Perhaps before you just jump on this as foolish, maybe you should know how this exchange works. The business remains owned by the agency; the system will integrate with most agency management systems; the client information is only seen by the party who owns it and who they give permission to and the “reports” contain data but no names. Overall, it looks like and feels like this could work for agencies who have an open mind. The member contract is quite specific and seems to cover all of the bases.
In a soft market, they are willingly signing up for a market facility that de-values relationships, loss control and claim service in favor of price, price, price. I predict a not-so-slow but painful death for this platform.
This isn’t posting app.s to a blog, people. This is just submitting an app to all your carriers at once without having to rekey info into separate carriers’ systems or send multiple emails with attachments. This will not lead to the fall of mankind, Rush Limbaugh still has that covered for us. Though he’s alone now that Lil’ Bush stays drunk on the ranch. But I digress. Hi-speed spamming to block markets is what this is about. Which sucks. And will die a painfull, quick death. Aided by Lexus’ usual high prices. Can only assume this is the pet project of some VP over there whose ego has run amuck.
The article didn’t mention rating, just the submission. However it also didn’t mention any integration with agents’ management systems. Might be a good thing if the applications could be generated from the Management system then sent through Applieds Transformation Station or AMS TransactNow to the exchange. Otherwise, it’s still double entry!
Who owns the data that’s exchanged? What does the contract say about L/N’s rights to share or sell that data? Client data was once considered an agency’s business asset. Data aggregators have all but eroded the personal lines asset. Does anyone know what rights these agreements give L/N to share commerical lines data?
Excellent question WJ. With some of the larger agencies involved you would think this has been vetted. If not, our state association, IIAT, has been very good to review and negotiate the proper language in to the contract. The submitting agent should retain the rights to the information and the ability to retract/delete it.
I would never for one second partner up with these clowns and have non-public information about my “middle market account” become part of a Lexus/Nexus data base for all to see.
If I were a private, small cap, company; (less than $100 million) I would fire my broker for having anything to do with this “data clearing house”.
We have NDA’s with most of our large accounts, and would NEVER share any information with anyone that lacks privity to either the application for insurance or providing product on behalf of our customer.
Haven’t brokers already solved this problem with the “bcc” line in their emails? You can send one email to unlimited numbers of markets with just a pen stroke.
However, most underwriters don’t like being “bcc-ed” on submissions as they know it’s being shotgunned. I wonder how they’ll feel about this….
Isn’t it time our carriers divulged info about their contracts with Lexis et al? If they are anything like some of the early arrangements for PL, the carriers may not have to pay anything in exchange the data aggregators’ rights to use certain data. If any of you out there are using PL rating programs that make you select vehicles from a drop down list of all registered to the address… you’re actually working for the aggregator to enhance the quality of its products.
We have a COMM AU/WC/BOP rater now that is state-of the art. Our agents enjoy the benefits of multi-carrier quoting today! By the way, of course we also have a PL multi-carrier rater as well.
If you are referring to our online, state-of-the-art CL/PL raters, please visit http://www.superioraccess.com for more information about our fee for service agreement, and agent choice plans.
Talk to their accounts about sharing information? What kind of a moron are you? This information is already being shared. Now it can be done in a manner that is more sceure than your unencrypted e-mail submissions (including your bcc’s)
If you want to talk about sharing information, let’s talk about all of the brokers sending their work to China and India.
To Barbara Parker-Hatch:
With all due respect to Dave Howell, I believe you wanted information on how to subscribe to the LexisNexis Insurance Exchange. You can call me at 860-794-7806 and I will ensure that you get connected with the folks at LexisNexis.
Frank Sentner
Director of Technology
The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers
I am always dismayed at the lack of civility evident on blogs where individuals choose to remain anonymous. I myself have done some clowning, but I am unaware of any LexisNexis employees who are clowns. Although I doubt that the author of this thread will care, none of the submission information that passes through the insurance exchange is visible to anyone other than the participants invited by the brokers. If I were a private small cap company, I would fire the “California Broker” for failure to leverage the enhanced security, increased efficiency, and improved market knowledge available throught the LexisNexis Insurance Exchange on my behalf.
I think you really missed the point with this. First of all, I fail to see how this devalues relationships. These brokers will still be sending submissions to the same carriers and underwriters they already use during the marketing process. They MUST have a carrier appointment or open brokerage agreement to submit business to a carrier via the insurance exchange. These brokers will still continue to service their customers’ loss control and claims needs as they always have. It is not about price, but rather about efficiency and delivering a better service to customers.
As a broker, I am absolutely tired of using dozens of carrier systems for submissions and quotes. It wasn’t a good idea in the 80’s when carriers stuck PCs in my office connected to their systems via modem. It wasn’t a good idea in the 90’s when we had to learn to use their green-screen apps through IVANS. It is not a good idea now having to learn all of their websites, and submit the same information over-and-over.
I remember when carriers would not accept ACORD forms. I’m sure you thought ACORD would also die a painful death. Our industry is so far behind other industries with standards and EDI that it is embarrassing. It’s about time someone had the courage to do better for our customers and our industry.
This is going to be fun.
Would love to speak with all of these broker’s accounts about sharing information.
You’ve got to love this opportunity. Now that we have the names of the brokers that are part of this program,we’ll begin to have a little fun.
Perhaps before you just jump on this as foolish, maybe you should know how this exchange works. The business remains owned by the agency; the system will integrate with most agency management systems; the client information is only seen by the party who owns it and who they give permission to and the “reports” contain data but no names. Overall, it looks like and feels like this could work for agencies who have an open mind. The member contract is quite specific and seems to cover all of the bases.
In a soft market, they are willingly signing up for a market facility that de-values relationships, loss control and claim service in favor of price, price, price. I predict a not-so-slow but painful death for this platform.
This isn’t posting app.s to a blog, people. This is just submitting an app to all your carriers at once without having to rekey info into separate carriers’ systems or send multiple emails with attachments. This will not lead to the fall of mankind, Rush Limbaugh still has that covered for us. Though he’s alone now that Lil’ Bush stays drunk on the ranch. But I digress. Hi-speed spamming to block markets is what this is about. Which sucks. And will die a painfull, quick death. Aided by Lexus’ usual high prices. Can only assume this is the pet project of some VP over there whose ego has run amuck.
Anyone remember SEMCI? Single Entry Multiple Company Interface. Was supposed to work back in the 90’s.
We will see if this latest version takes off…
Who cares about coverage, carrier ratings, or claims service? May the lowest price win!
Commiditizing commercial P&C products isn’t really good for anyone involved…
The article didn’t mention rating, just the submission. However it also didn’t mention any integration with agents’ management systems. Might be a good thing if the applications could be generated from the Management system then sent through Applieds Transformation Station or AMS TransactNow to the exchange. Otherwise, it’s still double entry!
Who owns the data that’s exchanged? What does the contract say about L/N’s rights to share or sell that data? Client data was once considered an agency’s business asset. Data aggregators have all but eroded the personal lines asset. Does anyone know what rights these agreements give L/N to share commerical lines data?
Excellent question WJ. With some of the larger agencies involved you would think this has been vetted. If not, our state association, IIAT, has been very good to review and negotiate the proper language in to the contract. The submitting agent should retain the rights to the information and the ability to retract/delete it.
I would never for one second partner up with these clowns and have non-public information about my “middle market account” become part of a Lexus/Nexus data base for all to see.
If I were a private, small cap, company; (less than $100 million) I would fire my broker for having anything to do with this “data clearing house”.
We have NDA’s with most of our large accounts, and would NEVER share any information with anyone that lacks privity to either the application for insurance or providing product on behalf of our customer.
Haven’t brokers already solved this problem with the “bcc” line in their emails? You can send one email to unlimited numbers of markets with just a pen stroke.
However, most underwriters don’t like being “bcc-ed” on submissions as they know it’s being shotgunned. I wonder how they’ll feel about this….
Isn’t it time our carriers divulged info about their contracts with Lexis et al? If they are anything like some of the early arrangements for PL, the carriers may not have to pay anything in exchange the data aggregators’ rights to use certain data. If any of you out there are using PL rating programs that make you select vehicles from a drop down list of all registered to the address… you’re actually working for the aggregator to enhance the quality of its products.
what’s the difference between this and seapass.com? Seapass has been around for some time now.
I’m intrigued.
to transact commercial lines business with carriers, a system that will be
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/comments/?a=/news/national/2010/09/20/113362.htm&c=168166#ixzz10CgnAO7I
We have a COMM AU/WC/BOP rater now that is state-of the art. Our agents enjoy the benefits of multi-carrier quoting today! By the way, of course we also have a PL multi-carrier rater as well.
Need a contact name/number/address please.
How do I get this ?
If you are referring to our online, state-of-the-art CL/PL raters, please visit http://www.superioraccess.com for more information about our fee for service agreement, and agent choice plans.
Talk to their accounts about sharing information? What kind of a moron are you? This information is already being shared. Now it can be done in a manner that is more sceure than your unencrypted e-mail submissions (including your bcc’s)
If you want to talk about sharing information, let’s talk about all of the brokers sending their work to China and India.
To Barbara Parker-Hatch:
With all due respect to Dave Howell, I believe you wanted information on how to subscribe to the LexisNexis Insurance Exchange. You can call me at 860-794-7806 and I will ensure that you get connected with the folks at LexisNexis.
Frank Sentner
Director of Technology
The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers
I am always dismayed at the lack of civility evident on blogs where individuals choose to remain anonymous. I myself have done some clowning, but I am unaware of any LexisNexis employees who are clowns. Although I doubt that the author of this thread will care, none of the submission information that passes through the insurance exchange is visible to anyone other than the participants invited by the brokers. If I were a private small cap company, I would fire the “California Broker” for failure to leverage the enhanced security, increased efficiency, and improved market knowledge available throught the LexisNexis Insurance Exchange on my behalf.
uw2,
I think you really missed the point with this. First of all, I fail to see how this devalues relationships. These brokers will still be sending submissions to the same carriers and underwriters they already use during the marketing process. They MUST have a carrier appointment or open brokerage agreement to submit business to a carrier via the insurance exchange. These brokers will still continue to service their customers’ loss control and claims needs as they always have. It is not about price, but rather about efficiency and delivering a better service to customers.
As a broker, I am absolutely tired of using dozens of carrier systems for submissions and quotes. It wasn’t a good idea in the 80’s when carriers stuck PCs in my office connected to their systems via modem. It wasn’t a good idea in the 90’s when we had to learn to use their green-screen apps through IVANS. It is not a good idea now having to learn all of their websites, and submit the same information over-and-over.
I remember when carriers would not accept ACORD forms. I’m sure you thought ACORD would also die a painful death. Our industry is so far behind other industries with standards and EDI that it is embarrassing. It’s about time someone had the courage to do better for our customers and our industry.
Respectfully,
Tod
Temporary Van Insurance