|
I still chuckle every time I hear the story, even though it's as old as dirt. It's the one about the chicken and the pig discussing their respective contributions to breakfast. The chicken boasts that the chickens contribute their eggs each morning. To which the pig replies, "Chicken, that's mere involvement. We supply the bacon. That's real commitment."
You may think I'm going to preach about the worthiness of the pig. Not so. I'm actually more inclined to admire the chickens. After all, the pigs die, and this is not a fitting moral to my twist on the story. The chickens, however, contribute consistently and proactively in measured amounts over time-and they prosper. It's much more appealing to be the bird.
Of course, if they fail to produce, the chickens go the way of the pig faster than you can order fries with your nuggets. So, staying out of the "Happy Meal" of the insurance industry is simply a matter of contributing something of value, evenly and proactively over time, right?
I'm not so sure.
The ongoing spate of bad press and the numbers of lawsuits coming from the Gulf States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina cause me great concern regarding our level of commitment. At press time, the courts have ruled that insurance carriers are not liable for damages caused by circumstances that are expressly excluded from the policies, mainly flood, storm surge, standing water, levee breaches, etc. Though this is a correct and somewhat obvious conclusion, it is not playing well in the minds of clients, the press, state legislatures, or Congress. Once again, we are the bad guys. Do a Google on "Katrina lawsuits" and you'll see what I mean.
How in the heck did this happen . again? For the past decade carriers, industry associations, and insurance commissioners have been combing over this exclusion language, grooming it and re-grooming it to make sure that it is crisp, clear, and easy to comprehend. The Feds have spent gobs of money marketing and building
. . .
|
