Unfortunately, far too many insurance agents today seem to be falling into the trap of those original settlers, with likely similar fatal results. Focused on the skills and techniques of the past, these agents are steadily losing the ability to see the world through the eyes of their prospects and insureds. Keep it up and there goes the colony.

Because our focus here is policy issues, let's narrow the plethora of possible miscommunications and lost opportunities down to a few representative yet specific coverage scenarios. How can you move from our CE/designation/E&O-imbued focus on technical coverage analysis and get into the minds of prospects and clients who don't know the first thing about policy language?

In other words, when it comes to the world we address with our products and services, what do prospects and clients see and fear?

Easy answer, if you follow any of the basics of risk management analysis. It all begins with step one: identifying risks or chances of loss. Basically, what are your prospects afraid of losing and how much will it hurt them to lose it?

For example, back in my September column, I mentioned the dark cloud/silver lining that often accompanies an insured with a flooded basement when cashing in on his sump and sewer backup coverage. Hopefully, the silver lining is that he has the coverage, typically provided by a homeowners' endorsement. The dark cloud is that the basic ISO endorsement only provides a limit of $5,000, and many insureds have far in excess of that amount of personal property in their basements. Man caves, anyone?

Seen through insurance policy eyes, the technical questions are “is there coverage and how much?” Seen through insured eyes, it's not a question, but a statement: “Oh, no, my home theater, beer cooler, ice machine and pool table are history!” OK, the washer, dryer and furnace are gone, too.

If the agent can see through the client's eyes, suddenly it is clear the real issue isn't just “if” there is coverage, because that need is a given. It's now a full focus on adequate limits. That $5,000 is not only nothing to brag about, it's woefully insufficient.

A key point: getting into the other's mind doesn't mean losing your own. Quite the contrary: you are adding the insured's view of loss to your existing understanding of coverage. The result is you are now focused upon effective solutions instead of merely selling products, a development guaranteed to move any true sales trainer to euphoric rhapsody in your honor.

If sump coverage represents a small window into an insured's mind, now let's throw open the door and walk on in. For example, on my personal homeowner's policy, that sump coverage is $10,000. It's not a separate standalone endorsement, but automatically included in the special “enhanced wondermatic extendo super-duper add-on package” endorsement thrown in with my policy. The carrier even sent me a nice brochure extolling the wonders of their generosity in providing this additional package of coverages, clearly implying how lucky I am not to have fallen in with lesser carriers with no such concern for my welfare.

Such package deals exist throughout our industry (BOP, anyone?), and are obviously a good thing–as far as they go. But given our theme, note the viewpoint: strictly the carrier's. How generous of them to give me these extensions. How wonderful that I have them. Yet where is any indication they thought for even a second about my view of these tidings? Do I even need all these “bonus” coverages? (Probably not all, if the low cost of the package endorsement is any indication.) Do I want them? Are there those, like the sump coverage, that are valuable but insufficient for my true needs? The personal injury coverages are great, but if truly of value, should my liability limits be significantly higher than I would need without them? And can I have a refund for whatever cost was assigned to that doubling of the horsepower limit for the boat I don't own, the higher fire department service charge I will never use or the additional loss assessment I don't need?

I know, that is the point of a package–throw in a lot of stuff and every insured will find at least something of value, even if much of the rest is a waste.

Exactly my point. From an insurance marketing department view, this is genius. As for actually adequately addressing my real needs, it reminds me of a bird hunter using scattershot in a double barreled shotgun: Just blast the whole tree; there ought to be a bird in there somewhere. Maybe, but hardly the approach of a skilled woodsman, to say nothing of the sheer waste and collateral damage.

And that lazy approach by the carrier often leads to the agent falling asleep at the switch and never actually exploring with me my view of things. Hence, some sump coverage, but not enough. Some liability coverage, but insufficient limits. And far too often, no discussion at all of what I might need that is not addressed by the package, expanded coverage endorsement or not. For example, E&O claims tell us agents often overlook seemingly obvious exposures such as home-based businesses and flood coverage (including excess flood when, as if frequently the case, NFIP limits are insufficient).

In our world, the waste is lost opportunity to truly provide excellent coverage meeting the real needs of clients. The collateral damage includes lost profits, squandered opportunities and increased E&O, along with the loss of professional image when folks finally have that claim only to be told their wonderfully broad and expansive policy is going to fall a bit (or a lot) short of delivering.

Just to show how far many in our industry have separated their thinking from our prospects and clients, do you see any irony in panels at insurance conferences debating whether our products are becoming commodities, while our prospects and clients describe their worlds–and thus, risks of loss–as evolving at the speed of light in social mores, lifestyles and technology?

Like those first settlers, the problem isn't the new world; it's our inability to see we are still trying to live in the old one. Take Joe South's advice. Get into your prospects' and clients' minds. See through their eyes. You may be surprised that you've been blind.

Then be one with our friends as at that long-ago feast, when they celebrated the realization that where once the land seemed forbidding and deadly, the fields were truly white unto harvest. Happy Thanksgiving!

Related: Read Chris Amrhein's October column, “Reality bites.”

Read “Want fireworks? Make like Tchaikovsky.”

Read: “Oh the places we swim.”