Cross-marketing between banks and insurance agencies remains largely virgin territory. Most of the potential has not even been charted, let alone mined.
In working with banks as partners, owners, or co-venturers, insurance principals should recognize the pros and cons of the affiliation to neutralize the negatives and build on the positives.

The book of Life/benefits business springing from your P/C business can be as valuable as, or even more valuable than, your P/C book. For this reason alone, identifying who owns that book under all conditions is important.
Two parties might challenge your ownership: Life producers and Life carriers.

If you offer a policy review, your agency must be prepared to handle responses. The first 10 seconds of a phone call may be crucial in forming the caller's impression of your professionalism. Depending on the agency's system for routing incoming calls, we advise that Life calls be handled by Life staff. In emergency situations, enough information should be obtained on the first call to enable the Life producer to reach the caller again, even if communications are difficult; don't lose the caller!

This is a tale of three agents and what all agents should know about what could be a booming market. The story carries a challenge and a test to see what you would do in a not-too-rare scenario. After all, you might be just like one of these agents.

Here's a letter I received recently:
Dear Dave:
I work for a $3.5 million P/C agency with about 60% Commercial and 40% Personal in premium volume. One in-house Life producer handles Commercial and Personal lines, sometimes with outside help. But she doesn't write any Disability policies at all; she considers Disability insurance a specialty that she doesn't want to sell. Should I try to talk her into it, pressure her into it, or just let it go? I don't want to add another full-time Life agent unless he/she would become profitable early on; it took two years for my present Life agent to reach profitability. What are my alternatives?

Situation: I am a P/C agency principal and I have been pursuing Life and group business for the past few years. The results have been good so far, but I'm getting nervous about liability exposure. First I read about Kentucky agents who are being held liable for unpaid claims written in an insolvent multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA).

According to an old axiom, keeping an existing customer is much more profitable than spending money going after new prospects. While that's generally valid in any business, it seems especially true in P/C agencies, particularly when management recognizes dozens of related financial services that can flow through a P/C book of business.

The Long-term Care (LTC) family of products includes coverages for nursing homes, adult day care, home health care, assisted living facilities, and other related benefits. LTC has unique qualities, and there are many variations among the carriers.
LTC isn't a new concept. The coverage has been around for decades, but only recently has it been widely discussed. With the new wave of interest in LTC, sales took off slowly, built up, and then leveled off. All of this activity adds up to this picture: A large number of LTC prospects have heard about the product but haven't yet bought it. Why not?

Is your agency benefiting from the following?
The demutualization of some of our nation's largest, oldest mutual Life companies, and announcements that more will follow. In contrast, others are declaring that they will defy the trend and not demutualize.

P/C agents often have reviewed contracts and leases in conjunction with writing Contractual Liability coverages. In many cases, agents will advise clients to reject hold-harmless clauses which place undue hardship on them. Yet insurance agents themselves may be in the grip of hold-harmless clauses, which could lay immense financial burdens on them, even if they are totally innocent of any wrongdoing. We refer to the producer or general agent (GA) contracts of some-not all! -- Life carriers. Unfortunately, some of these carriers are among the best-known career or brokerage companies and, even worse, agents often aren't aware of the poisonous clauses until it's too late and they're sued.