csi report 2010

Driving members to distinction.

2010COMPANYSATISFACTIONINDEX SURVEY

RESULTSAn exclusive member benefit for benchmarking carrier relationships

SummaryThe Insurance Agents & Brokers (IA&B) conducted its biennial survey of agency members in Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania to determine their satisfaction level with the carriers with which their agencies do business. IA&B has been collecting and sharingmembers’ opinions with both carriers and agents since 2004.

This report is divided into four sections:1. Outline of the index’s participation, structure and purpose The survey was open to all employees of any IA&B member agency from June 1 to mid-August. Although participation was down slightly since 2008, the number of carriers rated continued to increase. Only carriers receiving 10 or more completed surveys are included in this report. Results allow carriers to assess performance in an independent way and compare that performance with other carriers.

2. Key findings by carrier group The report differentiates the carriers based upon direct premium written (DPW) and the number of states in their footprint. Carriers were divided into one of four groupings:

• Regional carriers operating in 1-10 states with less than $100 million in DPW • Regional carriers operating in 1-10 states with more than $100 million in DPW • Super regional carriers operating in 11 to 34 states • National carriers operating in 35 or more states

The results show that members’ satisfaction with all carrier groups – except for regional II carriers – increased slightly since 2008, but it was the super regional carriers for both personal and commercial lines receiving the most favorable marks from survey participants.

3. Individual carrier results To qualify for the final report, a carrier must have received 10 or more completed surveys. In total, 39 personal lines and 38 commercial lines carriers were included. This report includes an alphabetical listing of those carriers and their results. Additionally, IA&B has an interactive, online tool of the results which allows the user to sort the results based upon carrier ranking or by any of the four key categories. The online tool also allows the user to see a side-by-side comparison of carriers and an in-depth examination of each carrier’s individual results by question. The online tool can be found at www.iabgroup.com/csi.

4. Key findings by category and questions The survey asked members to share their opinions based upon four key categories of their carrier relationships:

• Products, Pricing & Underwriting • Policy Service & Claims • Agency/Company Relationship • Technology

Overall and on average, respondents recognized carriers for improving in all four categories.

2010CSI RESULTS

For more information:

Visit IA&B’s Company Satisfaction

Index interactive online tool at

iabgroup.com/csi. The tool is

designed to provide an overview

of both personal and commercial

lines results, a comparison

among carriers and an in-depth

look at each carrier’s individual

results by question.

2010C O M P A N Y S A T I S F A C T I O N I N D E X

INDEPENDENT AGENTS’

SATISFACTIONWITH SUPERREGIONALCARRIERSIMPROVES

www.iabgroup.com I (800) 998-9644 I (717) 795-9100

Driving members to distinction. 1

Survey Structure and Methodology

A total of 422 members participated in the survey by completing 572 surveys(280 personal lines and 292 commercial lines). This marks a slight decrease in participation since 2008.

S U R V E Y S T R U C T U R E A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y

2 www.iabgroup.com I (800) 998-9644 I (717) 795-9100

Participants rated their carriers on a four-point scale of satisfaction – with one (1) meaning satisfied and four (4) unsatisfied. They offered opinions on four key categories of their carrier relationships:

1) Products, Pricing & Underwriting

2) Policy Service & Claims

3) Agency/Company Relationship

4) Technology

Results allow carriers to assess performance in an independent way and compare that performance with other carriers. One goal is the overall improvement of performance for the benefit of the carrier, the agents IA&B serves and the consumers served by both.

The survey results could also serve these purposes:

1) For an agency to benchmark its relationship with its carriers.

2) For an agency seeking new carriers to use the benchmark for the interview process.

3) For a carrier to validate its perception or as a “calling” to improve.

4) For IA&B to use constructively in dialogue with carriers.

IA&B members were asked to rate at least their top threecarriers for which they placebusiness. For a carrier writing both personal andcommercial lines, memberswere asked to consider eachline of business separately. On average, respondentsrated 4.6 personal lines and4.8 commercial lines carriers,very similar to previous years.

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Respondents rated 74personal lines carriersand 82 commercial linescarriers. There has beena steady increase in thenumber of carriers ratedby members, althoughnearly half the carrierswere not integrated intothis report since only carriers with 10 or morecompleted surveys areincluded in the final results. In total, 39 personal lines and 38 commercial lines carriers were included.


S U R V E Y S T R U C T U R E A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y


By comparing previoussurvey results, the indexshows how respondents’satisfaction with eachcarrier improved or declined. Of those carriers included in the2008 results that werealso included in thisyear’s results, membersdenoted a 50/50 split inpersonal lines, indicatinghalf the carriers had improved while half haddeclined. In commerciallines, 40 percent improved their rating from 2008 while 60 percent declined.


Only carriers with 10 or more ratings can qualify for inclusion in the final survey results. In 2010, seven personal lines carriersthat were not included in the2008 results became eligibleincluding American ModernInsurance Group, Fireman’sFund, Frederick Mutual Insurance Company, GrangeInsurance, Harford Mutual,Kemper (Unitrin) and MMGInsurance. There were five personal lines carriersthat were included in the2008 results that did not qualify for the 2010 report including Chartis, LebanonMutual Insurance Company,Mercury Insurance Group,Motorists Insurance Groupand Peninsula InsuranceCompany.

In commercial lines, threenew carriers were added including Eastern Alliance Insurance Group, FrederickMutual Insurance Companyand MMG Insurance. Therewere eight commercial linescarriers that were included in the 2008 results that didnot qualify for the 2010 report including First CompUnderwriters Group, GuardInsurance Group, Lititz Mutual Insurance Company, Merchants Insurance Group,Motorists Insurance Group,Penn Millers Insurance Company and Zenith. Additionally, Safeco Insurance, now a personallines only carrier, was not included in the commerciallines report due to its merger with Liberty Mutual AgencyMarkets in 2008. Safeco is included in the personal lines results.

S U R V E Y S T R U C T U R E A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y / K E Y F I N D I N G S B Y C A R R I E R G R O U P


Any employee of an IA&B member agency in Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania was eligible to participate. Combined, principals and producers accounted for the majority of returned surveys, which was consistent with previous surveys.


Key Findings by Carrier GroupThis report differentiates the carriers based upon direct premium written (DPW) and the number of states in their footprint. Carriers were divided into one of four groupings:

� Regional carriers operating in 1-10 states with less than $100 million in DPW

� Regional carriers operating in 1-10 states with more than $100 million in DPW

� Super regional carriers operating in 11 to 34 states

� National carriers operating in 35 or more states

Personal Lines

Respondents indicated their highest level of satisfaction on the whole for personal lines was with their superregional carriers who improved from third overall since 2008. All groups of personal lines carriers improvedtheir overall performance with the exception of regional II carriers who slid from first to third overall.


C A R R I E R R E S U L T S

K E Y F I N D I N G S B Y C A R R I E R G R O U P


Respondents were mostsatisfied with their superregional carriers for personal lines policyservice and claims. In fact, super regionalsimproved from being thecarrier group showingthe least amount ofmember satisfaction in2008. Participants werethen most satisfied withthe regional I carriersfollowed by regional IIand finally the nationalcarriers. Overall, mostcarrier groups showedimprovement since thelast survey, but it’s thesuper regionals thatstand out.

Respondents were onceagain most satisfied withthe regional I carriers forpersonal lines products,pricing and underwriting.Participants liked theirsuper regional carriersnext as this group jumpedover regional II carriersfor the next to the top spot. This is the secondconsecutive survey where regional II carriersdropped in satisfactionafter a strong showing in both 2004 and 2006. Respondents were again least satisfied withnational carriers, but thisgroup showed the mostimprovement since 2008.

Personal Lines


Respondents were mostsatisfied with regional Iand super regional carriers with regard to agency/company relationship. Previoussurveys showed members’ level of satisfaction was highamong regional II carriers, but that satisfaction dropped off this survey period.Respondents’ satisfaction among national carriers improved the most since 2008.

With regard to the use of technology in personallines, respondents had the greatest satisfactionwith the super regionalcarriers who improvedfrom third to first since2008. Regional II carrierswere the only groupwhere overall satisfactiondropped in 2010. Overall,most carrier groupsshowed improvementsince the last survey.

K E Y F I N D I N G S B Y C A R R I E R G R O U P


Respondents were mostsatisfied with regional Icarriers for commerciallines products, pricingand underwriting for thethird consecutive survey.Both super regional andnational carriers showedimproved results since2008. Regional II carriers showed a slight decrease in member satisfaction.

Respondents indicatedtheir highest level of satisfaction on the wholefor commercial lines waswith their super regionalfollowed by regional I, national and then regionalII carriers. This is the second consecutive survey where the participants’ satisfactionof super regional carriersimproved the most overall.Satisfaction levels increased for each carrier group except for regional II.

Commercial Lines


Super regional and regional I carriers continue to show improvement in commercial lines technology. National and regional II carriersshowed a slight declinein member satisfaction. It is important to notethat this was the onlycategory in the surveywhere all scores foreach carrier group were above 2.000.

Respondents were mostsatisfied with the superregional carriers for commercial lines policyservice and claims handling, followed by regional I, national andthen regional II carriers.Super regional and regional I carriers werethe only two carriergroups to show improvedresults since 2008.

K E Y F I N D I N G S B Y C A R R I E R G R O U P / C A T E G O R Y A N D Q U E S T I O N S


Respondents weremost satisfied withregional I and superregional carriers inwith regard toagency/company relationship, followed by regionalII and then nationalcarriers. Both the regional I andsuper regional carrier groupsshowed improve-ment since 2008.

Commercial Lines


Key Findings by Category and QuestionsParticipants rated their carriers on a four-point scale of satisfaction – with one (1) meaning satisfied and four (4) unsatisfied. They offered opinions on four key categories of their carrier relationships:

1) Products, Pricing & Underwriting2) Policy Service & Claims3) Agency/Company Relationship4) Technology Overall and on average, respondents recognized carriers for improving in all four categories. This is the fourth consecutive survey indicating an increase in the respondents’ satisfaction.

K E Y F I N D I N G S B Y C A T E G O R Y & Q U E S T I O N S


Products, Pricing & UnderwritingIn this category, the average score declined slightly in personal lines and showed minimal improvement in commercial lines.

Personal Lines––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company offers competitive products and features. 1.791–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides competitive pricing. 1.949–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides consistent and stable markets. 1.666–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The underwriter(s) is accessible. 1.682–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––My underwriter(s) has sufficient knowledge and training. 1.506–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––My underwriter(s) is flexible when warranted. 1.970–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company has a low turnover of underwriters. 1.650–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company’s underwriter(s) respond within the necessary timeframe. 1.533–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company has clear and timely communications of underwriting guidelines and philosophies. 1.542–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Commercial Lines––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company offers competitive products and features. 1.696–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides competitive pricing. 1.785–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides consistent and stable markets. 1.614–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The underwriter(s) is accessible. 1.754–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––My underwriter(s) has sufficient knowledge and training. 1.561–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––My underwriter(s) is flexible when warranted. 1.893–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company has a low turnover of underwriters. 1.699–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company’s underwriter(s) respond within the necessary timeframe. 1.774–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company has clear and timely communications of underwriting guidelines and philosophies. 1.700–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


Policy Service & ClaimsRespondents were the most satisfied with their carriers in the category of Policy Service and Claims as this classification received the best average score.

Personal Lines––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company has prompt policy issuance. 1.332–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company has accurate policy issuance. 1.179–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company offers convenient payment plans. 1.310–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company adjusts claims promptly (within 24 hours). 1.591–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company adjusts claims fairly. 1.358–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides effective loss control service. 1.657–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Commercial Lines––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company has prompt policy issuance. 1.690–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company has accurate policy issuance. 1.521–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company offers convenient payment plans. 1.470–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company adjusts claims promptly (within 24 hours). 1.782–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company adjusts claims fairly. 1.459–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides effective loss control service. 1.791–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

K E Y F I N D I N G S B Y C A T E G O R Y & Q U E S T I O N S


TechnologyAs with previous surveys, technology remains the area in which respondents expressed the greatest degree of dissatisfaction with their carriers. In 2010, the overall satisfaction in both personal and commercial lines declined for the first time since 2004.

Personal Lines––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company uses technology 1.622effectively with my agency.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company supports upload/download with my 1.419agency management system.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The carrier exhibits commitment and support 1.825to the agency’s goal for Real Time (a single workflow for servicing or quoting) such asTransactNOW or Transformation Station.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides technical expertise for my agency. 1.819–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––How satisfied are you with the company’s use 1.953of technology and any workload shifting?–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company reaches out for agent input on 2.341technology goals for future planning.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company’s technology is reliable (up-time). 1.465–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The carrier’s use of technology has provided 1.841Real Time opportunities for my agency.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company’s technology provides an agency 1.673with an ease of doing business.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Commercial Lines––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company uses technology 1.919effectively with my agency.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company supports upload/download 2.219with my agency management system.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The carrier exhibits commitment and support 2.279to the agency’s goal for Real Time (a single workflow for servicing or quoting) such as TransactNOW or Transformation Station.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides technical 2.171expertise for my agency.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––How satisfied are you with the company’s 2.314use of technology and any workload shifting?–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company reaches out for agent input on technology goals for future planning. 2.536–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company’s technology is reliable (up-time). 1.682–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The carrier’s use of technology has 2.197provided Real Time opportunities for my agency.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company’s technology provides an 2.090agency with an ease of doing business.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


Agency/Company RelationshipIn the category of agency company relationship, respondents’ satisfaction decreased slightly from 2008.

Personal Lines––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company is dedicated to the 1.692American Agency System.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company offers a good commission schedule. 1.641–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company offers a good profit sharing plan 2.086–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides assistance programs 2.567for producer hiring, perpetuation and growth plans.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––I have confidence in the company’s future direction. 1.709–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––I have confidence in the company’s management. 1.729–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––This company appears to be financially stable. 1.309–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––This company has a strong position 1.659in my agency’s future plans.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––I would recommend this carrier 1.648to a peer as a good company.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Commercial Lines––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company is dedicated to the 1.584American Agency System.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company offers a good commission schedule. 1.681–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company offers a good profit sharing plan. 2.120–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The company provides assistance programs 2.663for producer hiring, perpetuation and growth plans.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––I have confidence in the company’s future direction. 1.698–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––I have confidence in the company’s management. 1.785–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––This company appears to be financially stable. 1.341–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––This company has a strong position 1.672in my agency’s future plans.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––I would recommend this carrier to 1.632a peer as a good company.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


IA&B’s Company Comparison ToolVisit IA&B’s Company Satisfaction Index interactive online tool

at iabgroup.com/csi. The tool is designed to provide an

overview of both personal and commercial lines results,

a comparison among carriers and an in-depth look at each

carrier’s individual results by question.

Driving Members to DistinctionCopyright 2010. All rights reserved. No material may be reproduced

in whole or in part without written consent of the publisher.


IA&B is an organization dedicated

to effectively preserve and advocate

the American Agency System as

a value-added distribution method,

and to the development and

availability of programs, products

and services that partner with

our members and customers in

sustaining and advancing

their operations.

Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. No material may be reproduced in whole or in part without written

consent of the publisher.

csi report 2010

Documents