Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Letters to the Editor



Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

WHY SCIF GREW

Dear Editor:

Regarding Peter Rousmaniere's article "An Analysis of Arrogance," (Risk and Insurance® April 2005, page 28), I agree with Rousmaniere's opinion that SCIF failed to raise rates, and that their trusteeship was lacking when their management permitted SCIF to become economically unstable.

However, the root cause of SCIF's sudden growth had little to do with their pricing, marketing, or any monopoly. It had everything to do with the number of California workers' comp insurers that went bankrupt or left the state during that period due to the legislature's profligate increases in workers' comp benefits and its employer-hostile legislation.

I recall presenting evidence to the then chairman of a senate committee in 1997 regarding the net effect of the legislature's prior actions which was causing 30 percent annual increases in my school district's workers' comp loss costs. I was essentially told, "So what?"

SCIF is needed because there must be an insurer of last resort. That is exactly how SCIF obtained their enormous market share, because the commercial insurance industry had left California. And who could blame them? In that regard, SCIF has served California well.

Having said that about SCIF, I confess, I've administered selfinsured WC programs for over 20 years and never placed business with SCIF.

Steve Somsen

Risk Manager

Sacramento, Calif

RISK EXECS IGNORED

Dear Editor:

As a very busy risk manager I am a little behind in my reading.

However, I was shocked to read Tom Slattery's article titled "Buyer, Seller Lobbies Far Apart Over Bid-Rigging Scandal." (Risk & Insurance®, March 2005, page 12).

While the Risk and Insurance Management Society Inc. may accurately be labeled a trade group, it, in my opinion, does not represent the interests of commercial insurance buyers. If it did, its response would not have been deemed "tepid."

In my opinion, there is no trade group that solely represents the interest of insurance buyers. If such a group existed, the response would have been one of "unbridled outrage."

I believe that the vast majority of risk managers would agree that a broker's receipt of contingent commission (in any form and with any label attached) represents an absolute conflict of interest. I believe that same group of risk managers wants to see the payment and acceptance of contingent commissions prohibited, and if necessary, by law.

Unfortunately for concerned risk managers and buyers of insurance, RIMS continues to advocate greater disclosure and transparency only. Slattery's conclusion in reference to buyers was much like that of "former" N.Y. Insurance Commissioner Gregory V. Serio, in that neither saw, nor heard nor felt the wrath of insurance buyers thanks to the "tepid" response from RIMS.

Ken Breyley

Director of Risk Management

Wadsworth, Ohio

June 1, 2005

Copyright 2005© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.