Insurance Journal Forums

I just had a decline because I gave an underwriter too much to consider.

The U/W said they had to pass on it because they have a 2 story maximum. Thirty five years ago I did some house painting and know a bit about it. You can have a 2.5 story house that a 35 foot ladder is needed or a brand new 2 story house with high ceilings that over a 40 foot ladder is need to paint it.

So my question to the underwriter was, "A 2 story house maximum has nothing to do about working heights, why don't you use a maximum height as a guideline?" Well that makes too much sense and the easy route was to decline.

So you can have a house painter in one area of the country painting two story houses and be 30 feet in the air and in another part of the country a 40 foot ladder is needed.

I remember painting the rear part of a 2 story home in the San Francisco Bay area. In the back it had an elevation drop off so much that we needed to rent a ladder tall enough to paint it. It was a monster ladder and needed two people to raise it.

But according to the 2 story guideline, I was within the maximum limit.

HM? Another UW decision made for the "not in the real world" life.

Unfortunately you have a new underwriter - I fear. Or another clerk in underwriter's clothing. Personal lines has been deluged with a lot of "underwriters" who are really clerks in disguise since the mid to late 80's. That was the time that Safeco announced that they had grid underwriting - so easy a monkey could do it. No deviation requiring common sense was necessary - it fits or not. Throw out the words underwriting guideline - insert carved in stone.

Keep in mind that it may not be the underwriter's fault, but a "set in stone" underwriting rule. Each carrier has their underwriting requirements and restrictions. And some carriers are inflexible with regards to their underwriting requirements.

It's not an issue of an inflexible underwriter, but one of a company that has their set guidelines. It always amazes me how many brokers will blame the underwriter w/o considering that they have guidelines and restrictions to follow.

I believe that my point was missed about how silly to have such an ambiguous meaning in an underwriter manual. What does two story have to do with risk. The risk is attributable to height. It is understood how risk is different between commercial and residential painting. Therefore the risk should be given a number of height, not 2 stories.

I wasn't really blaming one underwriting but sometime idiotic rules in the manual.

Big Dog wrote:Keep in mind that it may not be the underwriter's fault, but a "set in stone" underwriting rule. Each carrier has their underwriting requirements and restrictions. And some carriers are inflexible with regards to their underwriting requirements.

It's not an issue of an inflexible underwriter, but one of a company that has their set guidelines. It always amazes me how many brokers will blame the underwriter w/o considering that they have guidelines and restrictions to follow.

Perhaps you should contact either the underwriting or marketing manager to discuss this.

It's clear from Cathiea's response that he/she doesn't have any respect for underwriters.

I hate that. Too much information is a dangerous thing. There are underwriters that try to figure out how to write business and other that try not to. In this soft market, I suggest you find a different carrier that wants to write business and discuss your stuggles with this UW with the marketing person that comes by your office asking for business. I respect UW's trying to do a diligent job but sometimes you need to find the path of least resistance.

Or perhaps your agency's numbers (loss ratios, written premium, etc) don't warrant any sort of exception from underwriting at all.

[quote="plins"]Or perhaps your agency's numbers (loss ratios, written premium, etc) don't warrant any sort of exception from underwriting at all.[/quote]

Good point. My carrier relationships are very good so I didn't even think of that.

Big Dog, you couldn't be more mistaken about my level of respect for underwriters. I was one - have many friends that still are and even my daughter-in-law is one. I was mearly commenting on the over use of the word "underwriter" when there is no underwriting being done.

(NY) Several years ago I represented a small mutual company that wrote a "crafts 12" commercial liability policy for small contractors. I had a one man outfit that applied sealant to driveways. Every carrier that wrote contractors wanted to use a "paving" class and charge through the nose. My "real" underwriter discussed the risk with me and I suggested using the "painting" class. The artisan used a water based coal-tar emulsion coating only. He applied it with rollers and a squeegee. He did no repairs. He was a painter because he applied a product to asphalt driveways and sidewalks. the same as a painter would apply a sealant/paint/varnish/shellac/etc to a wooden floor or sidewalk. A "real" underwriter can understand this. Today, we have some great data-entry folks sitting in underwriting positions but they have no knowledge of risk, hazard, exposure, or what goes on in the real world outside of their air-conditioned, monitor illuminated tombs. They live among us. Here's to the old school "real" underwriters - and you know who you are. regards, Dar Novak