturers just asked customers if they’d like a second sliding door (and didn’t sense much interest), Chrysler sent a team into the wild to see with their own eyes what minivan owners struggled with but might never have thought to share in a focus group. In a 2012 interview, Chris Theodore, one of the lead design engineers for the 1996 Caravan, recalled his team’s approach to the project: “We really had a great time. We looked at customers. We visited customers. We videotaped customers at rest stops, truck stops and lumber yards. That’s where we came up with all the ideas. From cupholders to tissue holders to rollout seats to the fourth door, these were all things that we saw the customer needed but didn’t volunteer when asked.” As Theodore and his team witnessed firsthand, when you observe customers in the wild, you discover things that even the best internal brainstorming sessions might not have revealed. But they also saw the inherent limitations in merely asking customers for their opinions, because people tend to have needs and frustrations that they would never think to vocalize to a market researcher. A great example of that comes from OXO, maker of popular houseware products like Good Grips. As Alex Lee, president of OXO, recounted at a 2008 conference, when the company was considering reinventing the measuring cup, it went to consumers and asked them straight out: “What’s wrong with your measuring cup?” In response, people mentioned things such as how measuring cups are often made of glass, so if they drop the cup, it breaks. They talked about how measuring cup handles get slippery when your hands are greasy, and how the cup itself can get hot depending on what’s poured into it. And that was pretty much all people had to say. Then the OXO team made a simple request of the consumers with whom they met: Show us how you measure with a measuring cup. And they saw people go through a ritual with which we’re all accustomed. They pour something into the cup, then bend down to check the measurement markings. Then they pour a little more and bend down again. Over and over. Yet no consumer mentioned this as a problem. It’s an aspect of the measuring cup user experience that was so ingrained in everyone’s psyche that no one thought to question it—except the team at OXO. By observing people actually using the product, they exposed inefficiencies in the customer experience that indicated the measuring cup was indeed ripe for reinvention. That led to the launch of OXO’s now famous “angled measuring cup”—a cup that lets you read measurement markings by looking straight down, obviating the need to repeatedly fill, bend and check. The company sold millions of these cups in just the first couple of years they were on the market. It’s worth noting that both OXO and Chrysler, when they sought to incorporate the customer perspective into their innovation efforts, did so by observing and questioning consumers of their product. Both companies at the time relied heavily on distribution partners (houseware retailers and auto dealers)—entities that they might even have viewed as customers. Yet when it came time to look at the world from the customer’s perspective, while they may have engaged distributors in the exercise, it was never done to the exclusion of the end consumer. This is a critical point for any company that works through sales intermediaries but wishes to foster customer-centric innovation. You can’t define “the customer” as simply the next person in the distribution chain. By doing so, you might very well miss out on important insights that are difficult to capture in any other way. While lots of companies tend to exclude customers from their innovation efforts, the oversight is probably even more pronounced within the insurance industry. Many industry executives are puzzled at the idea of observing customers. After all, insurance—unlike cars or housewares—isn’t something people use every day. Even though insurance may be a relatively low-interaction business, there are still plenty of opportunities to observe customers “using” the product. The key is to reject the traditional and very parochial view that customers only use an insurance product at claim time. The insurance customer experience is shaped by many types of episodes and touch points: research and purchase, underwriting and issue, online and offline service, billing and payments, premium audits, loss control reviews and, of course, claims. These are all examples of customers interacting with their insurance product, and as such, they afford meaningful opportunities to observe and learn. If insurers ever do try to incorporate the customer view, it usually happens relative to product development. And while that’s commendable, true customer-centric innovation requires a broader view around when and where to solicit an external perspective. That means spending time observing customers when, for example, they receive their initial policy package. Or watching when they try to interpret a premium billing notice and then pay it online. Or seeing what steps they go through to prepare for a premium audit. Or witnessing every stressor they’re saddled with when their business is interrupted or their home is flooded. Great things happen when you break free from the four walls of your office, venture into the wild and immerse yourself in the customer experience. You see things from an entirely new vantage point. You gain insight into how to enhance your products and services. You spark ideas for satisfying not-yet-obvious customer needs. There’s no single right way to cultivate innovation within a company. However, no matter what ideation approach you employ, the important thing is to make sure customers are included. And not just included in a cursory way, with a few focus groups or research surveys. It’s about including their perspective in an immersive way, by observing customers in their natural habitat, as they interact with your products and services. Once you do that, your company’s innovation engine will really start to fire on all cylinders.

It is time to step up automation in commercial lines, and you can do just that with a powerfully rich combination of enhanced technology capabilities in the key areas of underwriting and policy administration – a combination that lowers cost, simplifies doing business, makes it easier to enter new markets and significantly improves underwriting outcomes. Modern policy administration systems for commercial lines have matured and expanded. Many now offer automation assistance to a few aspects of the underwriting process, and a handful even address select parts of the quoting transaction process. But the news is that exciting, next-generation underwriting technologies and solutions are delivering automation directly to the desk of the underwriter and assisting in the management of the entire underwriting process. These capabilities are enabling more insightful and timely service to the agent: a significantly streamlined process and workflow; rapid, if not immediate, turnaround of quotations; precision pricing; better risk selection – all in a user-friendly, collaborative environment. While all commercial lines insurers are able to benefit from some level of increased underwriting automation, this enriched level of underwriting finesse is particularly important to insurers that are writing mid- to large market risks and even highly specialized and complex risks, especially those that require negotiation and collaboration with the agent or broker. Insurers that are not paying close attention to what is being implemented by some of the market leaders are likely to be burdened with higher underwriting expense and saddled with less effective underwriting outcomes. If this automation plays out as projected, it might become a continual struggle to match the level of service that leaders are providing to agents and brokers – a struggle that could leave some insurance companies in the dust. So why haven't all commercial insurers installed these next-generation underwriting technologies and solutions – the very approaches that would put them in a leadership position or at least enable them to keep up with the mainstreamers of tomorrow? The answer boils down to a disconnect in linking desired business capabilities to the available technology capabilities and, perhaps of more importance, two major misconceptions. First, there is a misunderstanding relative to what a modern policy administration system can do for commercial lines underwriting. Some mistakenly believe that a modern policy administration system can and will provide next-generation underwriting automation for the underwriter. Second, there are misperceptions about the complexity involved in managing any overlaps or duplications that exist between the policy systems and underwriting solutions. The reality is that advanced underwriting solutions and technologies coupled with a modern policy administration system create a powerful combination that delivers a tangible competitive advantage. It is indeed possible to transform the commercial lines underwriting process. This is a maturing area for solutions with new entries in the marketplace. These solutions now offer a rich and complete set of capabilities specifically designed for commercial lines underwriting – solutions that align well with the changing needs of the business and also capitalize on developing opportunities. These solutions really step it up for commercial lines insurers by applying the right level of automation to properly balance the science and the art of underwriting, to deliver real competitive advantage today and place desirable business that stands the test of time on the books. Insurers seeking new capabilities need to look closely at these new offerings. Yes, the overlaps with what a modern policy administration system does are real, but this can be managed without great difficulty. Any perception of extreme complexity is typically misguided. The value an insurer can achieve from the powerful combination of a modern policy system and a complete suite of advanced underwriting solutions will far outweigh any effort involved. I have been conducting research on, tracking, and reporting on both underwriting and policy administration capabilities in commercial lines for more than 13 years. These are exciting times for the industry. Real opportunities for stepping up to the challenges of the increasingly complex world of commercial insurance are here. The smart insurers will capitalize and become intelligently nimble – realizing their reward in profitability and market share. The rest will follow, struggling to catch up and stay in the game.

1. You will gain the knowledge you need to truly understand the overall property/casualty insurance industry at a high level.
2. You will get access to membership in the CPCU Society both locally and nationally, which will open up amazing networking opportunities with the leaders of our industry.
3. Only 4% of our industry has achieved the CPCU, so it immediately puts you in the top echelon of the industry when it comes to education.
4. CPCU opens the door to promotions and new positions. Getting the interview for better positions becomes much easier with the highly respected CPCU letters next to your name.
5. The average CPCU is 54 years old. With so many retirements happening in our industry, young CPCUs are in very high demand.
6. Many of the local CPCU Society chapters are looking for young talent for their boards, giving you lots of opportunity to gain experience in a leadership role.
7. At around $4,000 for the whole program, it's much less costly than an MBA.
8. Chances are your company will pay 100% of the cost of the program and pay for the trip to the annual meeting, and some even give bonuses for each test passed and for completing the program.
9. It shows a real commitment to the industry, which makes companies much more likely to take a risk on you and offer you a stretch assignment.
10. The average CPCU makes 29% more than non-CPCUs with the same job title.
11. If you start today, you have just enough time to finish in time for Hawaii 2016!!!!

Share this article with those at your company who would benefit from getting their CPCU! If this article inspires you to get going on CPCU, let me know in the comments, and I will personally call you to answer any questions you might have about the CPCU program! :-D Already have your CPCU? Tell us: How has earning your CPCU improved your career? How did you decide to start pursuing it? Comment below.

For many years, Americans did not need to worry about contracting the once-widespread disease called the measles. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially declared measles eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. In January 2015 alone, there were already more confirmed cases in the U.S. than are typically diagnosed in a full year. Public health officials are very concerned and have moved to aggressively contain this very contagious, but 100% preventable, disease. The current outbreak and surge in confirmed cases of measles, most notably in California, has been scientifically linked by researchers from MIT and Boston's Children Hospital to the outbreak that began in Disneyland in December 2014. Medical researchers believe the spread of the current measles outbreak is solely because of low vaccination rates in certain communities based on a widespread but false link between childhood immunizations and autism. International health officials have called the link between the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and autism "the most damaging public health hoax in the past 100 years."

Just last week on April 21, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) released the findings of a comprehensive study using the health insurance data base of 95,000 children and found no overall link between autism and the MMR vaccine. The study also found no link for children with an autistic sibling. The study did find a lower vaccination rate for the younger siblings of children with autism based on parents' continued fears of a link. The JAMA study authors from the Lewin Group in Falls Church, Va., stated; "Consistent with studies in other populations, we observed no association between MMR vaccine and increased ASD (autism spectrum disorder) risk among privately insured children."

Despite the overwhelming medical evidence that the MMR vaccine is both very safe and highly effective, anti-vaccination groups still dispute the facts and are warning parents not to be pressured into having their children vaccinated, which is the crux of this public health problem. On the same day that the JAMA study was released, CBS Evening News ran a segment on the current U.S. Surgeon General Vice Admiral Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, or "America's Doctor," who appeared on Sesame Street to promote childhood vaccinations. CBS closed the segment with; "Vaccination critics don't see anything cute about this video after the controversy over the recent measles outbreak." Really? There is no controversy. It was all based on a documented hoax.

The original belief that vaccinations cause autism was based on a reported study in 1988 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the U.K., which has since been 100% completely discredited. His report unnecessarily panicked many parents around the world, causing a sharp decline in the number of children getting the MMR vaccine. The false claims and widespread panic began when a British medical journal, the Lancet, published Wakefield's article. It was later determined that the author had multiple conflicts of interest, had manipulated evidence and had broken ethical research codes of conduct, including accepting funding by attorneys involved in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. The Lancet fully retracted the article, but not until 2010, when the editor-in-chief stated that the link was "totally false" and that the world-famous medical journal was "deceived." The Canadian Medical Journal in 2010 went on to state that the original research included a "callous disregard" for the "carefully selected" study group of only 12 children and that "several elements of this research were incorrect and contrary to findings of an earlier investigation." Dr. Wakefield subsequently lost his license to practice medicine in the U.K as a result of this fraudulent research.

These are the facts that parents need to know about the measles. Symptoms typically begin with a high fever, runny nose, sore throat and cough, which can easily be misdiagnosed as a simple cold or the flu. The incubation period is between seven and 18 days of exposure to the virus. It is very dangerous because people are contagious up to four days before the red rash appears and likely do not know they are infected. In addition, a room can still be contaminated as long as two hours after an infected person leaves. A single infected person can spread the disease to between 11 and 18 people. An unvaccinated person has a 90% chance of infection if exposed to the virus. The risk of serious complications and death is even greater for adults and infants than for children and teenagers. Rubella, known as the German measles, is also caused by the virus and is usually a mild form of the disease but is a very serious infection that causes miscarriages, still births or birth defects in unborn children when pregnant women get the disease.

Most people born prior to 1957 had the measles. The disease was once so prevalent that in New York City, in the first 10 weeks of 1933 alone, there were 10,000 cases and 434 deaths. The first vaccines developed began in 1958 and became widely available in 1963. Prior to 1963, there were three to four million cases of measles reported each year in the U.S., with 400 to 500 reported deaths annually.

Although many parents in the anti-vaccination movement believe the measles is not dangerous and the MMR vaccine is, the medical facts state otherwise. In fact, from 2001 to 2013, 28% of children in the U.S. with the measles had to be hospitalized. Public health officials fear that many more cases will develop from this outbreak of a very preventable disease, unless aggressive public health measures are undertaken. What is required is an extensive education campaign including widespread vaccination of the unvaccinated U.S. population, starting with infants at 12 months and a booster shot at age four to six, prior to pre-school or kindergarten. Unvaccinated adults also need to be vaccinated.

There are a number of myths associated with the measles vaccination that keep some parents from protecting their children. The controversy surrounding the anti-vaccination movement is based largely on parents' philosophical beliefs against the vaccination. Dr. James Cherry, a pediatric infectious disease expert at UCLA, believes that the recent outbreak in California is "100% connected to the anti-immunization campaign." He went on the say that there are "some pretty dumb people out there."

Medical researchers from MIT and Boston Children's Hospital documented that the rapid spread of measles from the Disneyland outbreak, beginning in mid-December 2014, indicated a significant percentage of the population exposed had low vaccination rates. These researchers determined that the exposed population rate might have been as low as 50% and likely no higher than 86%. These rates are well below the 96%-99% level known as "herd immunity," which is required to prevent future outbreaks.

The anti-vaccination movement includes those parents who believe that there is no medical risk from not vaccinating their child, that the disease is extinct, that doctors and drug companies push vaccinations for their own profit, and that you can get the measles from the vaccination. Still others believe the false and discredited link to autism. For the parents who are against vaccination, they not only put their own children at risk, they dramatically increase the risk for the general population who are unable to get the vaccination, such as infants under the age of one, and children and adults with weak immune systems, including people with cancer and other diseases.

Measles is still widespread throughout the world. Travelers from overseas continue to bring the disease into the U.S on a daily basis. The anti-vaccination conspiracy movement belief that doctors and insurance companies promote the vaccination to increase profit is absurd and is negated by the fact that health insurance companies pay for the vaccinations at no cost to the patient. Similar to the flu shot that is a dead virus from which someone cannot get the flu, it is almost impossible to get the measles from the MMR vaccine.

The CDC states there is a 1 in 3,000 chance of a mild allergic reaction to the MMR vaccine but a 90% chance of infection if an unvaccinated child is exposed to the virus. Parents should do the math. In addition, a blood product containing an immune globulin is available for people who are medically unable to immunize with the MMR vaccine for any reason.

What parents need to know is that the scientific community has found no evidence whatsoever of a link between MMR vaccine and autism or any other childhood development disorder. In addition to the just-released JAMA study, large epidemiological studies conducted by the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.K. National Health Services all found no link between MMR and autism. This original false research has done significant damage to the field of public health and has done serious harm to children of parents who were misled by this report, which resulted in unnecessary deaths, severe impairment and permanent injury in unvaccinated children. Because of wide dissemination of this discredited link, there were many lawsuits by parents with children with autism, but a special court convened by the National Vaccination Injury Compensation program denied all compensation claims in U.S. federal court against manufacturers of the vaccine in 2009.

The recent measles outbreak in California is what has spiked the "controversy" over vaccinations, which has made the national news in 2015 including; CNN, the New York Times and Time Magazine. There have been 178 documented new cases of the measles by late March by the CDC, including five unvaccinated Disneyland workers in Orange County, and the outbreak is now spreading across the U.S.

Although traditional public health issues are typically rooted in poor or rural areas of the country, this current measles outbreak is concentrated in wealthy neighborhoods in California and surrounding states. Although it is reported that only 3.1% of parents in California refuse to vaccinate their children, for health or religious reasons, this number is misleading. In fact, many areas within California have double-digit exemption rates from vaccinations, with some areas as high as 50%.

The MMR vaccination is the best way to prevent disease both for the individual and the general population. It works by making the body produce anti-bodies against the virus. The measles vaccination is recommended for all people 12 months of age or older, and especially people traveling overseas. MMR vaccinations are supported by the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Mayo Clinic, to name just a few.

An extensive education campaign is required to overcome false and unfounded fears among parents of unvaccinated children. Legislation is needed to strengthen immunization laws requiring all school-age children to receive the measles vaccination, except for those with a medical exemption certified by a licensed physician. Public health officials should also track and verify both statewide and local immunization rates and should mandate that schools maintain an up-to-date list of pupils with exemptions so they can be excluded quickly if an outbreak occurs, temporarily exclude unvaccinated students and teachers from attending school and offer measles vaccinations for unvaccinated students and teachers.

The MMR vaccine is 99% effective and provides immunity for a lifetime. It was once considered one of the major public health campaign success stories. Now, health officials fear the potential for a public health crisis based on blatantly false research and unfounded fears. The CDC points out that people who refuse to vaccinate usually live in the same community. "When measles find its way into these communities, outbreaks are more likely to occur." Consumers and parents should confirm with their doctor that they or their children do not have any allergic reactions to other medications. They should also verify that they do not have an immune deficiency condition, which may cause side effects and decrease the vaccine's usefulness.

The myth that childhood vaccinations lead to autism was based largely on a completely discredited medical research hoax. This myth is still being widely perpetuated today not only by the anti-vaccination conspiracy movement led by Hollywood celebrities but also by the mainstream media.

My heart breaks for the parents of children with autism, including a close family friend. But it breaks my heart even more knowing that thousands of children are unnecessarily exposed to unimaginable consequences of birth defects and death from something so preventable. Parents need to listen to the Surgeon General, the CDC, the Mayo Clinic and the American Academy of Pediatrics and not Hollywood celebrities with zero background in public health.

I would like to thank my research assistant and co-author Ms. Chandler Berke who is a public health/science undergraduate student at the College of Charleston in South Carolina.

Managing partners at many insurance defense law firms across the country are on an elusive quest to get on more insurance panels. Defense law firms traditionally build client relationships with insurance carriers, self-insured entities and municipalities over many years. In today’s rapidly changing legal climate, however, these relationships are increasingly being replaced with a formalized application process. Being named as panel counsel is not easy. For starters, it is frequently difficult to determine who is in charge of the hiring process. This article provides some insight into the panel counsel selection process. How to Become Panel Counsel for an Insurance Company At one level, every insurance company panel is different. Listed below are the most common ways that insurance companies are organized to manage the panel process:

• National overseers may review all panel counsel applications
• Regional managers may have responsibility for multiple states
• State-level coordinators may be the point of entry
• Panels for multi-subsidiary insurance companies may be consolidated in one division
• Purchasing departments increasingly are screening interested vendors
• Online applications are also becoming popular

In some insurance companies, there may be multiple points of entry that could be used to gain consideration for a panel. Many carriers, for example, maintain multiple panels. Examples might include a separate employment practices (EPLI) panel or a construction defect panel. There may be an independent panel manager for each of these claims areas who has some independent hiring capabilities. While a variety of panels adds opportunities to counsel selection, it also adds to the complexity of the business development effort. There are also many similarities in the panel application process:

• Personal referrals are the best way to gain panel consideration
• Periodic panel reviews (every one to two years) may be used
• Even if a law firm gets on a panel, it may take time to establish a consistent stream of new cases

Finding the Panel Manager There are several ways to identify the best point of contact within an insurance company, including:

• Ask around within your network
• Attend industry conferences
• Conduct Internet research
• Review insurance company websites
• Make telephone calls to the carrier

Insurance company websites typically do not specifically identify an individual as the actual panel manager, but they might point an interested party in the right direction. Claims adjusters used to play a significant role in panel counsel selection, but this is becoming less common. A law firm in search of new insurance defense panel positions may, however, find it worthwhile to explore professional meetings of insurance adjusters in its geographic area, particularly if there is an active claims association. A recommendation from a local adjuster can certainly help to reinforce a panel application. Starting the panel research process from a blank piece of paper can be an extremely time-consuming and frustrating process. Trying to balance this research with the demands of a very busy law practice is particularly challenging. Background on the Insurance Market There are 2,700 property and casualty (P&C) insurance companies in the U.S., according to the U.S. Federal Insurance Office and A.M. Best. Insurers are regulated at the state rather than the federal level, meaning that each state maintains a department of insurance with information on the insurance carriers admitted to do business in that state. Insurers with primary corporate headquarters located in a given state are called domestic insurers. Law firms starting a search for panel positions may find data posted on the website of their state’s insurance commissioner to be useful. Annual market share reports are frequently available, which identify the top 25 carriers in the state by service line, such as auto, commercial general liability, medical liability, etc. Additionally, the department of insurance within each state typically provides an online list of all carriers admitted to sell insurance in that state. While this may appear to be helpful at first glance, the researcher who downloads a list of admitted carriers is frequently faced with hundreds of different insurance company names to sift through. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that many of the carriers admitted within a state are actually subsidiaries of larger insurance companies. Business Development Is a Numbers Game As discussed earlier, a personal introduction to the panel manager is generally the most productive approach. In today’s world of carrier consolidation and litigation centralization, however, it can be difficult to stay abreast of panel managers. The law firm is faced with the challenge of first identifying the panel manager and collecting accurate contact information. Next, the firm’s managing partner or lead rainmaker needs to reach out to the manager and make an introduction to the firm. An in-person meeting is ideal, but difficult to achieve initially. Generally, an introductory letter or email can be used to try and arrange a phone call to start the business development process. Here are some of the responses a law firm is likely to get from panel managers during this early outreach effort:

• Request for more information about rates and services
• Agreement to set up an in-person meeting (which is likely to involve travel)
• Notification of the panel review cycle, with a promise of notification prior to the next cycle
• Indication that the panel is full, with a promise to contact the firm in the event of a conflict
• Silence (meaning no response)

While many law firms optimistically hope to be engaged by one out of every two or three carriers they contact, the more common reality is that business development can be a long and arduous process. A law firm is best served by constantly screening dozens of insurance carriers, self-insureds and other prospective clients for business development opportunities. Firms that are expanding geographically or into new product lines may also be creating panel opportunities. Insurance companies that are consolidating because of mergers or the growth of in-house counsel should be avoided. Never Stop Marketing The best time to start looking for new clients is while the law firm is operating from a position of strength. Business development can have a long timeline, and it is impossible to predict when a prospect’s needs for legal services may develop. Delaying the start of a campaign until the law firm is desperate for new business is not advisable, because the firm may then be forced to accept a lower-quality client at less than ideal rates. After making an initial introduction to a carrier, the challenge is to keep the conversation going. Reaching out to the panel manager in a substantive way every four to six months can be an effective way to build a positive impression for the law firm. Meaningful ways to stay in touch can include the following:

• Send an article written by the law firm.
• Keep carriers informed of favorable case outcomes
• Offer to teach an in-house CLE
• Submit an analysis of pending legislation or emerging market trends
• Maintain an active social media profile, especially on LinkedIn

Dropping the ball on prospect communications, while understandable, can be deadly to a business development effort. Rejection is a common first response, but the successful rainmaker will be best served by considering a negative initial response from a panel manager to simply mean “not now.” An exception is the carrier that says something like, “We have used ABC law firm exclusively for the past 10 years and have no reason to change” or “Our case volume is so low that we handle most matters internally.” The administrative assistant to the panel manager can also be your friend. Treat all members of the panel management team respectfully to build a positive impression of the law firm. Industry conferences can be an ideal forum for meeting panel managers. Of course, many law firms are thinking the same thing, so it can be helpful to make advance appointments. The Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) and DRI are two leading organizations that bring claims executives together with insurance defense lawyers. Specialized organizations targeting selected industries can also be helpful. Examples include the Trucking Industry Defense Association (TIDA) and the National Retail and Restaurant Association (NRRDA). Maintain Attractive Marketing Materials The business development cycle will generate the best results when backed by attractive and informative marketing materials. The law firm’s website is an important foundation for any marketing effort, because the attorney bio pages are frequently the starting point in a prospect’s effort to become better acquainted with a candidate. A “beauty contest” can be an apt descriptor for the competitive process of vying for coveted panel positions. While the primary goal is to have a law firm stand out from the competition in substantive ways, the techniques outlined below can significantly enhance an RFP or business presentation.

• Graphic design. Extend the law firm’s brand by using the logo, color scheme and photo styles from the website.

• Attorney photos. Four-color head shots start the get-acquainted process and help the prospect to envision a lawyer in a court representation.

• Credential icons. Martindale, A.M. Best and the CLM logos all have high recognition value within the insurance industry.

When including a list of clients or references, client confidentiality guidelines suggest that the law firm first obtain written informed consent from each client. In Summary Marketing is a process and not an event. Managing partners of insurance defense law firms are advised to get started on a serious business development effort, perhaps backed to an active law firm marketing committee. Staying actively committed to an expansion effort, while challenging, will yield the best results in the long run.

There was an interesting article in Medical Economics magazine titled, “Lopsided Value: Why cost may ‘level the playing field’ for independent, office-based physicians.” The article by Tammy Worth describes how, when a hospital system buys a physician practice, the hospital can then consider the doctor’s office part of its "outpatient" facility and therefore charge a facility fee in addition to the doctor’s professional fee. This holds true for when hospitals bill Medicare or private insurance carriers. As an example, the article states how an EKG at a doctor’s office cost $188 before it was bought by a hospital. If that same EKG is billed as an "outpatient" hospital service, it costs $452.89—more than twice as much, because of that additional facility fee. In another example, an office visit for a complex new patient appointment costs $200 at an physician practice not owned by a hospital. However, if the hospital buys the practice and charges the additional facility fee, the price goes up to $340—170% as much. Medicare and private insurance carriers have been slow to adjust their reimbursements, so, as of now, they are just paying these higher fees. What does this mean to employee benefits professionals and healthcare consumers?

• If you do nothing to your plan, your costs will go up because the provider community is consolidating and using that consolidation to charge more. Even if your population does not use more medical services, your costs will go up because the cost per service is going up.
• If you are a healthcare consumer and are going to doctor’s offices that are owned by hospitals, expect an additional facility charge and find out how much it will be in advance. It could double the price of your medical care. You might want to vote with your feet and go elsewhere.