Does this mean no direct access and it now will be a brokerage placement. Will going through a broker now bring a broker fee into play and now cost the insured higher premiums. Not sure everyone thought this out. Someone let me know if I am wrong.
Does not address any commission changes or time constrictions having to go through an intermediary. I am sure that Gallagher and RIC are not doing this pro bono, so how are they being compensated? Is it out of State Fund’s pocket or the individual agent/agency commission?
Will the business be admitted or are taxes going to be imposed as well as other wholesaler or policy fees? Seems like somebody got into the State Fund’s pocket. I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening to all the back room negotiating. This was certainly not done to have any benefit accrue to the smaller independent agent and does not address what happens if and when an agency crosses the 100k threshold. Seems that this whole thing was done behind closed doors, since I cannot fathom any smaller agency wanting to go along with this.
Also, what happens with follow-up customer service? Exempt employee changes, changes to staff, change in company profile, addition of other class codes, etc….will all this have to go through the two entities or direct with SCIF?
In typical political posturing, I see a pending disaster since all these particulars will never be addressed in less than four months and will probably be subject to modification as each state election rolls around.
SCIF has gone over the edge I’d say – no discussion with their agency/brokerage plant ONLY the “big” guy getting the deal! something is not kosher here – great points you bringup Jack as well as Bob.
SCIF did communicate with their agents/brokers well in advance of this. Letters and contacts by their marketing liasons advised of this upcoming change. It was either ignored or not understood in your office.
The board of directors should fire everyone in senior management for this idiot move. The only thing this going to do is shaft the small start up business.
They aready retain deposit premiums for as long as a risk is with State Fund. No other insurance company does this and the DOI lets them get away with it.
Great change – If any agency can’t write $100k in the past 3 years, they probably shouldn’t be in business anyways. That is a VERY small number so this will be a huge benefit to us all that are waiting for our State Fund renewals for weeks, sometimes after the renewal date, due to their backlog. Hopefully this will streamline it for the agency’s that due a fair amount of WC business.
SCIF just turned 3500 friends into enemies.
Brokers have a long memory and this is hardly even close to a great change.
Good luck with improved service, not likely.
Does this mean no direct access and it now will be a brokerage placement. Will going through a broker now bring a broker fee into play and now cost the insured higher premiums. Not sure everyone thought this out. Someone let me know if I am wrong.
Does not address any commission changes or time constrictions having to go through an intermediary. I am sure that Gallagher and RIC are not doing this pro bono, so how are they being compensated? Is it out of State Fund’s pocket or the individual agent/agency commission?
Will the business be admitted or are taxes going to be imposed as well as other wholesaler or policy fees? Seems like somebody got into the State Fund’s pocket. I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening to all the back room negotiating. This was certainly not done to have any benefit accrue to the smaller independent agent and does not address what happens if and when an agency crosses the 100k threshold. Seems that this whole thing was done behind closed doors, since I cannot fathom any smaller agency wanting to go along with this.
Also, what happens with follow-up customer service? Exempt employee changes, changes to staff, change in company profile, addition of other class codes, etc….will all this have to go through the two entities or direct with SCIF?
In typical political posturing, I see a pending disaster since all these particulars will never be addressed in less than four months and will probably be subject to modification as each state election rolls around.
SCIF has gone over the edge I’d say – no discussion with their agency/brokerage plant ONLY the “big” guy getting the deal! something is not kosher here – great points you bringup Jack as well as Bob.
SCIF did communicate with their agents/brokers well in advance of this. Letters and contacts by their marketing liasons advised of this upcoming change. It was either ignored or not understood in your office.
The board of directors should fire everyone in senior management for this idiot move. The only thing this going to do is shaft the small start up business.
They aready retain deposit premiums for as long as a risk is with State Fund. No other insurance company does this and the DOI lets them get away with it.
Where is the legislature????
Fire them? legislation???!!! you’ve got to be kidding look at who is running the show, sad sad for California businesses.
Great change – If any agency can’t write $100k in the past 3 years, they probably shouldn’t be in business anyways. That is a VERY small number so this will be a huge benefit to us all that are waiting for our State Fund renewals for weeks, sometimes after the renewal date, due to their backlog. Hopefully this will streamline it for the agency’s that due a fair amount of WC business.
SCIF just turned 3500 friends into enemies.
Brokers have a long memory and this is hardly even close to a great change.
Good luck with improved service, not likely.
“due to their backlog.”
They wouldn’t have such a big backlog if they didn’t fire 3000 people in the last two years.