Let's take a look at the fear first.

Ironically, insurance was at the vanguard of tech when it began adopting mainframe technology in the 1970s. The problem with that, as I have noted elsewhere, is that mainframe technology has worked all-too-well in our data-intensive environments.

If it's not broken, insurers are not going to fix it, even if you promise them something better.

New and innovative technology sounds risky to them, and we know a thing or two about risk in this industry. So carriers are naturally fearful of those who come to them with risky (and expensive) ideas, no matter how appealing the promises attached to those ideas.

These "people" come along and want to sell insurers something that will involve ripping out their tried-and-true systems and replacing them, disposing of the old hardware and software, and re-training their people--all at a considerable cost in time and money.

To the industry, this sounds like so much snake oil. Is it any wonder insurance companies would not trust those who promote such cure-alls? Is it shocking to think that carriers would fear taking on such risky ventures?

And, let's face it, is it illogical to believe that insurers would dislike people who insist on bringing to their doorsteps products and ideas that take them out of their comfort zones?

It is certainly true that insurers are very interested in the potential benefits offered by technology, but they bristle when they're told that they have to make sweeping changes in operations and even corporate culture in order to reap those benefits.

While there's always room for improvement, insurance companies are very comfortable where they are. Being part of a strong and vibrant industry that minimizes risk and maximizes profits is just fine with them, thank you.

Then there's the fact that insurance companies have been burned in the past by technology--witness the customer relationship management debacle.

Never mind that most insurance CRM failures could be laid at the doorsteps of the customers who declined to do what was necessary to make the technology effective. A failure is a failure, and failure scares people.

In the broader scope, insurers have also looked with interest on the dot-com boom and bust. Doubtless they are patting themselves on the back for not getting involved in ventures that proved, in many cases, to have been far too risky. They see a lesson learned, and now guard their companies against the dreaded technology incursions like a ravenous bulldog watches over a recently acquired side of beef.

Yet, at least some people in this industry know deep down in their hearts that there are new and better ways to do things--and some of those ways don't involve ripping out and replacing all of one's systems, nor do they carry significant risk for the company.

So what are insurers afraid of? Why does the thought of another product demo give them the heebie-jeebies? In short, they are afraid of change--especially when they can see no pressing need for it.

They are also afraid of being ripped off by unscrupulous vendors who try to foist on them something they ultimately do not need. And they don't like or trust those who attempt the foisting.

All of this is understandable, but it is not immutable.

The primary task for vendors in the insurance market today is to recognize the strong reservations insurers have about technology and to craft messages in such a way that carriers don't feel threatened, either personally or professionally.

The mistrust, fear and loathing are likely to persist for some time, but if vendors can establish a solid record of reliability and trustworthiness, the relationships--and the bottom lines for both parties--should improve.