When carriers need to quantify a client’s risk for P&C underwriting, they’ll conduct a risk control survey. But when they don’t have the staffing to do that internally, they might outsource to risk control consultants.
Traditionally, there’s been some bias within the industry that in-house risk surveyors are better than contractors – but that opinion could be subject to change. At least, that’s the aim of Dorothy Doyle, vice president of risk control at Overland Solutions, an EXL company.
In the past, contract risk control surveyors have not always done the best job of preparing risk reports professionally and on-time for carriers, Doyle said.
“Historically, timeliness and quality – so the basics of what we’re delivering – that’s been a challenge for this industry,” she explained. “So, delivering a quality report in a timely manner is actually a differentiator. Communication has also been a challenge in this industry. That’s something that our company is aggressively changing. We’ve changed that habit.
“What we do, going out on site, it’s not easy – every carrier understands that and accepts the challenges around that. But you have to communicate around that, up front and quickly, so that you’re not leaving the underwriting in a bad situation.”
Risk control contractors, like those at Overland Solutions, are generally paid by carriers about a quarter to a third of what an in-house staffer might cost. But carriers still prefer to send their own staff – and this makes some sense: carriers want to be sure the job is done right, and that they are represented in the best possible light by their clients, or prospective clients.
But Doyle wants to change the underlying carrier perception that contracted surveyors are just there for spill-over, when there’s too much work for the carrier’s in-house staff, and that their service is below the standards the carrier would demand of its own staff.
“If I’m a carrier, I have the opportunity to make a really great impression on this customer,” she said. “So I want to send someone out that I know, who I trust, that I can manage their performance very closely. And from a service perspective, I almost always want to send my [in-house] person out, because I want that relationship to be with my person.
“Why do they not send more [contracts] to us? Because, there is a bias in the industry that, as an insurance company, ‘my employees are better’,” she said. Despite the savings a carrier could make by using vendors more often, there’s an inherent distrust that they will complete the job as expected. “That comes from real, I think, legitimate situations, in some cases,” Doyle said. “And I think in other cases, it is a bias.”
Starting with the fundamentals of service, Overland Solutions is looking to build that trust with carriers.
“I want our company here to be truly a viable extension of that insurance company,” Doyle explained. “I want them to truly trust us as a partner, to go out and act completely 100% as they would act … so we can be the solution, instead of [them sending out] that internal person.
“We say to the insurance carrier: ‘We will be you when you can’t be. When you can’t get there, trust us to be there exactly like you would be’.”
Related stories:
New captive services line hits the market
Prequalifying subcontractors mitigates projects risks—expert
.jpg)
