Tag Archives: brokers

Who Owns the Customer Experience?

Who owns the customer? For insurance companies that work through intermediaries, it’s a controversial question that often stirs spirited debate between carriers and producers. But there’s another question that’s even more important: Who owns the customer experience?

Regardless of who insurers think owns the customer, the reality is that key parts of the policyholder experience are shaped by external parties—the agents, brokers and financial professionals who distribute insurers’ products.

This presents a difficult challenge for insurance companies, many of whom have kicked off customer-experience improvement initiatives in recent years. After all, how do you holistically manage the customer experience when you don’t control it in its entirety?

Some carriers skirt the issue by focusing on what they do control—customer touchpoints such as billing, correspondence, 800-line interactions, etc. That’s a reasonable approach to start with, but it has its limits.

Consumers don’t always know where the lines are drawn between carrier and agent, where the handoffs occur between the two parties. Their experience, and overall brand impression, is shaped by a wide array of touchpoints spanning pre-sale to post-sale, field office to home office.

For this reason, it’s neither practical nor prudent for carriers to ignore those elements of the customer experience that are administered by their field producers.

But how can a carrier insert itself into aspects of the customer experience that are clearly overseen by the producer? How can the insurer propagate customer-experience best practices beyond the walls of its headquarters and into its field offices, where so many significant consumer interactions occur?

Whether the company works with captive agents or independent brokers, this can be a thorny issue. Many financial professionals consider themselves to be entrepreneurs, and they have strongly held opinions about how to run their businesses.

Overcoming that sentiment requires some diplomacy. If producers sense that the carrier is encroaching on their territory, dictating the “right” way to do business, then friction will ensue, and the insurer’s customer-experience improvements will be relegated to the home office—a poor outcome for carrier, distributor and their shared customers.

So, if you’re an insurer looking to engage your field force in a constructive effort to improve the customer experience, consider these five tips:

1. Acknowledge shared ownership

Disarm territorial sensitivities by readily acknowledging that you don’t own the whole customer experience. Neither the carrier nor the distributor can claim such ownership, because each plays an instrumental role in shaping policyholder impressions.

Such an admission by carrier executives sends an important signal to the field, opening the door to a more collaborative approach for shaping the customer experience, from pre-sale to post-sale.

2. Make the case for action

Demonstrate to field partners, in a vivid and compelling way, why focusing on an improved customer experience is smart business.

The field may acknowledge that happy, loyal customers are good for business —but do they truly grasp how powerfully the customer experience can influence the top and bottom lines? Particularly in the insurance industry, given the economics of up-front commissions and long product tails, small improvements in retention can have a surprisingly significant impact on profitability. Even just from a sales standpoint, an increase in qualified referrals from positive word-of-mouth can be a game changer for any insurance agent/broker.

Perhaps one of the most convincing illustrations of how a great customer experience drives business results is an analysis of stock market performance for customer-experience “leaders” and “laggards”: For the past six years, customer-experience leaders generated a total return that was three times higher on average than the S&P 500.

This is the kind of head-turning data that insurers should put in front of field producers who are skeptical about investing time, energy or money into improving the customer experience.

Whether you’re a public or a private company, the message here is clear: A great customer experience pays off, paving the way for higher revenues, lower operating expenses and better overall financial performance.

3. Educate and equip

Given their entrepreneurial disposition, most agents and brokers won’t take kindly to having the mechanics of their organization’s customer experience dictated by some far-removed insurance company.

Instead of prescribing solutions, carriers would be better served providing tools and education to their field offices. In this way, the insurer can help equip its producers with the knowledge they need to effectively diagnose, and then differentiate, their organization’s customer experience.

That’s a much better solution over the long term, as it helps the field office embed customer-experience management best practices into its operations, as opposed to just tweaking a few isolated customer touchpoints.

Note that this is about more than just traditional “customer service” training. It’s about giving the field office a strategic understanding of the operating principles that customer experience legends rely on to create raving fans.

What great companies like Amazon, Apple, Disney and Costco have in common is an ideology around the design and delivery of their customer experience (see the sidebar that follows). Help your field understand and embrace a similar ideology, and you’ll influence their business practices for years to come.
4. Open the feedback spigot

One example of an ideological component that customer-experience legends share is a commitment to soliciting and acting on customer feedback.

Oftentimes, there is an arrogance in organizations— a belief among executives that they know what delights and what frustrates their customers, what will strengthen their brand experience and what will weaken it.

But as J.C. Penney learned during its recent meltdown, businesspeople can have a myopic view when it comes to understanding what truly makes customers happy.

Help your field offices avoid that pitfall by supplementing internal views with external ones. Carriers can use their purchasing power to bring robust “voice of the customer” survey programs to their affiliated agents and brokers. At the very least, they can offer field offices tutorials about feedback instruments.

Armed with these feedback instruments, your field offices can cultivate customer insights that will help them first shape, and then continually recalibrate, their experience improvement efforts.

5. Co-create the experience

For some parts of the insurance customer experience, field and home office interactions are so intertwined that it makes sense to tackle them with a united front (application and underwriting being a classic example).

This is perhaps the highest step on the customer-experience management maturity curve, where manufacturer and distributor work together to shape an experience that’s impressive and seamless.

Assuming all parties have been educated in the same customer-experience engineering principles, it can be valuable to bring field producers and home office representatives together to dissect, diagnose and redesign a particular piece of the policyholder journey.

By incorporating field and home office perspectives up front, a joint experience design effort is likely to yield a better outcome for all involved.

In today’s social media-connected, information-rich marketplace, customers are more empowered than ever. Nobody truly “owns” them.

But ownership of the customer experience is a different matter altogether. Great companies do take ownership of that, by very deliberately managing the many touchpoints that shape customer perceptions. Great companies even seek to influence parts of the experience that, on first blush, might seem out of their scope. (Consider how Amazon famously obsesses over the experience of physically opening a package once you receive it from their shipping partners.)

For insurance companies that don’t sell directly to consumers, the path to a differentiated customer experience must cross through their field offices—hence the importance of involving and influencing that key constituency. By deftly engaging distributors in the customer-experience improvement effort, insurers can make progress on two important fronts—creating a more positive impression not just on their policyholders, but also on their producers.

The 'Secret Sauce' of Customer-Experience Legends

Companies that do customer experience well tend to use a specific set of operating principles to help shape their customer interactions, from sales to service. The principles that elicit customer delight are remarkably consistent across industries and even demographics.

Below are three examples of such principles, which fans of Amazon, Disney and Ritz-Carlton are sure to recognize:

1. Make it effortless

Be it at point of sale or point of service, the less effort customers must invest to accomplish something with your company, the more likely they are to be loyal to your firm. Look for opportunities to minimize the amount of physical and mental effort that people must expend to, among other things, understand your value proposition, navigate your product portfolio, interpret your customer communications and secure post-sale service. (Case in point: Amazon’s patented One-Click purchase button, which makes it absolutely effortless to buy from them.)

2. Capitalize on cognitive science

Customer experience is about perception, and there are proven ways to leverage principles of cognitive science (i.e., how the mind works) to improve people’s perceptions about their interactions with your business. One example of this is giving customers the “perception of control,” because it’s human nature that we feel better when we’re in control of things and ambiguity is removed from our lives. Something as simple as clearly setting expectations for customers can make all the difference—e.g., how long will I be standing in this line, how many steps are in this purchase process, when will I next hear from you? (Case in point: DisneyWorld’s FastPass, which lets park guests avoid standing in line for popular attractions, making them feel like they’re more in control of their vacation.)

3. Be an advocate

It’s rare that people see companies paying more than lip service to the concept of putting customers first. For this reason, when people come across a company that truly advocates for its customers in a very tangible way, it cultivates stronger engagement and loyalty. One decidedly low-tech but highly effective way to accomplish this is by fostering a workplace culture of exceptional ownership. When your front line—the people actually delivering the customer experience—take personal accountability for owning every request that comes to them, it projects a refreshing sense of advocacy that will distinguish your firm from the “not my job… pass the buck” mentality that customers typically encounter. (Case in point: Ritz-Carlton, whose staff, when asked for directions within the hotel, will refrain from pointing guests in the right direction—instead, they personally escort them, to ensure the guest gets exactly where they need to be.)

This article first appeared in LOMA Resource.

A Dangerous Misunderstanding on the Reinsurance Broker’s Role

Reinsurance represents one of the most valuable but least understood assets for insurance companies. Unfortunately, it is sometimes, without much further consideration, assigned to be monitored by someone at the insurance company who is not savvy about reinsurance and who has other, primary job duties. As a result, by default, it can be the broker who sold the program who is left to advise management on such important issues as recovery, premium calculations and interpretation. Many insurance companies act as if the broker is a fiduciary working for them. This approach provides for a direct conflict of interest that the company ceding responsibility is often totally unaware of. Deferring reinsurance oversight to the broker is not an appropriate course of action.The misunderstood relationship with the broker

A recent court case (Workmen’s Auto Insurance Co. v. Guy Carpenter & Co., B211660 (c/w B213853)) specifically determined that the reinsurance broker does not owe a fiduciary duty to a reinsured company. The court rejected the company’s argument that the broker, as the company’s agent, had heightened duties including those of honesty, loyalty, integrity and faithful service, as well as a duty to make a full and fair disclosure of facts.

It was asserted that the broker breached its duty by failing to secure timely payments, failing to secure the best available terms of reinsurance and acting with the intent to injure the company by incurring inflated commissions. The court said the question was whether the broker was the company’s agent and, if so, whether that agency imposed fiduciary duties on the broker as a matter of law such that the broker can be held civilly liable for breaching those duties.

The court said that an “independent insurance broker is not an agent of the insurer, but rather is an agent of the insured.” But the court also said that a broker “cannot be sued for breach of fiduciary duty in a manner that conflicts with existing insurance law. In reaching this conclusion, we confess that agency law and insurance law are in conflict, resulting in a legal conundrum.”

The company suggested to the court that case law and statutory law involving insurance brokers should not be applied to reinsurance intermediary-brokers because they have far more complex and comprehensive relationships with their clients. The court responded that such an argument should have been brought up sooner and ultimately allowed the broker to prevail because of procedural rather than substantive issues.

Comparing the relationship of an insurance broker with an insured to the reinsurance broker’s relationship with a reinsured is amazingly naïve. Somehow, it escaped the court’s attention that the reinsurance transaction is not strictly regulated, and that applying the same rules to a relatively non-regulated transaction was inappropriate at best. Perhaps the court believed that insurance case law developed in a vacuum, and that it was not tempered by regulatory oversight and legislative consumerism.

Still, the author assumes that the court would apply its same “(il)-logic” to other reinsurance brokers.

The aha moment

The broker itself defines “broker” as a reinsurance intermediary that negotiates contracts on behalf of the reinsured. Yet the broker says it does not have the traditional duties imposed in the agency-principal relationship.

The attitude by the broker is, in my opinion, the single biggest takeaway for companies ceding management of their reinsurance. It is confirmation that is incorrect to believe that your broker owes you the duties of honesty, loyalty, integrity and faithful service as well as a duty to make a full and fair disclosure of facts, and that it is acceptable for brokers to generate inflated commissions. It is now been made clear that, when push comes to shove, the standards to which your reinsurance broker is held are not really a whole lot different than when you are buying a used car, where statements made concerning the sale are considered “puffing”; just an opinion or judgment that is not made as a representation of fact.

Companies that delegate reinsurance risk management to a broker may themselves be breaching fiduciary duties to stakeholders. That is, while the case concluded that the broker does not have a fiduciary duty to the reinsured, courts are quick to confirm that officers of the reinsured do have a fiduciary duty to the reinsured.   Obviously, officers cannot meet their fiduciary duties by assigning those duties to someone whom the court has found to have no fiduciary obligation to the reinsured.

I do not fault the particular broker in its defense. The issue is not the particular broker in the case or brokers in general; the real issue is the willful ignorance of the reinsured. Not questioning the motives of the broker is naïve. Remember, the broker, like the used car salesman,  makes his money based on how much comes out of your pocket in the sales transaction.  Risk management requires truly understanding the environment in which you operate.

The above case is not unique in bringing to light the ignorance of courts concerning reinsurance. Judges have been known to throw up their hands when dealing with reinsurance and admit that they do not understand what is being presented.  In the case of Indiana Lumbermans Mutual Insurance Co. v. Reinsurance Results, Inc., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Case Number: 07-1823, the court stated:

“The lawyers’ oral arguments were excellent. But their briefs, although well written and professionally competent, were difficult for us judges to understand because of the density of the reinsurance jargon in them. There is nothing wrong with a specialized vocabulary – for use by specialists. Federal district and circuit judges, however, with the partial exception of the judges of the court of appeals for the Federal Circuit (which is semi-specialized), are generalists. We hear very few cases involving reinsurance, and cannot possibly achieve expertise in reinsurance practices except by the happenstance of having practiced in that area before becoming a judge, as none of us has.”

Ignorance is only part of the problem

The reinsured holds much power but is afraid of using it. The playing field is certainly not level to begin with, but all too often the ceding company’s management exacerbates this lopsided power arrangement. It is amazing how ceding company management knows instinctively that their clients have many alternatives, but somehow believe that they, as a client of the reinsurance broker, have no alternatives. Companies often do everything they can to protect the “long-term broker relationship.”

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding by ceding company management of their own fiduciary duties. The fiduciary duties of officers of insurance companies are to the company stakeholders, not to the reinsurance brokers.

This lack of understanding should be of particular interest to regulators overseeing insurance. All states now have a statute or regulation pertaining to recognizing a company in “hazardous financial condition”; one telltale sign is the lack of competence and fitness of those in management. Breaching a fiduciary duty could indicate lack of fitness.

Most insurance companies are ultimately in business to make money and serve their clients. Mistakenly believing that you are in business to make friends and keep long-term broker relations will put you out of business.  Reinsurance is a commodity. Thinking of it as anything else makes you an uninformed consumer.

Your reality – the Wild West

Your business (insurance) is a highly regulated one that owes a fiduciary duty to its clients. To stay in business, you must depend on reinsurance, offered by an entity (reinsurers) that is, for all intents and purposes, unregulated. Additionally, this commodity must be purchased in certain quantities or an agency (AM Best) that gauges how viable you are will let everyone know that you face questions.  You may have to go through a salesman (broker) that the courts have determined owes you no fiduciary duties, and whose income is based on how much it can sell you. That is, there is no  incentive for “your” agent to advise you of ways to reduce your costs. To people in other industries, it would appear that “your” agent actually doesn’t work for you.

If the commodity you purchased turns out not to be what it was said to be, then you must arbitrate the matter with the entity that offered it. Reinsurance arbitration has proven to be every bit as costly and time-consuming as litigation but offers none of the advantages or safety nets provided by the courts. In spite of naïve judges, the court system is a better option. Judges are naïve only because reinsurance transactions so seldom land in court. Courts are a vastly superior forum that offers reason, rules and stare decisis, where precedent is followed, records are published and the same issues do not have to be determined multiple times. In arbitration, if a decision is made that is unfavorable, you may not appeal the decision. If this same scenario has been arbitrated before, you will never know it, because there is neither precedent nor a record. The outcome will not be determined by legal construction of the commodity you purchased and a set of interpretive construction rules but by the “custom and practice” of the industry, which coincidentally is neither written down nor uniformly agreed upon or adhered to. Arbitration only provides an advantage for the unregulated party to the transaction; it in no way benefits the regulated party. If the commodity you purchased does not measure up to the set of standards your regulator imposes, your regulator will punish you, not the entity that produced the commodity. Additionally, your clients to whom you owe a fiduciary duty have no recourse against the producer of the defective commodity you purchased even if it caused you to go out of business.

Substitute ANY other industry for insurance, reinsurance and broker in this scenario and you will quickly discern the absolute draconian forum in which you must operate.  Now you can see why I don’t believe that the ceding company has a reasonable basis to believe that deferring reinsurance oversight to the broker is appropriate.

The next time you sign your broker-of-record contract, try this experiment:

Ask to insert the clause  – “the broker agrees and understands that it is acting as a fiduciary for the Company in all matters in which it services the Company, with all duties and standards imposed in a fiduciary capacity.” While the court was not willing to assign such duties, the broker is free to contractually assume them!

Friday Tip For Agents & Brokers: Your Best 30 Seconds

In this video, Tom Searcy — an expert in large account sales and the founder of Big Hunt Sales — shares with agents and brokers three keys to maximizing their influence when first meeting with potential clients.

Recent research has revealed these three baseline concepts:

  1. Information = Confidence. At your first meeting, your level of confidence will rise with the amount of information you have about the people with whom you are meeting. Doing your research before the meeting (through LinkedIn, Google, their website, etc.). Knowing background information on your potential client's representatives will give you something to talk or ask about.
  2. Body Language. Eye contact, smiling, and handshake are common elements of the first meeting. But do you know which of the three should last the longest?
  3. Say Something Specific.Use your research to introduce a question or comment that will help you frame future conversations.

Watch Tom's video above to learn more.

Outside Looking In

I found myself arguing an extremely silly point with an agency owner at a conference.  Everyone but the agent saw the silliness of his argument.  I explained the point every way imaginable, to no avail.  I could see from the looks on others’ faces, they were tiring of him not getting the point either.  If he had been one of the audience members watching someone else argue, he probably would have seen the errors in his thinking, too.  But, sometimes you just have to be outside looking in to see a point.

As a consultant, I very often find myself facing this type of situation.  The four points below are the most common positions held by agency owners that create immovable and serious roadblocks to their agencies’ success.  If any of these sound familiar to you, take a step outside of the situation and look back in.  You might see your position in a different light.

1.  We must write small accounts because you never know which one will turn into a large account. This commonly expressed position presumes an inability to identify clients with great potential versus those with no potential.  This means agencies believing in this philosophy should write absolutely as many small accounts as possible. 

An average agency abiding by this philosophy has at least 1,000 small accounts and maybe one, over 10 years has grown big.  But let’s say there are two accounts that grow big.  So out of 10,000 renewals, two get big.  Can the agency write enough large accounts to cover the 1,000+ small accounts that soak up huge amounts of time, effort and expense?  If so, this may be a great strategy.  If not, it is time to rethink the agency’s strategy.

2.  We do not use coverage checklists because we might leave something off.  The belief here is that if you don’t have a list, you can’t leave coverages off.  This presumes nothing is left off when a checklist is not used.  So if an insured does not get the correct coverage because the producer does not use a list and the absence of a list means the coverage wasn’t necessary to offer, then by default, the customer could not have needed the coverage and therefore, the uncovered claim is just a figment of their imagination.  Right?  If you believe this, then keep on going without using coverage checklists.

Another perspective is that if the agent does not use a coverage checklist, there is no need to recommend coverages a customer needs.  In other words, if I don’t know the customer needs a coverage, I don’t have a responsibility to offer the coverage.  For a peddler of insurance, this makes perfect sense because peddlers only take orders.  Why pay commissions to peddlers?  Web sites are quite capable of taking orders and issuing policies.

3.  We do not need to hold our producers accountable.  The reasons given for not holding producers accountable are numerous and include that accountability might make them angry.  What is the price of an angry producer?  In some cases, say $500,000 commission producers, not making them angry might be a good strategy.  But is the price reasonable for not making $100,000 producers angry?  An incompetent producer may leave the agency or become a good producer through accountability.  Either way, the agency may find itself way ahead by enforcing accountability.

Other common reasons given are that they are nice guys and that they have never been held accountable so it is unfair to do so now.  That is fair enough.  But to be really fair, if the producers are not held accountable, why hold anyone accountable?  Why hold the customer service representatives (CSRs) accountable?  Why hold new producers accountable?

Another reason given is that by holding them accountable, the ultimate outcome is that they would be fired and the emotional trauma of firing a producer is too much.  That makes sense.  Of course, if you are not going to fire a producer, how can you fire a CSR?  Is their trauma any less?

Then there are the producers that should hold themselves accountable negating the need for management to do so.  How well is that working in your agency?

4.  All agencies have the same value as a multiple of sales or EBITDA.  I am often asked, “How much are agencies worth today?”  This presumes that all agencies are alike, all agencies are commodities and nothing is special about any agency.  Is this correct?  Is there nothing special about your agency?

Let’s assume some common multiple applied to all agencies.  If one agency is losing 10 percent of its commissions annually and another agency is growing by 10 percent, then they should have the same multiple.  The same goes for the agency that has a 25 percent profit margin versus the agency that has a -5 percent profit margin.  Even the agency that has $1,000,000 of extra cash on its balance sheet versus the agency that has spent $500,000 of trust monies will have the same value. 

The question presupposes such material differences do not exist.  It’s like someone is asking, “What’s the value of a 2005 Ford F-150?”  They expect I can look up the blue book, ask how many miles the agency has on it, the condition of the body, and whether it has any extra features.

Quite often, the agency owners who ask this question have problematic agencies and the reason they ask the question this way is because they do not want their problems taken into consideration in the valuation. 

I do not believe any reader likes the logical result of these incredibly common beliefs and practices.  I’m not going to argue these ideas are wrong.  If you share these beliefs, take a step outside and look back in.  Think through the complete concept and if you still believe in it, then go for it 100 percent!

15 Traits A Medical Device Firm Should Seek In An Insurance Broker

Success in the medical device business is a team sport. One crucial member of a device firm's team is often an insurance broker. The right insurance brokers can help you get the most affordable coverage at the broadest terms. They can help guide you through the insurance maze and help you build a financial bulwark against various risks. If you face a crisis or a claim, they can partner with you and offer resources to come to your aid. In short, they can be invaluable business partners. Thus, a key part of any medical device firm's risk management program should be wise broker selection.

For starters, let's differentiate between an insurance agent and a broker. An insurance agent typically represents the insurance seller, i.e., the insurance company. An agent may have exclusive or non-exclusive contracts with certain insurance companies, and can place coverage only with those insurers.

An insurance broker brings buyers and sellers of insurance together, but represents you, the buyer. A broker can survey the entire insurance marketplace to find the best deal for you — assessing price, service and scope of coverage. For many medical device companies, an insurance broker will be their chief insurance advisor.

What should medical device companies look for in an insurance broker, or when evaluating their current one? Recently, I queried several insurance brokers who work in the medical device and life science space. Here, in no particular order, is a shopping list of fifteen qualities to look for when selecting this key business partner:

1. A broker who can grow with you and evolve with your insurance needs. Mike Tanghe of Falcon West Insurance Brokers, Inc. (Twin Cities, Minnesota area) says, “Make sure brokers can help not only with present needs, but insist they also have the expertise and capabilities to adapt as your firm grows and changes. Insurance needs for early-stage R&D firms differ from those of mature companies with several products on the market.”

2. Look for low staff turnover and high longevity. Tanghe also recommends focusing on the individuals with whom you'll be working. Ask the broker, “What is your historical staff turnover ratio?” He urges that firms look beyond “dog and pony shows,” and focus on a broker's customer service role. This should not only protect the client from exposures, Tanghe maintains, but also make a client's job easier as it navigates the complexities of insurance.

3. Device industry specialization. Byron Yankou, a broker with AVID Insurance and Risk Management in Toronto, notes that the device area is highly specialized. Take one small area, he says, such as an early-stage company. A new insurance broker isn't likely to build an insurance program that addresses Directors and Officers risk, or anticipate a seamless transition to a public listing.

4. Global perspective and resources. Yankou notes that with clinical trials occurring throughout the world — where even large international underwriters have limited resources — it's imperative that brokers have global connections to place international coverage.

5. Deep bench to provide a range of risk management/mitigation services. One can't be all things to all people, Yankou notes. “A good broker should have contacts to contract out certain aspects to outside specialists,” he says. Specifically, he cites post-loss claims management or business interruption settlements. As a company emerges from an early stage into a growth stage or mature stage, determine if the broker has other value-adds like global capabilities and/or in-house claims advocacy.

6. Trade show/conference visibility. According to Russ Jones, a broker with Summers Thompson Lowry (North Carolina), brokers must “be visible at life science conferences so that prospects know they are serious about the business. Do you see the brokers attending industry trade shows? Do they read the trade journals in your industry niche? This is a sign they are steeped in your business.

7. Brokers must understand the science. They should have a basic grasp of the science the client is working on. If the broker does not understand your product — whether it is a drug-eluting stent, a retractor or an ophthalmic implant — he or she cannot “sell” you as a sound risk to an insurance underwriter.

8. A broker steeped in life science, who can view the business from an investor's perspective. Sam Fairley, Senior Vice President at RT Specialty in New York City, suggests finding a broker actively involved with life science accounts and who has assembled programs for start-ups and early-stage investment companies. This includes a broker who has used venture capital and private equity investment, right up through IPO and beyond. Get a broker, he says, that understands loss exposures from the investor side, from a regulatory angle and who has negotiated coverage at each stage, up through Phase III trials and product approval.

9. Passion and interest in the medical device sector! Shane Aiken, Account Director at Indemnity Corporation (Sydney, Australia) believes that a good broker is passionate about the science, the thrill of the ride from a capital and discovery standpoint, and wholeheartedly embraces their role in the business network. Andrew Tamworth, a life science underwriter with CFC Underwriting (UK), says a good broker has an interest in, and understanding of, the medical device sector.

10. An understanding of lifecycle risk. Medical device firms strive to build shareholder value. Procuring insurance is not as thrilling as buying that sexy new BMW you've been eyeing. Device firms face cost pressures. A good broker breaks through this, understanding the full discovery lifecycle — from capital raising to registration — and articulates to management the true nature of complex risk exposures that threaten balance sheets throughout the lifecycle, providing best practice solutions that provide protection.

Matt Heinzelmann, Executive Vice President at Higginbotham & Associates (Dallas) notes that, from early to mature stages, each insurance buyer is focused on different objectives. Part of a broker's value-add is understanding client's financial objectives, then (and only then) articulating specific insurance coverages with unique strategies that dovetail with short- and long-term goals. For example, early stage companies, focused on R&D, he notes aren't typically preoccupied with product liability, but might want a specialized insurance product that covers them for complications arising from human clinical trials.

11. A perspective that goes beyond insurance-buying, encompassing risk management and strategy. Michael Cremeans, who leads the life science practice at the Oswald Companies (Cleveland) says, “It's really not about insurance. A good broker truly acts as a business advisor and not as an 'insurance person.'” Any insurance placement results from hard work and analysis. Weaving insurance and risk management into a strategic plan, along with experience in dealing with contractual liability, are key components to adding value, Cremeans states.

12. A broker that breaks out of “insurance product” silos. Cremeans observes that the insurance industry often organizes itself into product-type silos, but many device firms dislike that approach. A broker that can apply knowledge across multi-insurance disciplines to the medical device industry has great value.

13. Ability to offer bespoke solutions. “Medical device companies are not cookie-cutter risks,” Cremeans insists, “and may need something other than cookie-cutter insurance solutions and products.” He cites as key success traits for brokers the ability to think laterally and design an insurance program around the client's needs rather than pushing off-the-shelf products.

14. Accessibility and pro-activity. A good broker stays in touch with the client — not just at policy renewal time — and communicates with you proactively as a device firm's risk profile changes. This, Cremeans says, enables the firm to re-calibrate the structure of the insurance program as needed. Crises and problems for device firms do not always conform to 9-to-5, Monday-through-Friday schedules. A good broker comes through in a pinch, even if a problem arises during “off hours.”

15. Opens strategic alliances, resources and partnerships. Bruce Ball, Chairman of Britton Gallagher (Cleveland) says, “A good broker is steeped in the tangible and regulatory risks that a device company faces and offers substantive dialogue with senior management about risk and dealing with its consequences.” He stresses, though, that a good broker doesn't stop there. An A-player, he adds, helps clients grow their businesses by opening up relationships with other clients, VC contacts/strategic consolidators and makes strategic introductions to their spheres of influence. “Being a CEO of a life science company can make you feel like you are on an island,” Ball states, adding, “it doesn't have to be that way.”

“Dream Teams” are monikers more often associated with US Olympic basketball squads than with med-tech enterprises. Device firms can help build gold medal caliber businesses, though, by incorporating savvy insurance brokers as part of their own risk management Dream Team!

This article originally appeared in the April 2013 issue of Medical Product Outsourcing Magazine.