A D.C. attorney believes insurers are "easy pickings" based on perceptions of the public. The ethical response is "a massive public relations campaign to demonstrate the important role insurance plays in the fabric of society. Show a youthful claims committee debating a large settlement offer based on the injury and damages–and not on the presence or absence of an attorney representing the injured party."

Such a scenario "is typical in our business as caring, empathetic claims representatives are our first line of defense," the attorney said.

An insurance executive recognized that it would be impossible to reply to every law firm ad criticizing the insurance business. "However, a positive, long-term, industry-wide campaign could be effective. A very high percentage of claims are handled effectively and efficiently. Let us brag about the high percentage of undisputed claims settled quickly. I believe people would be impressed with the large volume of claims we handle fairly without any attorney representation."

A Kentucky attorney believes the public is unhappy with legal advertising and that such advertising does not damage the insurance business too much. "I think the ads do more damage to the perception of the legal system and plaintiff's attorneys generally."

He suggested more insurer advertisements that only indirectly address legal advertisements. "One insurer effectively uses a pitchman who appears noble and professional along with humor to show the value of insurance."

An Illinois producer commented: "We should spend more time telling our story about the thousands of claims that are paid. Honesty and truth will win in the long run."

An Indiana adjusting executive agreed. "We should do a goodwill campaign. Tell the positive side of claims by having happy customers like we have seen with tornado and hurricane claims. Also, present third-party claimants who were happy with their settlements."

A Kentucky marketing representative suggested that most people put lawyer ads in the same light as political campaign ads–"they do not believe what they hear."

"The best way to respond is to [have] people well known in the community (not celebrities) talking about how fairly the insurance company treated them" in their claims settlements, "and how they received more by not paying an attorney a one-third commission on the settlement," the marketer believes.

An Illinois home office manager suggested continuing what insurers are already doing with advertising. "We are already trying to ethically neutralize the negative impression created by personal injury law firms. Many insurer advertisements include customer and claim satisfaction with testimonials and results of consumer surveys. Keep putting that good information out and let the consumers decide who to believe."

Those believing insurers should ignore the ads and just "keep up the good work" included a Pennsylvania attorney. When asked if a claimant needs an attorney the response generally is, "Do what you think is best, but the value of your claim is not going to change if you retain an attorney and the attorney is going to take a percentage of your settlement. Why not let the insurance company do its job? If they don't do it correctly, then seek a lawyer."

This respondent continued, "Treat people with respect and fairly. Explain what is going on now and in the future. Be sensitive, but don't hide bad news. Communicate. In the end it is about doing the adjusting job well. It is the only way I know to combat negative publicity."

An educator and consultant noted: "We cannot defend ourselves by saying we are ethical…if others believe we are not. Opinions are not proof of anything. Also, we cannot brag about our promises or even keeping our promises. It is difficult, if not inappropriate, to suggest we ought to be rewarded for doing what we should do."

A Connecticut property underwriter suggested that personal injury attorneys may be one of the groups held in lower esteem than insurance professionals. "I do not want to respond directly to their comments and lend legitimacy to their implications. We do so much good with risk sharing and deploying capital. Let the good work shine."

An Ohio producer recognizes that "evil in the news sells better to the public. Ignore the lawyers' ads and start with education to our policyholders about the cost of claims at the same time paying quickly, fairly and explaining any limitations that may apply."

"We also must engage high school and college students' curiosity to explain our role in the economic engine of insurance," the producer wrote.

A producer association executive wrote, "I don't think we can take the attorneys on head to head. Consumers will think, 'A pox on both their houses.'"

"There would be no criticism if it were not for some claims denied by creative interpretation of coverage language or ignorance of an adjuster," the executive continued. "These things will happen. When a policy doesn't work as a reasonable person expects, it puts us in a bad light."

An executive of a residual market program in the northeast was succinct. "My gut feeling is not to respond. Everyone knows that attorneys bend the truth when advertising to get business. Even people who do not like insurance companies know this. Just settle claims in an ethical manner, pay what you owe and treat claimants with respect. Those practices will show the public our industry is honest and ethical."

A Minnesota producer agreed. "I always believed the attacks say more about the attacker. When I became an agent, it dawned on me that I, myself, can operate with honesty and integrity and that my clients will perceive me differently. I know they do and that's all that matters to me," the producer wrote.

An educator-attorney in the Midwest wrote: "Any response that tells the public the truth is ethical, but [whether] it would have an impact is another matter. The best defense is to make greater efforts to be sure employees get the job done correctly the first time and get much better at explaining 'why' when a benefit is not provided as requested."

A Florida producer concurred: "It is better to not get into a cat fight with a group that only profits when insurance is the bad guy. It brings more attention and may play into their hands."

"A better way is to quickly pay legitimate claims, but deny or fight questionable [ones] because the consumer ultimately pays for all claims. Let's educate consumers as to why you cannot have an insurance policy that pays all claims without exclusions and how such a policy would raise the cost of insurance to a prohibitive level," the producer said.

In Texas, another producer told of the value of paying claims quickly. "No need to respond. Do the job right. For example, a young man came looking for insurance. I got all the relevant information and began searching various insurance company quotes. The young man interrupted me and gave me the specific name of the company he wanted." The man said, "Five years ago a car hit me and I was seriously injured. The other man's insurer paid and took good care of me. Now, I want that same insurer to reward their good work."

Underlying all responses was dissatisfaction with the overt and generally unjustified nature of personal injury law firm advertising. This dissatisfaction was noted in a number of ways as indicated by the previous responses.

A few respondents were willing to counterattack. For example, a New York broker wrote: "The ads are misleading because they do not state that the plaintiff is responsible for costs at time of settlement in addition to fees or commissions charged for a successful settlement. These costs and fees come off the top of the settlement and cannot be waived. I suggest giving consumers a website where various retention agreements can be posted and the actual amounts the claimant received after attorney charges are shown."

A Mississippi agent commented that "only personal injury law firms would run attack ads in a manner that their firms would take as grounds for a harassment, slander or libel suit. The agent continued: "While all insurance personnel are not 'saint like,' the vast majority desire to be fair and accurate in their dealings with insureds and claimants. We should provide precise figures on what portion of the insurance dollar goes to defend and pay often frivolous lawsuits, many nothing short of 'legalized extortion.' Also show typical fees. If the plaintiff bar really cared about the 'little people,' they would cap their fees at 15 percent or less."

"We should show why thousands of insurance consumers must dig deeper into their pockets to pay the high cost of 'legalized extortion and jackpot justice.' In all cases, the information we present must be correct and complete."

Overall, all responding indicated the ethical response is one that is honest and accurate, whether the response directly takes on the personal injury firms that advertise or simply addresses the overall good job insurers do. In the long run, most would also agree that while we are either uncomfortable with or hate the attorney-based advertisements, if insurance personnel strive to pay legitimate claims as quickly as possible with good communications and sensitivity, insurance will be respected as ethical by reasonable people.

Peter R. Kensicki is a professor of insurance at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Ky., as well as a member of the Ethics Committee of the CPCU Society in Malvern, Pa. He may be reached at [email protected].