What if your Insurance Company is mad at your broker?


By Carl Santa Maria

If you are responsible for the risk management function in your company a major responsibility includes the development of insurance programs, managing your broker, deciding on what to buy, how much to pay, handling of claims, and satisfying insurance requirements of customers.

By definition a broker is different than an agent. While both can have contracts with insurance companies a broker represents the insured and an agent represents the insurance company.

A broker’s job is to help identify threats to client businesses, evaluate the risks and design programs to deal with these issues in the most effective and cost efficient ways. Often the best ideas don’t involve insurance but the elimination of coverages that may not be necessary and, instead, target on mitigating, reducing, or eliminating the threat entirely.

When insurance is needed, it is important to consider a number of variables. Do the terms of the policy adequately provide protection? Are the limits purchased appropriate? Is the cost of the insurance competitive? Is the insurance company of sufficient financial strength to deliver on its responsibilities? Does the insurance company have a reputation for handling claims fairly and efficiently? These are just a few.

The insurance company seeks to write policies for risks that are well managed, for companies that are well run, and which offer a reasonable opportunity to earn a profit. When there is a fair exchange of value that is a good thing. Evaluating this existence of this equilibrium is very difficult.

A top broker works to create a program model, vet it thoroughly with his client, and search for a product that most closely conforms to the model. This approach changes the paradigm of the process from supplier (insurance company) control to buyer (client control) and will produce better outcomes consistently over time. The client decides what he will pay and at what cost and the supplier will either agree or offer alternatives.

Disturbances in the market can occur. This is particularly true if the broker is not aggressively monitoring the marketplace or merely renewing programs automatically, often at the last minute. The market can change quickly.

Recently, a company which had been insured by the same broker and carrier for a number of years was concerned about unexpected premium increases. The business was aware that its competitors had far lower costs. After the renewal was issued (at the 11th hour), the company reached out to another advisor for a program review. Not surprisingly the program costs could be reduced significantly, without reduction in quality, by moving the program to another insurance company. The savings was significant even after incurring a cancellation penalty. The holding insurance company was very upset that it lost the business and felt that the new broker had treated it unfairly. So the insurance company was mad at the broker for responding to an unsolicited inquiry, developing a better option, and replacing a program that was uncompetitive. It seems that the responsibility resides with the former broker and to some extent, the underwriter who priced the renewal.

Similarly, an insurer was undecided about continuing to insure a segment of a company’s operation. The insurer alerted its intent to cancel the coverage mid-term.  The broker appealed and delivered risk improvement information. Never the less the carrier insisted that the broker try to find another market for the exposure. Another carrier was agreeable to picking up coverage on the condition that the entire account be moved to them. The new carrier provided a very competitive package, including the problematic exposure. At the last minute the holding carrier relented on the cancellation, but the difference in coverage and cost resulted in the replacement of the account with a new carrier. The new carrier was only brought in at the insistence of the holding insurance company. The insurance carrier was mad at the broker for the change.

The overriding principle is responsibility to the client. If the broker hadn’t acted in the best interest of his client he would have been derelict in his duty. If the carriers had not forced the issues they would not have lost the business.

Business is best conducted as if the process and result could be shown on the 6 o’clock news. Would the insurance company or broker be most uncomfortable with those optics?

Maybe it’s okay for your insurance company to be mad at your broker!


Attention, execs and directors: Your personal assets are at risk!

By Craig M. Santa Maria

Did you know that corporate exec stress
executives and directors, small business owners, and even volunteer board members at non-profits can be held personally liable in legal judgments against their company or organization? It’s true, and it is a risk that is often overlooked.

Typically when a lawsuit is filed against an entity alleging mismanagement, both the entity and its executives and board directors are named as defendants, and both corporate and personal assets are at risk.

For example, a state attorney general sued a large charitable foundation and its trustees, alleging the trustees were excessively compensated and did not manage the foundation in a manner that supported its intended purpose. In the end, the suit was settled for over $5 million.

In another case, a software developer sued the directors and officers of a partner company in a failed joint venture, for misappropriation of his intellectual property. The plaintiff claimed the defendant firm took his ideas and developed its own software, allegedly retaining and using the IP to create a competing product. Upon settlement, the defendants were liable for hundreds of thousands in attorney fees and settlement costs.

While it’s reasonable to think that personal risk might deter individuals from starting a business or joining a board of directors, that risk can be mostly or totally mitigated by a quality directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance policy. In both examples above, the personal assets were protected by a D&O policy.

D&O vs. E&O

D&O liability is one of several types of coverage available as part of a Business & Management Liability Policy (others include Employment Practices Liability, Fiduciary Liability, and sometimes Crime and Privacy liabilities). D&O is sometimes called “management errors and omission (E&O) liability”; however D&O and E&O are very different. D&O liability is directly related to the performance and duties of management. E&O is concerned with performance failures and negligence related to your products or services. Both are significant risks and it is generally a good idea to carry both policies.

When Do You Need It?

Every organization’s owners, executives or directors are at risk of being held liable for the consequences of their decisions. It is particularly important to have D&O insurance when you establish a board of directors or take on investors. Both potential directors and investors will be unwilling to risk their personal assets to support your organization, no matter how strongly they believe in it.

If you are not covered by a D&O policy, you should seriously consider purchasing one for your business or demand that the organization for which you are a director or officer purchase one. A quality insurance broker can help you decide if it is necessary and design a policy that meets your needs.


Craig M. Santa Maria is President and COO of Santa Maria & Company (SMC), a risk management consultancy and commercial insurance brokerage in the San Francisco Bay area with deep expertise helping companies protect what is most important to them: their assets, their employees, and their futures. Contact SMC at 925-956-7600 or online at www.smcrisk.com.


Santa Maria & Company:  Experts in Risk Management and Providing Peace of Mind


Our business is helping to protect yours

Carl Santa Maria

By Carl Santa Maria

Since the founding of Santa Maria & Company in 2001, we have experienced significant changes to our world. We have endured 9/11, witnessed the dot com bubble burst, seen an explosive housing market and then witness it crumble, we have felt the great recession and its slow recovery, seen miraculous advances in disciplines from technology to medicine, iPhones and iPads and promising gene therapies. Things move fast.

New threats have emerged. Issues of privacy, data breach, cyber liability, terrorism, to name a few. All the while, our businesses continue to contend with responsibilities to our employees, customers, members of the public and making sure our own assets are protected from danger.

When this firm was founded, it was my vision to build the best team in order to provide the best solution every time. As you read about the various services and solutions that we deliver, I think you will see that underlying each segment is a commitment from our people to achieve that goal. We believe that our diverse skill sets can serve businesses which are large and complex as well as small firms and start ups that need traditional support. Our business is helping you protect yours.

We intend to position ourselves as advisers of high quality and take our place beside your accountant, attorney, banker, and other professionals.

You can count on us. This is our promise to you.

Santa Maria & Company: Experts in Risk Management and Providing Peace of Mind

Learn more about Santa Maria & Company at www.smcrisk.com.