So the gist of PCI’s position is that potential insureds shouldn’t be told that up to one half of their premium in many lines goes towards commissions. Oh, and also, since Eliot Spitzer hasn’t sued anyone over something yet, then it is an improper subject for a model law. Well, such a tack has always worked in the past and it will probably work this time too. Still, it would be nice if we would just do away with the pretense of governmental regulation in insurance.
There are legal and historical differences between large brokers and independent agents. Brokers are paid by the insured and have legal obligations to act in the best interest of their client.
Independent agents are paid by insurance companies and act in their best interest. If a customer does not like the service or prices offered by the independent agent, the customer should go to another.
I sell many lines of insurance including commercial property, general liability, workers compensation, umbrellas, commercial automobile, personal automobile, homeowners and boats. I do not receive anywhere near 50% commission on any of those products and I think it is very misleading to make statements that lead the public to think agents do. Obviously there is some confusion between insurance commissions and legal contingency fees.
Why should an agent have to disclose how much money they make on a policy?
Does Ford – or the dealer – tell us how much they are making on the car? Does Circuit City tell us how much they are making on the DVD player I purchase?
What is wrong with capitalism? If the consumer does not like the product or thinks it is too expensive they can always go to another agency. Every town in America has a bunch of agents vying for business.
So the gist of PCI’s position is that potential insureds shouldn’t be told that up to one half of their premium in many lines goes towards commissions. Oh, and also, since Eliot Spitzer hasn’t sued anyone over something yet, then it is an improper subject for a model law. Well, such a tack has always worked in the past and it will probably work this time too. Still, it would be nice if we would just do away with the pretense of governmental regulation in insurance.
There are legal and historical differences between large brokers and independent agents. Brokers are paid by the insured and have legal obligations to act in the best interest of their client.
Independent agents are paid by insurance companies and act in their best interest. If a customer does not like the service or prices offered by the independent agent, the customer should go to another.
I sell many lines of insurance including commercial property, general liability, workers compensation, umbrellas, commercial automobile, personal automobile, homeowners and boats. I do not receive anywhere near 50% commission on any of those products and I think it is very misleading to make statements that lead the public to think agents do. Obviously there is some confusion between insurance commissions and legal contingency fees.
Why should an agent have to disclose how much money they make on a policy?
Does Ford – or the dealer – tell us how much they are making on the car? Does Circuit City tell us how much they are making on the DVD player I purchase?
What is wrong with capitalism? If the consumer does not like the product or thinks it is too expensive they can always go to another agency. Every town in America has a bunch of agents vying for business.