Posted On: February 5, 2008, 2:55 pm CST

Posted By: Company Gal

JLT, I read the thread. Much of it was relating to the Co staying on a book and not terminating. You said "On the other hand, if it's a production issue, the cutomers shouldn't be put in a position to re-shop for insurance just because the company and the agent had a different set of objectives." I agree - the agent should make provisions for their customer way in advance of non renewal. This is not the company's fault.

Sorry, when I tell an agent they need to meet a goal to retain their appointment, and they don't meet it, then they get notice that if they don't meet the next goal they will be terminated the agent has a decision to make. They either need to make producing that book a priority or move the business. It's not personal. It's either a business match or it's not. If they can't meet the goals, then they need to move the book (or sell it to another agent who represents co X to recap some $$). I absolutely understand that process is a pain in the butt. What usually happens is the agent ignores all of the goals and then is surprised and acts like the company is abandoning the insured. Then that same agent sees their volume decrease they cry hhow unfair it is.

Someone else said fraud should be reported to the comissioner not handled by the company.

I totally agree that the agent should be given adequate time to manage a business decision. I agree that the company should comply with the law at all times. At least in my experience, the dialog becan a couple of years before the legal clock even starts ticking. I just don't buy that we should have to stay with an agent for any reason (production, fraud or even poor relationship).

I have been on both sides of the business. I think that often CO people understimate how hard agency folks work or how mch they know. That said, I think that agents blame the company for everything.