According to Mr. Hersh, use of wireless technologies in the life insurance sector stands at a miniscule “1 percent or less” at this moment, while property-casualty use is in the 2 percent range. “It's kind of a bleak outlook,” he noted.

Mr. Hersh said that one major use of wireless “just barely starting to gain traction” is in worksite marketing, where an agent goes to job sites and enrolls insureds in real time. In that case, wireless provides “completely accurate quotes right through the binding process,” he noted.

Mr. Hersh said such use is “limited, but some large carriers have started doing it.” Connecting via a wireless modem or wireless local area network, agents at a worksite such as an office building can have all covered employees sign up for benefits on the same day, he explained. The same technique could be used at the facility of a retailer to market insurance to customers at a store.

Such a use, however, is “very rare once in a blue moon,” he added.

“There's an opportunity to leverage wireless technology to do these things, but not much has been done yet,” said Mr. Hersh. The “good news,” he noted, is that the technology has gained some “traction” in claims for p-c insurers and agents.

“The real driver will be agents' personal use of wireless,” said Mr. Hersh. In addition, development of the next generation of Wi-Fi technology and “hot spots,” which will cover up to 30 miles, will expand broadband access, making Web-based applications from carriers “suddenly available anywhere,” he noted.

Why hasn't wireless done better in insurance up until now? Mr. Hersh pointed out that Web-based applications from insurers “are only now just starting to mature.” He reasoned that insurers might view creating such applications, in addition to putting in a wireless infrastructure, as biting off more than they can chew.

“Some carriers have an independent field force and they won't spend for it,” added Mr. Hersh. “A captive field force is easier, because you supply the hardware, but how much business do you have to do to make it worthwhile? And if you're an agent, at what point are you willing to do business anywhere? If you're out at the park, are you going to whip out the laptop?”

He noted that “the primary benefit is really accessibility of data.” Some software vendors are trying to market customer relationship management wireless applications. “There's a place for that, but it's really a nice-to-have,? rather than a need-to-have.? Early adopter agents will like it if a carrier has it, but they will not pick their carrier based on it,” he said.

Wireless offers some obvious benefits, he concluded. “Where cost savings and revenue generation are to be had, it will be used,” he said.

When it comes to the use of wireless technology in insurance, James Bisker, senior analyst of insurance for TowerGroup in Needham, Mass., agrees that the key question is: “What is the need, and what is the nice-to-have' versus the want-to-have'?”

“The basic thing is that the technology is improving, and it basically works,” he said. “There has always been this enormous idea that the insurance industry is one of the best places to use wireless, but it has not materialized as much as we wanted.”

Mr. Bisker pointed to some use of wireless technology for p-c claims, but noted “there's no real need for immediacy” in life insurance. “Now you can get a life policy in days instead of weeks, but there's still not an immediate need,” he added.

Mr. Bisker concluded that “the nature of insurance just isn't always real-time.” He suggested, however, that as agents get into selling financial products beyond insurance, wireless would be more relevant.

“Wireless is a ?nice-to-have,' but I don't know that it's a ?need-to-have,'” said Mr. Bisker. “But just because it's not essential doesn't mean it's not good.”

Reproduced from National Underwriter Edition, June 4, 2004. Copyright 2004 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.