There are as many types of insurance products available today as there are fans of Rudy Vallee and Paul Whiteman. Yet it appears that far too many of our brethren act as if fire insurance is the only coverage worthy of their interests. Other voices cry that our future lies within the quickly growing numbers of registered automobiles. Whether that will prove true or whether they are, in the words of the Cliff Edwards hit, just “singing in the rain,” lies in the future. For now, it is clear that the small percentage of drivers purchasing automobile coverages are far more interested in protecting their precious machines than worrying about the liability one may incur for striking a pedestrian, fellow driver or another's property.

An undeniable opportunity exists for agents willing to take up the gauntlet you have thrown. They must not only present prospects with valuable coverages often left unmentioned by others, but also explain them in such as way as to induce in the prospect not confusion, but clarity, in how these valuable products will further his network of protection.

For example, your choice of topic–use and occupancy insurance–is fortuitous. In just the last 3 years, our brethren in Florida have endured two catastrophic hurricanes. Thousands of lives homes and businesses have been lost. And those stunning devastations were bookends to the great Mississippi river flooding of 1927, recently immortalized in song by Miss Memphis Minnie McCoy's “When the Levee Breaks.” The flood's fewer deaths were more than offset by the hundreds of thousands displaced and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

And what common threads do all three of these devastating losses share? Clients in possession of those coverages espoused by so many agents as either critical or potentially profitable–fire and automobile–have found little solace, as neither addresses the major causes of loss. Unless the victims were possessed of tornado and flood coverage, they no doubt feel our industry has failed them in their greatest hour of need.

If these poor souls were bereft of the proper coverages for their tangible losses, how much less likely they were properly advised as to the proper application of use and occupancy insurance?

Yet such times of massive devastation are perfect examples of the dire need for such coverage. Where will these businesses go to re-establish themselves as a going concern? How long before their communities are rebuilt sufficiently to provide space and opportunities to once again profitably pursue their chosen labors? And such considerations apply not just to certain businessmen, but all. Can one doubt the confectioner located in the areas stricken by these massive hurricanes or floodwaters is as displaced in both his physical and financial situation as the druggist or creosoting company?

What is a businessman to do in the time between the strike of misfortune and the restoration of his livelihood? Even if properly protected by coverage for his tangibles, the interim period during which his building is repaired or rebuilt, or a new location secured, will be one of financial devastation equal to or greater than the physical. Herewith lies the opportunity you so eloquently advance, Mr. Smith, and also lies the potential trap you so accurately describe.

So how does the truly wide-awake and intelligent agent proceed to plant, nurture and harvest these potential gardens of opportunity without impaling him or herself on the nettles of confusion and complexity? May I request Local Agent readers to, as in the popular tune by Nick Lucas, tiptoe through the tulips with me?

First, commit yourself here and now to be an insurance counselor, not just a seller of products. Prospects have more than need of just one or two lines of insurance. Would it not be a superior approach to sell the prospect on the idea that he has needs for protection, and then recommend the type of form or other solution that best fits his needs? Thus the agent readily moves away from the single product sale and into a position of offering multiple lines of insurance.

Second, by focusing on discussing needs with the prospect instead of policy details, the agent of necessity highlights practical applications rather than form complexities. It is the tornado to be feared, not the wording of the tornado insurance policy. It is the potentially devastating loss of one's livelihood to be feared, not the minute technicalities of whether use and occupancy coverage determinations represent the perfect amount of insurance. How many prospects have forgone a valuable protection that may have paid 98 percent of their loss, rendered indecisive by confusion over the other two percent? As you stated with such clarity, the intelligent agent will do the best he can do, and trust the prospect will respect his efforts as far superior to entirely lacking the proper protections.

Mr. Smith, my gratitude for both an intriguing and inspiring letter, useful to all who profess to honor the name of agent. If everyone would follow your lead, they would indeed be “Puttin' on the Ritz!”