So much for ” has been open to our concerns and is seriously reviewing them.” Next Met project, agents will be offered joint investment opportunities with “Bernie” (Madoff).
I was a member of St. Paul Co’s personal lines division that was acquired by Metlife Auto and Home back in the late 1990s. They came in with a lot of flourish about how they wanted to leverage the strenghts of both organizations; they mostly wrote direct with a lot of corporate tie ins [GM, Chrysler], just above non-standard/minimum limits grade mostly and St. Paul had mid-level to affluent insureds under the PAK-II and former Economy Fire and Casualty book on an independent agency format. The St. Paul staff was experienced and had high morale, though the profitability of the book had struggled since Economy was acquired from Kemper. When we went to Rhode Island for meetings in late 1999 they admitted in executive management meetings to St. Paul managers and their own leaders that they had lied to the St. Paul employees’ faces and that they knew what they were doing, and didn’t need any input from the former St. Paul people. The message was crystal clear; They knew how to run things and they were going to do it their way. They actually seemed to think that the intentional deception was somehow cute or humorous. I was stunned and learned quickly that I had no interest in staying with the company. At the time there was a lot of talk about becoming a top 5 carrier. But it was obvious that their model was ancient (hire people out of high school with little or no education or experience, don’t train or develop them, and try to make up for it with systems like Pinnacle (an intersection accident liability allocation software tool). This obviously did not work and led to low morale, a lack of trust and very high employee turnover (about that of most fast food places, as to my office vs a retention rate of 92%+ for St. Paul former). I recall vividly the talk of employees as “worker bees”, low cube walls (so they could “watch” their employees) and managers who would listen in on adjuster’s phone calls frequently. The culture was Orwellian in my opinion. Ten years later they seem to be mired in mediocracy. Many offices have been closed with a migration to a model where everyone, including leadership, is based out of their homes (telecommute), which is a model I have not seen anywhere else in the industry. This most recent marketing initiative may create brand awareness, but if they are going to have a strategic differential advantage they will have to do it by way of customer service, employee skill and loyalty, coupled with strong products and pricing. I have seen no evidence of these things as I have observed them over the last decade, at least in my opinion. My prediction is that this will have no measurable impact on their long term viability and/or profitability as a personal lines carrier. Time will tell.
Bob say what you will about MetLife Auto & home but calling them “mired in mediocracy” is being misinformed. Take a look at AM Best. In terms of profitability they are the best in the entire personal lines industry. I also know that most all the product differentiation offered today in the industry was driven by MetLife. Don’t think there is a more innovative carrier on product.
In Oregon and Washington, I think this may be considered a form of rebating as well. And, who discusses the coverage with the insured? MetLife is reaping the profit but GM/Chevy is selling it.
So much for ” has been open to our concerns and is seriously reviewing them.” Next Met project, agents will be offered joint investment opportunities with “Bernie” (Madoff).
how much more above the state min requirements.
Sounds like a rebate and controlled business to me.
should also help its independent agency distribution force, what a load of horse Sh*t
Uninsurable drivers no longer have to go to an assigned risk program – now they just need to buy a new car from GM.
I was a member of St. Paul Co’s personal lines division that was acquired by Metlife Auto and Home back in the late 1990s. They came in with a lot of flourish about how they wanted to leverage the strenghts of both organizations; they mostly wrote direct with a lot of corporate tie ins [GM, Chrysler], just above non-standard/minimum limits grade mostly and St. Paul had mid-level to affluent insureds under the PAK-II and former Economy Fire and Casualty book on an independent agency format. The St. Paul staff was experienced and had high morale, though the profitability of the book had struggled since Economy was acquired from Kemper. When we went to Rhode Island for meetings in late 1999 they admitted in executive management meetings to St. Paul managers and their own leaders that they had lied to the St. Paul employees’ faces and that they knew what they were doing, and didn’t need any input from the former St. Paul people. The message was crystal clear; They knew how to run things and they were going to do it their way. They actually seemed to think that the intentional deception was somehow cute or humorous. I was stunned and learned quickly that I had no interest in staying with the company. At the time there was a lot of talk about becoming a top 5 carrier. But it was obvious that their model was ancient (hire people out of high school with little or no education or experience, don’t train or develop them, and try to make up for it with systems like Pinnacle (an intersection accident liability allocation software tool). This obviously did not work and led to low morale, a lack of trust and very high employee turnover (about that of most fast food places, as to my office vs a retention rate of 92%+ for St. Paul former). I recall vividly the talk of employees as “worker bees”, low cube walls (so they could “watch” their employees) and managers who would listen in on adjuster’s phone calls frequently. The culture was Orwellian in my opinion. Ten years later they seem to be mired in mediocracy. Many offices have been closed with a migration to a model where everyone, including leadership, is based out of their homes (telecommute), which is a model I have not seen anywhere else in the industry. This most recent marketing initiative may create brand awareness, but if they are going to have a strategic differential advantage they will have to do it by way of customer service, employee skill and loyalty, coupled with strong products and pricing. I have seen no evidence of these things as I have observed them over the last decade, at least in my opinion. My prediction is that this will have no measurable impact on their long term viability and/or profitability as a personal lines carrier. Time will tell.
Bob say what you will about MetLife Auto & home but calling them “mired in mediocracy” is being misinformed. Take a look at AM Best. In terms of profitability they are the best in the entire personal lines industry. I also know that most all the product differentiation offered today in the industry was driven by MetLife. Don’t think there is a more innovative carrier on product.
PLEASE!!!! What you’re saying is B S !!!!
folks with free insurance usually take better care to avoid mishaps…kind of how they take better care of cares they rent than those they own…
can hardly wait to see the ‘loss ratio’ on this book…I note they didn’t mention UM coverage…do those two states NOT require it to be offered?
In Pennsylvania I am sure that this would be considered rebating and therefore illegal. I hope Met gets burned good on this one.
In Oregon and Washington, I think this may be considered a form of rebating as well. And, who discusses the coverage with the insured? MetLife is reaping the profit but GM/Chevy is selling it.