Tag Archives: carrier

distribution

Insurance 2.0: How Distribution Evolves

At American Family Ventures, we believe changes to insurance will happen in three ways: incrementally, discontinuously over the near term and discontinuously over the long term. We refer to each of these changes in the context of a “version’ of insurance,” respectively, “Insurance 1.1,” “Insurance 2.0” and “Insurance 3.0.”

The incremental changes of “Insurance 1.1” will improve the effectiveness or efficiency of existing workflows or will create workflows that are substantially similar to existing ones. In contrast, the long-term discontinuous changes of “Insurance 3.0” will happen in response to changes one sees coming when peering far into the future, i.e. risk management in the age of commercial space travel, human genetic modification and general artificial intelligence (AI). Between those two is “Insurance 2.0,” which represents near-term, step-function advances and significant departures from existing insurance processes and workflows. These changes are a re-imagination or reinvention of some aspect of insurance as we know it.

We believe there are three broad categories of innovation driving the movement toward “Insurance 2.0”: distribution, structure and product. While each category leverages unique tactics to deliver value to the insurance customer, they are best understood in a Venn diagram, because many tactics within the categories overlap or are used in coordination.

venn

 

In this post, we’ll look into at the first of these categories—distribution—in more detail.

Distribution

A.M. Best, the insurance rating agency, organizes insurance into two main distribution channels: agency writers and direct writers. Put simply, agency writers distribute products through third parties, and direct writers distribute through their own sales capabilities. For agency writers, these third-party channels include independent agencies/brokerages (terms we will use interchangeably for the purposes of this article) and a variety of hybrid structures. In contrast, direct writer sales capabilities include company websites, in-house sales teams and exclusive agents. This distinction is based on corporate strategy rather than customer preference.

We believe a segment of customers will continue to prefer traditional channels, such as local agents valued for their accessibility, personal attention and expertise. However, we also believe there is an opportunity to redefine distribution strategies to better align with the needs of two developing states of the insurance customer:those who are intent-driven and those who are opportunity-driven. Intent-driven customers seek insurance because they know or have become aware they need it or want it. In contrast, opportunity-driven customers consider purchasing insurance because, in the course of other activities, they have completed some action or provided some information that allows a timely and unique offer of insurance to be presented to them.

There are two specific distribution trends we predict will have a large impact over the coming years, one for each state of the customer described above. These are: 1) the continuing development of online agencies, including “mobile-first” channels and 2) incidental sales platforms.

Online Agencies and Mobile-First Products

Intent-driven customers will continue to be served by a number of response-focused channels, including online/digital agencies. Online insurance agencies operate much like traditional agencies, except they primarily leverage the Internet (instead of brick-and-mortar locations) for operations and customer engagement. Some, like our portfolio company CoverHound, integrate directly with carrier partners to acquire customers and bind policies entirely online.

In addition to moving more of the purchasing process online, we’ve observed a push toward “mobile-first” agencies. By using a mobile device/OS as the primary mode of engagement, the distributor and carrier are able to meet potential customers where they are increasingly likely to be found. Further, mobile-first agencies leverage the smartphone as a platform to enable novel and valuable user experiences. These experiences could be in the application process, notice of loss, servicing of claims, payment and renewal or a variety of other interactions. There are a number of start-up companies, some of which we are partnered with, working on this mobile-first approach to agency.

To illustrate the power of a mobile-first platform, imagine a personal auto insurance mobile app that uses the smartphone camera for policy issuance; authorizes payments via a payment API; processes driving behavior via the phone’s GPS, accelerometer and a connection to the insured vehicle to influence or create an incentive for safe driving behavior; notifies the carrier of a driving signature indicative of an accident; and integrates third-party software into their own app that allows for emergency response and rapid payment of claims.

Incidental Channels

In the latter of the two customer states, we believe “incidental channels” will increasingly serve opportunity-driven customers. In this approach, the customer acquisition engine (often a brokerage or agency) creates a product or service that delivers value independently of insurance/risk management but that uses the resulting relationship with the customer and data about the customer’s needs to make a timely and relevant offer of insurance.

We spend quite a bit of our time thinking about incidental sales channels and find three things about them particularly interesting:

  1. Reduced transactional friction—In many cases, customers using these third-party products/services are providing (or granting API access to) much of the information required to digitally quote or bind insurance. Even if these services were to monetize via lead generation referral fees rather than directly brokering policies, they could still remove purchase friction by plugging directly into other aggregators or online agencies.
  2. Dramatically lower customer acquisition costs—Insurance customers are expensive to acquire. Average per-customer acquisition costs for the industry are estimated to be between $500 and $800, and insurance keywords are among the top keywords by paid search ad spend, often priced between $30 and $50 per click. Customer acquisition costs for carriers or brokers using an incidental model can be much lower, given naturally lower costs to acquire a customer with free/low cost SaaS and consumer apps. Network effects and virality, both difficult to create in the direct insurance business but often present in “consumerized” apps, enhance this delta in acquisition costs. Moreover, a commercial SaaS-focused incidental channel can acquire many insurance customers through one sale to an organization.
  3. Improved customer engagement—Insurance can be a low-touch and poorly rated business. However, because most customers choose to use third-party products and services of their own volition (given the independent value they provide), incidental channels create opportunities to support risk management without making the customer actively think about insurance—for example, an eye care checkup that happens while shopping for a new pair of glasses. In addition, the use of third-party apps creates more frequent opportunities to engage with customers, which improves customer retention.

Additional Considerations and Questions

The digital-customer-acquisition diagram below shows how customers move through intent-driven and opportunity-driven states. Notice that the boundary between customer states is permeable. Opportunity-driven customers often turn into intent-driven customers once they are exposed to an offer to purchase. However, as these channels continue developing, strategists must recognize where the customer begins the purchase process—with intent or opportunistically. Recognizing this starting point creates clarity around the whole product and for the user experience required for success on each path.

intent

Despite our confidence in the growth of mobile-first and incidental strategies, we are curious to see how numerous uncertainties around these approaches evolve. For example, how does a mobile-first brokerage create defensibility? How will carriers and their systems/APIs need to grow to work with mobile-first customers? With regard to incidental channels, which factors most influence success—the frequency of user engagement with the third-party app, the ability of data collected through the service to influence pricing, the extensibility of the incidental platform/service to multiple insurance products, some combination of these or something else entirely?

Innovation in how insurance is distributed is an area of significant opportunity. We’re optimistic that both insurers and start-ups will employ the strategies above with great success and will also find other, equally interesting, approaches to deliver insurance products to customers.

How Bureaucracy Drives WC Costs

Workers’ compensation is one of the most highly regulated lines of insurance. Every form filed and every payment transaction is an opportunity for a penalty. Claims can stay open for 30 years or longer, leading to thousands of transactions on a single claim. Each state presents different sets of compliance rules for payers to follow. This bureaucracy is adding significant cost to the workers’ compensation system, but is it improving the delivery of benefits to injured workers?

Lack of Uniformity

Workers’ compensation is regulated at the state level, which means every state has its own set of laws and rules governing the delivery of indemnity and medical benefits to injured workers. This state-by-state variation also exists in the behind-the-scenes reporting of data. Most states now require some level of electronic data interchange (EDI) from the payers (carriers or self-insured employers). There is no common template between the states; therefore carriers must set up separate data feeds for each state. This is made even more complex when you factor in the multiple sources from which payers must gather this data for their EDI reporting. Data sources include employers, bill review and utilization review vendors. The data from all these vendors must be combined into a single data feed to the states. If states change the data reporting fields, each of the vendors in the chain must also make changes to their feeds.

Variation also exists in the forms that must be filed and notices that must be posted in the workplaces. This means that payers must constantly monitor and update the various state requirements to ensure they stay in full compliance with the regulations.

Unnecessary Burden

Much of the workers’ compensation compliance efforts focus on the collection of data, which is ultimately transmitted to the states. The states want this information to monitor the system and ensure it is operating correctly, but is all this data necessary? Some states provide significant analytical reports on their workers’ compensation systems, but many do little with the data that they collect. In a world concerned about cyber risk, collecting and transmitting claims data creates a significant risk of a breach. If the data is not being used by the states, the risk associated with collecting and transmitting it seems unnecessary.

Another complication is that there are multiple regulators involved in the system for oversight in each jurisdiction. Too often, this means payers have to provide the same information to multiple parties because information sent to the state Department of Insurance is not shared with the state Division of Workers’ Compensation and vice versa.

Some regulation is also outdated based on current technology. Certain states require the physical claims files to be handled within that state. However, with many payers now going paperless, there are no physical claims files to provide. Other states require checks to be issued from a bank within those states. Electronic banking makes this requirement obsolete.

How Is This Driving Costs?

All payers have a significant amount of staffing and other resources devoted to compliance efforts. From designing systems to gathering and entering data, this is a very labor-intensive process. There have not been any studies on the actual costs to the system from these compliance efforts, but they easily equate to millions of dollars each year.

States also impose penalties for a variety of things, including late filing of forms and late and improper payment of benefits. The EDI process makes it possible for these penalties to be automated, but that issue raises the question of the purpose of the penalties altogether. These penalties are issued on a strict liability basis. In other words, either the form was filed in a timely manner or it was not. A payer could be 99% compliant on one million records, but they would be automatically penalized for the 1% of records that were incorrect. In this scenario, are the penalties encouraging compliance, or are they simply a source of revenue for the state? A fairer system would acknowledge where compliance efforts are being made. Rather than penalize every payer for every error, use the penalties for those that fall below certain compliance thresholds (say, 80% or 90% compliance).

The laws themselves can be vague and open to interpretation, which leads to unnecessary litigation expenses. Terms such as “reasonable” and “usual and customary” are intentionally vague, and often states will not provide further definition of these terms.

How Can We Improve?

One of the goals of workers’ compensation regulations is to ensure that injured workers are paid benefits in a timely manner at the correct rate and that they have access to appropriate medical treatment. There was a time when payers had offices located in most states, with adjusters handling only that state. Now, with most payers utilizing multi-state adjusters, payers must be constantly training and educating their adjusters to ensure that they understand all of the nuisances of the different states that they handle.

The ability to give input to regulators is also invaluable, and payers should seek opportunities to engage with organizations to create positive change. Groups such as the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC) and the Southern Association of Workers’ Compensation Administrators (SAWCA) provide the opportunity for workers’ compensation stakeholders to interact with regulators on important issues and also provides the opportunity to seek uniformity where it makes sense (EDI, for example).

There needs to be better transparency and communication between all parties in the rule-making process so that regulators have a better understanding of the impact these rules have on payers and the effort required to achieve compliance.

Developing standards in technology would be helpful for both the payers and the states. If your systems cannot effectively communicate with the other systems, you cannot be efficient. Upgrading technology across the industry, particularly on the regulatory side, has to become a priority.

Finally, we need to give any statutory reforms time to make an impact before changing them again because the constant change adds to confusion and drives costs. In the last 10 years, there have been more than 9,000 bills introduced in various jurisdictions related to workers’ compensation. Of those, about 1,000 have actually been turned into law. People expect that these reforms will produce the desired results immediately, when in reality these things often take time to reach their full impact.

These issues were discussed in depth during an “Out Front Ideas With Kimberly and Mark” webinar on Feb. 9, 2016. View the archived webinar at http://www.outfrontideas.com/archives/.

Digital Insurance, Anyone?

The digital banking conversation is alive and kicking within the FinTech world, focused on discussing the merits, definitions and initiatives around what it means for a bank to become digital across its entire technology and business stacks. I have yet to find the same level of discourse and vibrancy within the insurance world.

Spurred by Yan Ranchere’s latest blog post, I am adding my own thoughts to the insurance narrative or, dare I coin it, the “digital insurance” narrative.

First, let’s frame the discussion by attempting to define the evolution of the insurance model from old to current and future or digital:

Old Insurance Model:  This model is mostly paper-based with an application collected from the customer by the agent and sent to the carrier. The agent quote is not binding and may indeed change once the carrier has reviewed the application. I would qualify this model as carrier-centric. The carrier does all the heavy lifting with data verification and underwriting, with little stimuli from external data feeds in real time; the agent merely serves as a conduit.  As result, underwriting and closing a policy may take several days or even several weeks.

Claims management and customer service are cumbersome. Arguably, this delivers poor service in today’s age of instantaneous expectations. Not only can the old model be considered carrier-centric, I would also venture it is product-centric (in the same way that the old banking model is product-centric). The implications from a technology point of view are the same as in the banking world: a thin front end, shaky middleware and a back end that is silo-driven and that makes it difficult to optimize underwriting or claims.

Current Insurance Model:  The current model optimized the old model and made the transition from carrier-centric to agent-centric, which means that things are less paper-based and more electronic and that there is more process pushed onto the agent to be closer to the customer. In this model, the agent is empowered to issue policies under certain limits and risk frameworks—the carrier is not the gating factor and central node anymore.

Instead of batch-processing policies at the carrier level, the system has moved to exception processing at the carrier level (when concerned with nonstandard data and policies), thereby leveraging the agent. The result is faster quotes and policies signed more quickly, with the time going from days and weeks to hours or just a day. Customer service will go the same route. Claims management will still remain the central concern of the carrier, though.

Digital Insurance Model:  This is the way of the future. It is neither carrier- nor agent-centric, and it certainly is not product-centric any more. This model is truly customer- and data-centric—very similar to what we witness in digital banking. The carrier reaches out to the customer in an omni-channel way. Third-party data sources are readily available, and the technology to process and digest the data is extremely effective and delivers fast and furiously. Machine learning allows for near-instantaneous underwriting at a carrier or agent level, any time, anywhere. The customer can now get a policy in minutes.

Processes after policy-signing follow a similar transformative route. The technology implications are material: new core systems of record, less silo effect, more integration, massive investments in data warehouses and in products and services that act as layers of connection between data repository centers, core systems, claims management platforms, underwriting platforms and omni-channel platforms.

Picture the carrier effectively plugged in to the external world via data sources, plugged in to the customer in myriad ways that were not possible in the past and plugged in to third-party providers, all of this in real (or near-real) time. That means no more of the old linear prosecution of the main insurance processes: customer acquisition, underwriting, claims management. Furthermore, with a fast-changing world and more complex customer needs, delivering a product is not the winning formula any more. Understanding the customer via data in a contextual manner is.

To be fair, insurance carriers have nearly completed massive upgrades to their database architecture and can claim the latest in data warehouse technology. Some carriers have gone the path of renovating their channels and going all-out digital. Others are refining the ways they engage new customers. Most are thinking of going mobile. Still, much remains to be done. These are exciting times.

Boiling down what a digital insurance model means, we can easily see the similarities with digital banking; digital insurance must be transparent, fast, ubiquitous and data-focused, and there must be an understanding that the customer is key and is not a product.

Once you digest this new model, it is easier to sift through the key trends that are reshaping and will reshape the industry. I am listing a few that we followed at R66.  By no means is this an exhaustive list, nor is it ordered by priority, impact or size of opportunity:

1) Distribution channel disruption: There are three sub trends here—a) the consolidation of brokers and agents, b) channels going all-out-digital and disrupting the brick and mortar and c) carriers continuing to go direct and competing with brokers.

2) Insuring the sharing/renting economy: Think about Uber, Airbnb and the many other start-ups that are building the sharing economy. All of them need to or already are creating different types of coverage through their ecosystems. Carriers that focus on the specific risks, navigate the use cases, gather the right data and are forward-thinking will win big. James River is an insurance carrier that comes to mind in this space.

3) Connected data analysis: I do not use the term “big data” any more. Real-time connected data analysis is the right focus. Think of the integration of a series of hardware devices, or think of n+1 data sources. These are powerful, mind-blowing and will affect the trifecta of insurance profits: underwriting, claims management and customer acquisition.

4) Technology stack upgrades:  This means middleware to complement data warehouse investments, new systems of record, software platforms for underwriting (or claims management) and API galore. It’s the same story with banking; there is just a different insurance flavor.

5) Technology externalities: GPS, telematics, AI, machine learning, drones, IoT, wearables, smart sensors, visualization and next-generation risk analysis tools—you name it, these will help insurance companies get better at what they do, if they adopt and understand.

6) Mobile delivery:  How could I not list mobile delivery? Whether it is to improve customer acquisition; policies or claims management; or customer service, we are going mobile, baby.

7) A la carte coverage: Younger generations are approaching ownership in different ways. As a result, a one-size-fits-all insurance policy will not work any more. We are already witnessing a la carte insurance based on car usage, homes or commercial real estate connected via sensors or IoT.

8) Speciality insurance products:  We live in a digital world, baby, which means cyber security, fraud and identity theft.

It should be noted that the above describes changes in the P&C industry and that the terms “carriers” and “reinsurers” can be used interchangeably. Furthermore, I have not focused on health insurance—I know next to nothing in that field.

Any insurance expert is welcome to reach out and educate me. Anyone as clueless as I am is welcome to add their thoughts, too!

This article first appeared on Pascal Bouvier’s blog, here.

life insurance

Selling Life Insurance to Digital Consumers

When we started PolicyGenius, an independent digital insurance broker, last summer, we braced ourselves for a high-speed education on the finer points of the consumer insurance market–and boy did we get it. We previously consulted for the industry, but even that doesn’t prepare you for all the work that happens on the ground, like filing for licenses on a state-by-state basis, or spending a holiday manually preparing and sending out illustrations because of a last-minute surge in quote requests. (Or dealing with fax machines.)

But learning all the nuances, even the bewildering ones, has been an amazing experience. It’s exciting to be involved in an industry right at the start of its transformation into the next phase of doing business.

We hung out our digital shingle in July 2014, and thanks to our smart shopping and decision-making tools, as well as some extremely positive exposure from the national media, we’ve enjoyed 30% month-over-month growth in our user base.

In the process, we’ve had 12 months to learn a lot about the modern digital insurance customer. Here are six takeaways that agents and carriers can benefit from.

1. Babies are still the No. 1 trigger for buying life insurance–which means there’s still plenty of opportunity to educate consumers about other equally important life events.

It’s no surprise that having a baby motivates a person to buy life insurance. Our own data shows that among customers who take our Insurance Checkup (our online insurance advice tool), the number of those who already have life insurance jumps by 20% if the customer has a child.

In a survey we commissioned last year, we found that consumers place insurance fourth in line behind saving for retirement, paying off debt and following a budget. Life insurance should be a key part of any long-term financial strategy, but a lot of people still don’t realize that. The survey also suggests people don’t recognize the financial challenges that accompany other big life events like marrying, buying a home, starting a business or becoming a caretaker for aging parents.

Our takeaway: Buying life insurance for your baby is a given. Now we need to focus on bringing these other invisible triggers to our customers’ attention.

2. Couples do it together.

A State Farm survey a few years ago found that 74% of people rarely talk about life insurance, in part because it’s an uncomfortable subject to bring up with one’s spouse. But we’ve repeatedly seen one half of a couple begin a life insurance application with us, and then shortly thereafter we get an application for the other half. In fact, around 20% of our life insurance applications have a partner application associated with them.

Our takeaway: Once an applicant sees how easy we’ve made it to shop for a policy, she decides to take care of her partner’s policy while she’s at it. It saves time, and it prevents couples from having to talk about the subject too much or revisit it again any time in the near future.

3. Digital insurance consumers are thoughtful shoppers who appreciate honest advice.

Our average customer spends 9 1/2 minutes exploring her PolicyGenius Insurance Checkup report. According to Adobe’s Best of the Best Benchmark report from 2013, the average time spent on a site in the financial services category is just more than six minutes!

Our takeaway: If you give the customer intuitive educational tools and advice tailored to her financial needs, and you don’t ask for anything intrusive in return (like a phone number), she’ll become more engaged.

We’ve seen this later in the shopping cycle, too, when customers look into the reputations of prospective insurance companies. But more on that below.

4. Digital insurance consumers are happy to do most of the work on their own.

If you’ve been a part of the insurance industry long enough, you’ve probably heard the saying, “Insurance is not bought; it’s sold.” In other words, industry veterans believe that you have to sell (and often pressure) consumers, who wouldn’t otherwise purchase on their own.

We founded our company on the theory that this isn’t true, and now we know that there are people out there who independently come to the conclusion that they need life insurance. We’ve found that customers who come to our site want to go all the way through the application process on their own, with no agent intervention. They self-navigate through decisions about coverage and carrier selection on our site, using the jargon-free content and tools we’ve built to make the path easy. It may not be as easy and fast as buying a pair of shoes from Zappos, but we’ve worked hard to make the process reliable and trustworthy.

But not every self-serve life insurance experience is smooth, which is why it’s important to have human help when needed. One client told us in a follow-up thank you that it was “comforting to have someone on my side in evaluating different insurance carriers and working to get me approved when the first insurer turned me down.”

Our takeaway: If you make insurance easy to shop for, you don’t have to focus so much on the hard sell.

5. Digital insurance consumers are not just Millennials.

Everyone likes to talk about the Millennial consumer these days, but we’ve discovered that the digital insurance consumer isn’t defined by any one generation. It’s true that Millennials (< 35) make up about 50% of our user base; however, Baby Boomers (50+) make up 20% of our user base, and Generation X (35-50)–who spend more online than Boomers do, according to a recent BI Intelligence study–fill out the rest.

Our takeaway: To reach such a wide range of online consumers, we have to focus on values that have universal consumer appeal–honesty, speed and self-service that’s backed by amazing customer support.

6. Insurer financial strength and reputation are important.

When you’re shopping online, you’re used to seeing reviews and ratings. It’s one of the ways online consumers compare products or services that they can’t see face to face.

Customers frequently ask us for insurance company ratings and customer reviews. And they ask for help choosing a carrier when all the ones they’re considering have approximately the same rating, or if customer reviews are inconclusive. We’ve been asked, “Who is the largest insurer or has been around the longest? I don’t want anyone that will go out of business.”

They take financial strength ratings, brand strength and reviews seriously, and factor them in when deciding which policy to buy. It’s so important that we’ve added one-page “report cards” into our life insurance quoting process to help answer these questions.

Our takeaway: Insurance companies don’t have to worry about digital platforms like ours commoditizing their policies and encouraging consumers to shop only on price. While price is important, it’s not the only factor that consumers consider when buying a life insurance policy.

As an industry, we still have a lot to learn about selling insurance to the digital consumer. And as an online broker, we’re still learning valuable customer insights from fellow brokers and agents throughout the industry. It’s true that everything we’ve learned in the past year has helped us confirm many of our initial propositions, but it’s also helped us better understand how to win over today’s insurance shopper. We can’t wait to see what the next 12 months brings.

Why Insurance WILL Be Disrupted

As it’s Pantomime season, can I start this with “Oh, Yes It Will”? (For those not familiar with Pantomime, check out some of the history here.)

I write in response to a great post from Nick Lamparelli on why insurance will not be disrupted (here). He takes a really interesting position. But I sit on the other side of the fence and believe insurance will, is and can be disrupted.

In answer to Nick’s six points as to why insurance will NOT be disrupted, here’s my perspective:

1. He writes: “At the core, insurance customers are leasing the potential to access capital…. How do you make a big pile of money irrelevant?” But this will vary from line of business to line of business. Where there are person-to-person (P2P) and other self-insurance approaches, why do I need capital? I will self-insure.

2. He writes: “Peer-to-peer providers just won’t be able to get sufficient scale to efficiently use capital to cover risk.” But isn’t this more about how they enable distribution and connections and pools of risk?

3. He writes: “IoT [Internet of Things] devices [and other new technologies] will slowly be adopted by most insurers as they look to get competitive edges, but the follow-the-leader paradigm of the industry will mean that any edge will disappear quickly, and we will all be running hard just to stay in place. These technologies are impressive. I would classify them as a solid innovations to the industry, but not disruptive.” I agree on this – it’s more evolution, not revolution. The revolution comes if the carriers actually do something with the technologies and create better products that are truly personalized. Note that we are still thinking in a product mindset, and I suspect this will change.

4. He writes: “I think State Farm and large auto insurers like them will be just fine, and technologies such as autonomous vehicles will be more of an annoyance than an existential threat.” Like Nick, I think there will be evolution. But I think the change with autonomous vehicles is not only to move from personal insurance to product liability (or a mix with a flex of product and personal liability, e.g. the manufacturer will provide the base layer of cover, but after that you have the flex options to add extras). To me, the issue is more about distribution of the product. I envisage that next you will buy insurance to cover a journey, instead of buying insurance once a year through a price comparison/aggregator site. Equally, the big auto insurance carriers Nick mentions will need to look for new sources of income and value-added services, be it breakdown or otherwise to drive revenue and profit. I suspect these will be more often from outside our standard world. The car will be the most connected thing we engage with, and that alone brings a whole host of exciting opportunity. If we do go for autonomous cars in scale and get them right, then the disruption could be that product liability (PL) dramatically reduces to being a capacity provider only to a new distribution channel (auto providers?). Or the CL carriers and reinsurance providers actually take prominence (higher likelihood in my view).

5. He writes that regulators could stomp on innovation. This is a tough one, but I think the consumer will always win. Regulators’ views will be driven by what’s best for the customer. Equally, smaller, nimbler insurers that can turn on a dime will be better-equipped to manage through regulation changes, as opposed to large, legacy-laden carriers that will be too slow to react and catch any positive outcome.

6. He writes that there is very little that technology can do to disrupt insurance for natural catastrophes, which is his area of expertise. I reply: OK, you win. Not many seem to be tackling this, if any at all. However, how we manage in advance, or the ensuing events, how we handle the supply chain and how we treat return to pre-loss will improve, again as natural evolution rather than as disruption. You could argue that crop insurance has changed dramatically over the years with better weather data. Some pay out proactively based on weather data, without ever the need for a claim. This to me is revolutionary and goes back to the point that customers come first.

I’m 100% with you and Paul VanderMarck, chief strategy officer at Risk Management Solutions – customers and better outcomes will ultimately win. However, on the race to this end, there will be many who change and challenge our thinking. To me, this is why there are so many new entrants and existing carriers investing heavily to understand what, why and how we can disrupt. Have a look at some of the work from CB Insights, which gives a fascinating view on the state of the market. See here for some of the great work Matthew Wong and team are doing.

Separately, I think we have jumped on the “disruptor,” label, as, like any industry, we need to be able to offer up the opportunity for the next unicorn (Zenefits, Oscar etc.) and to attract the right attention, from both inside and outside the industry, along with the appropriate talent and thinking!.

Either way, for me it’s an exciting time out there in insurance, and we must continue to evolve, revolve, pivot, disrupt – whatever we call it. Sitting still is not an option!