This is old news. Since Eliot Spitzer, then New York's attorney general, exposed bid-rigging and account-steering among top brokers and insurers back in 2004, the propriety of contingent commissions has been hotly debated. For a time, they were banned for certain brokers. That ban has been lifted, although Willis continues to shun the practice and markets that choice as a competitive advantage.

However, Mr. Plumeri went on to challenge agents on a more fundamental level when he warned in his column that when doing business with an agent, buyers should be aware "they are dealing with a sales representative of the insurance company. There is nothing 'independent' about an independent agent. They work for the carrier, not the customer."

He also wrote that since "some agents count on these [contingent] payments for, maybe, 100 percent of their annual profits…those who buy coverage through an agent should know those agents aren't obligated to get them the best price, terms and conditions, or fight for them when they have a claim. No amount of compensation disclosure will change that fact."

As they used to say in the westerns, them's fightin' words! I can only imagine how many online comments we will receive about Mr. Plumeri's attack, and I imagine the independent agency community's leadership will line up to respond in their own "Final Say" columns.

Mr. Plumeri's column was a response to an earlier "Final Say" on June 28 by Kenneth Auerbach, immediate past president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents and a managing director and general counsel of E&K Agency in Eatontown, N.J.

Mr. Auerbach was inspired to write because of those, like Mr. Plumeri, who insist that contingents and producer integrity simply cannot coexist. (See "Don't Penalize Agents for Mega-Brokers' Sins" at http://bit.ly/cY8u5x.) This dispute is particularly relevant because New York is preparing to implement a producer disclosure law.

We welcome a continuing dialogue on this subject, particularly about the notion that independent agents are truly loyal only to their carriers, to the unavoidable detriment of their clients.

Does the average insurance consumer really understand that "independent" means agents are free to represent multiple carriers but don't necessarily represent any and all insurers, along with the practical implications of that? I wonder sometimes.

I'm very curious to hear your views about this on my blog at www.NUSamSoapbox.com.