Insurance company underwriting ranks high with PIA members, both in its importance and for companies' (mostly) successful execution. That's clear from results of two recent PIA studies, the 2009 Benchmark Survey and the 2009 PIA Company Performance Survey.

If agents have an underwriting beef, it's a general want of flexibility or a carrier's insufficient appetite. And, strange at it seems, some insurers don't provide immediate access to underwriters when agents submit a business opportunity.

How they scored-performance. On the performance survey, three of the four underwriting items score very well: “has knowledge and experience” (average score – 8.1, the survey's top item); “stable market” (7.8); and “consistent underwriting” (7.8). Only “flexible when warranted” (7.1) scored below the survey's overall average score of 7.3 (for all 77 companies, on all 20 performance items combined).

“Importance” to agents. Of all company attributes, “underwriter knowledge, experience” rates highest in importance to agents, at 9.25 (out of 10). In the benchmark survey, all four underwriting items placed in the top 10 items (out of 35). The overall average Benchmark “importance” rating (all 35 items combined) was 8.40.

For “flexible when warranted,” there's a big gap between agents' priorities and what they actually experience. Companies may want to consider how much flexibility they show, and whether they could be losing out on good business as a result.

Agent comments. Agents were asked to name a company's “main strength” and something they'd like the company to improve. Topics relating to underwriting made up a large share (23 percent) of all comments. In line with performance scores, companies get more positive comments for knowledge/experience (64 percent positive) and stability-consistency (57 percent) than for flexibility (41 percent). For commercial lines business units, a quarter of all agent recommendations ask for more flexibility or appetite.

What agents say: Underwriters. Some of agents' most enthusiastic “main strength” comments describe favorite underwriters. “Our underwriters are absolutely awesome!” “Love the underwriters.”

Underwriting relationships reinforce agents' sense of a company's stability: “Wonderful helpful underwriting staff that is stable.” “The consistency and permanence of underwriting personnel.” Agents dislike disruptions: “They change underwriters way too much.”

Assigned underwriters vs. other arrangements? “I have been very pleased with one-underwriter system.” “Limit number of underwriters per agency. It is a waste of time to have to explain the same risk/situation/issue repeatedly to several different people.”

Above all, a good underwriter listens and responds helpfully: “Receptive dialogue for writing business.” “Listening to all facts before making a decision and then offering what they can do, not what they can't do.” Even if the answer is “no,” agents appreciate a quick decision: “Timely review of submissions and prompt message regarding acceptability of risks.” “If it doesn't [fit], she will tell you and not waste everyone's time.”

The right underwriter plays on the same team with agents, working toward the same goal: “The underwriter works with us to get approval on risks.” “Their commercial underwriters will work with you to place business and resolve any issues quickly and fairly.”

An indifferent or even hostile attitude can signal that the company is NOT “open for business”: “Underwriters are quite aloof and don't seem to care whether you write a piece of business or not.” “From day one I have often felt like I'm ‘putting them out' when calling underwriting.”

A truly astounding share of underwriting comments cite problems just reaching underwriters: “Our calls are often ignored or not returned.” “Underwriting is NIL, no call backs.” “Difficult to communicate with underwriting, very slow response time, slow turnaround.”

So, somewhat surprisingly, merely enabling prompt access to underwriters can be seen as a company's “greatest strength ”: “An underwriter is always available by phone immediately.” “Very easy to get to an underwriter.” A quick answer is the main point: “Turnaround on an account they want to write is immediate.” “Response from underwriting is unsurpassed!!!”

Companies should remember that agents constantly evaluate and compare their experiences: “Underwriters are slow to respond to questions and are not nearly as willing to work with agents to resolve issues as other companies are.”

Stability and consistency. Agents value companies that provide stable markets and prove consistent in their underwriting judgments. Such companies are easier (hence, less expensive) to work with, because outcomes are predictable.

In some cases, agents say stability is a company's greatest strength: “Stability through the years; reliability.” Other positive attributes tend to cluster with stability in agents' descriptions: “Stable and trustworthy.” “Solid, consistent, reliable, agent-oriented market.”

Consistent underwriting can be a “main strength” because it saves agents from costly delays: “Consistent application of underwriting guidelines.” Respect breaks down when company personnel are not on the same page: (Improve) “Consistency of underwriting. If you don't like the first answer, call back and get someone else.” Inconsistency is one topic that brings out agents' frustration: (Improve) “Consistent underwriting information. We get memos, then 6 months later it's as if those memos were never issued.” “Not consistent. Making too many changes and underwriters drive us crazy.”

Underwriting flexibility. Agents make a distinction between inconsistency and flexibility. Inconsistency has no rational basis; it only confuses and frustrates agents. Flexibility, on the other hand, demonstrates a role for expert human judgment in the underwriting process. Agents respect this; they see flexibility as the hallmark of “real” company underwriting: “Flexibility—so nice to work with an underwriting company.” “Willing to underwrite individual risks, not strictly by guidelines.” “They are real underwriters willing to discuss a risk.”

Readiness to consult with agents is an important tool in “real” underwriting: “Able to talk and discuss issues with underwriters. Agency knowledge of customer is a consideration.” “Flexibility within underwriting guidelines. Being open to discussing the exposures of a risk, not dismissing it at first glance.” “Able to talk with underwriting and explain a potential risk.” This dialogue requires the element of human judgment: “Let underwriters underwrite, as computer programs cannot replace a knowledgeable underwriter.”

Once again, a respectful partnership is seen as key to success. Rational flexibility lets agents help their carriers identify and secure opportunities as they arise. In underwriting as in other areas, “it's a people business."—Kiehl