Exclusivefocus - National Association of Professional Allstate Agents ...

Exclusivefocus - National Association of Professional Allstate Agents ... Exclusivefocus - National Association of Professional Allstate Agents ...

11.07.2015 Views

agent issuesProtecting Your Book of BusinessBY RICHARD LARKIN, CLU©The most valuable asset of Allstateagency owners may be the transferableinterest they have in their book ofbusiness. Prior to 2000, the majority ofAllstate agents were employee agents,and the vast majority of them participatedin the Allstate Agent Pension Plan.Until then, this was their primary vehiclefor funding their retirement. Whenthey lost their employee status and becameindependent contractors (referredto by many as a forced conversion), theywere no longer eligible to participate inthe pension plan.Under the new Exclusive Agent contract,the value of their book of businessbecame a major source of their retirementprogram. However, the security of thatasset is vulnerable, subject to the whimsof Allstate. The company, as has beendetermined, legally may tamper with theagency owner’s right to sell it, notwithstandingthe rampant and widespreadcomplaints of Allstate’s meddling.Furthermore, agency owners, despitebeing called by the company “independentcontractors,” are subject to performancestandards. These are establishedexclusively by Allstate, subject to changeat any time for any reason. Should Allstatedecide to terminate an agencyowner for failure to achieve ExpectedResults, the value of the book will likelysuffer an immediate decline in value.There is little need to examine the manyadverse consequences that may befall anagency owner who is forced to sell, or theunsavory ways they manifest themselves– these are all too familiar to too many.The issue of an independent contractorbeing subjected to certain expectedresults established arbitrarily, and whichare of questionable legality, has becomeof immediate concern due to recentevents, the first of which is the increasein the number of agency owners nowreceiving termination notices, and thesecond being the February 6th article inthe Washington Post that reported that“Allstate last week declared, despite unprecedentedtrouble in the markets, itremains financially strong. But tuckeddeep inside a company report is evidencethat Allstate changed its bookkeepinglast year in ways that improve its financialappearance.”The legality of the bookkeepingchanges is not known at this time. Butwhatever that outcome turns out to be,it does not escape the appearance that adouble standard is being practiced: onefor senior executives whose compensationis predicated upon meeting expectedresults, another for the Expected Resultsagency owners are required to meetto keep their job. This appearance of adouble standard would likely not gaintraction except for a multitude of reasonsthat, when taken in total, suggest the existenceof a corporate culture concernedwith the accumulation of personal wealthto the detriment of agency owners, employees,policyholders and the insuranceconsumers.Consider the following events (spaceprecludes including the many more thatexist), all of which have occurred withinthe past two and one-half years:Lawsuits:• September 20, 2008. An accountantwas struck by an Allstate insureddriver in a low-impact accident. Sheunderwent three months of physicaltherapy and other treatment. The medicalrecords were provided to Allstate,as well as proof of lost wages. Allstate’sstand was that the pain was the result of a18 — Exclusivefocus Spring 2009

long-resolved divorce, that its client wasnot responsible for the accident, despitehaving clearly violated the right of way, adefense “used in many, if not most casesby Allstate.” Their offer was $1,500. Anarbitrator awarded over 30 times Allstate’shighest offer.• July 2008. Allstate lost its appeal ina Missouri Court of a $16 million judgmentagainst it for not settling a $50,000claim on an auto insurance policy. “Allstate’sfailure to recognize the severity ofthe ... injuries and the probability thatthe claim would far exceed ... policy limits;its failure to investigate the claim andrespond to the demand in accordancewith insurance industry standards and itsown good faith claim handling manual... are all circumstances supporting a reasonableinference that Allstate’s refusalto settle was in bad faith,” wrote JudgePaul Spinden in the decision• July 2008. Allstate settled a badfaithcase that drew national attentionand prompted the judge to levy finesagainst the insurer topping $7 million.Both sides declined to disclose the termsof the settlement. This is the court wherea daily fine of $25,000 was levied forAllstate’s refusal to comply with a courtorder to produce, among other things,the McKinsey documents.Regulatory:• August 2008. Allstate finally settleswith the Florida Office of InsuranceRegulation (OIR) after losing aprolonged struggle to avoid turning overdocuments requested by the department.The documents (frequently referred to asthe McKinsey report), had been soughtfor several years by authorities in courtroomsthroughout the country. InsuranceCommissioner Kevin McCarty said“Allstate’s actions clearly evidence a continuingattempt to improperly subvert,manipulate, and undermine the regulatoryprocess, and such actions evidencea lack of trustworthiness on the part ofAllstate’s management, officers, and directors.”Finally, faced with an ultimatumto comply with the subpoena to surrenderthe requested information or loseits authority to transact any new insurancebusiness in Florida, Allstate cavedin. It also agreed to pay a $5 million fine,cut rates by 5.6 percent, not ask for a rateincrease for at least a year, forgive a $175million loan to its Florida subsidiaries,and write 100,000 new residential propertypolicies in Florida.• May 2008. The Texas Departmentof Insurance and Allstate reached an agreementto settle all outstanding litigation withrespect to homeowners’ insurance issuesthat date back as far as December 2004.Under the terms of the agreement, Allstatewill provide $71,300,000 in refunds, creditsand rate reductions. In the same month thecompany agreed to refund $51.6 million toTexas customers it overcharged.• February 20, 2008. Louisiana InsuranceCommissioner Jim Donelonfined Allstate $250,000, and ordered theinsurer to reinstate the wind and hailcoverage of several hundred customerswhose policies were dropped in disregardof a key consumer protections law. Allstateadmitted to no wrongdoing, sayingit disagreed with the department’sinterpretation of the law, and claimed itdecided to settle the matter “in recognitionof the catastrophic events of 2005,the continuing concern for its customersand as a gesture of ‘goodwill.’”• December 2007. The MarylandInsurance Commissioner announced afine of $750,000 – the largest ever imposedagainst a property and casualtyinsurer – against Allstate for failure tocomply with state laws regarding mandatorynotices to consumers and a requiredfiling with the Maryland Insurance Administration.State insurance officialssaid Allstate had already paid Marylandconsumers nearly $18.6 million in restitutionfor similar violations.Independent Authorities:• July 2007. A report by the ConsumerFederation of America (CFA) chargesAllstate with “Questionable claims settlementpractices, resulting in unjustifiablylow claims payments. Allstate was oneof the first major insurers to adopt claimspayment techniques designed to systematicallyreduce payments to policyholderswithout adequately examining the validityof each individual claim, such as an automatedpayment system called Colossus.Spring 2009 Exclusivefocus — 19

agent issuesProtecting Your Book <strong>of</strong> BusinessBY RICHARD LARKIN, CLU©The most valuable asset <strong>of</strong> <strong>Allstate</strong>agency owners may be the transferableinterest they have in their book <strong>of</strong>business. Prior to 2000, the majority <strong>of</strong><strong>Allstate</strong> agents were employee agents,and the vast majority <strong>of</strong> them participatedin the <strong>Allstate</strong> Agent Pension Plan.Until then, this was their primary vehiclefor funding their retirement. Whenthey lost their employee status and becameindependent contractors (referredto by many as a forced conversion), theywere no longer eligible to participate inthe pension plan.Under the new Exclusive Agent contract,the value <strong>of</strong> their book <strong>of</strong> businessbecame a major source <strong>of</strong> their retirementprogram. However, the security <strong>of</strong> thatasset is vulnerable, subject to the whims<strong>of</strong> <strong>Allstate</strong>. The company, as has beendetermined, legally may tamper with theagency owner’s right to sell it, notwithstandingthe rampant and widespreadcomplaints <strong>of</strong> <strong>Allstate</strong>’s meddling.Furthermore, agency owners, despitebeing called by the company “independentcontractors,” are subject to performancestandards. These are establishedexclusively by <strong>Allstate</strong>, subject to changeat any time for any reason. Should <strong>Allstate</strong>decide to terminate an agencyowner for failure to achieve ExpectedResults, the value <strong>of</strong> the book will likelysuffer an immediate decline in value.There is little need to examine the manyadverse consequences that may befall anagency owner who is forced to sell, or theunsavory ways they manifest themselves– these are all too familiar to too many.The issue <strong>of</strong> an independent contractorbeing subjected to certain expectedresults established arbitrarily, and whichare <strong>of</strong> questionable legality, has become<strong>of</strong> immediate concern due to recentevents, the first <strong>of</strong> which is the increasein the number <strong>of</strong> agency owners nowreceiving termination notices, and thesecond being the February 6th article inthe Washington Post that reported that“<strong>Allstate</strong> last week declared, despite unprecedentedtrouble in the markets, itremains financially strong. But tuckeddeep inside a company report is evidencethat <strong>Allstate</strong> changed its bookkeepinglast year in ways that improve its financialappearance.”The legality <strong>of</strong> the bookkeepingchanges is not known at this time. Butwhatever that outcome turns out to be,it does not escape the appearance that adouble standard is being practiced: onefor senior executives whose compensationis predicated upon meeting expectedresults, another for the Expected Resultsagency owners are required to meetto keep their job. This appearance <strong>of</strong> adouble standard would likely not gaintraction except for a multitude <strong>of</strong> reasonsthat, when taken in total, suggest the existence<strong>of</strong> a corporate culture concernedwith the accumulation <strong>of</strong> personal wealthto the detriment <strong>of</strong> agency owners, employees,policyholders and the insuranceconsumers.Consider the following events (spaceprecludes including the many more thatexist), all <strong>of</strong> which have occurred withinthe past two and one-half years:Lawsuits:• September 20, 2008. An accountantwas struck by an <strong>Allstate</strong> insureddriver in a low-impact accident. Sheunderwent three months <strong>of</strong> physicaltherapy and other treatment. The medicalrecords were provided to <strong>Allstate</strong>,as well as pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> lost wages. <strong>Allstate</strong>’sstand was that the pain was the result <strong>of</strong> a18 — <strong>Exclusivefocus</strong> Spring 2009

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!