This also is the time when as an agent, your customers need you the most. Maintaining good communications with customers becomes extremely important and you add the value of service to the promise of paying the claim.

But for some special interest groups, an accident is the perfect opportunity to drive a wedge between insurers and their customers. These attacks center on the insurance industry's ability to communicate with customers, provide expanded customer service options and control costs. The strategy is much like the card shark's sleight-of-hand trick. By pitting consumers against their insurer, they hope to divert attention away from their activities that can make the experience of an accident more unpleasant than necessary and drive up costs.

One of the more prominent challenges to the relationship between insurers and their consumers tends to come from the auto body repair industry, despite that the common ground between insurers and auto body shops. Satisfying the consumer with a fast, high-quality repair job should be the top priority for both insurers and body shops. But our industries are often at odds over legislative issues involving consumer repair options, aftermarket parts, glass repair, labor rates, appraisals and estimating practices in statehouses across America every year.

Attacks on insurers' direct repair programs are among the most insidious of the wedge issues because it seeks to stop insurers' ability to communicate useful information to consumers.

Following an accident, most consumers have limited information regarding which body shops perform the highest quality work and provide the best customer service. Insurers work with body shops every day and can offer sound recommendations and often have developed networks of reliable shops. But some state auto body associations essentially are trying to limit their competitors at the consumer's expense by stopping insurers from communicating this important information.

These body shops have a special interest agenda that seeks to protect some shops from having to compete on service and quality. Their agenda is bad for consumers who want streamlined claims handling and guaranteed quality workmanship.

The attempt to stop insurers from communicating with their consumers restricts lawful commercial speech. Consumers ultimately benefit from more rather than less information. Direct repair programs simply offer consumers additional options in selecting an auto body repair facility. These programs provide consumers with information about facilities that provide quality repairs, comprehensive guarantees and an overall improved auto body repair experience. The intrusion in the relationship between insurers and their consumers by the body shops is harmful to everyone involved.

The ongoing debate over the use of aftermarket parts, which will be a hot topic in 2011, serves as another example of how insurers are sometimes depicted as not looking after the best interest of their customers. Insurers continue to fight against the claim that the industry is willing to cut corners and use inferior parts to save a few dollars. In reality, no one wants to see bad parts used in the repair of a vehicle. Aftermarket and salvage parts have given consumers safe and durable alternatives with lower costs for many years. While it is important that laws protect consumers from unsafe parts, it is equally important that those laws, whatever they might be, do not discriminate against any one type of parts over another. Although PCI does not endorse the use of any particular products or practices, we believe policy makers should not take legislative or regulatory action that favors one type of part or reduces competition that limits consumers' options.

The most recent incarnation of the consumer relationship wedge tactic is being driven by collections firms that promise local governments large windfalls if they put in place an accident response fee. The thinking behind this scheme is that charging a fee for police or fire service response won't cost consumers because they will be covered by insurance. In theory, everyone wins because the agency that collects the fee receives 10 percent of the proceeds and the city creates a new revenue stream.

The problem with this picture is that many automobile insurance policies do not provide coverage for these fees. When these fees are not paid by the insurer, to add insult to injury, the collection firm may pursue payment directly with the driver. Although ambulance services often are covered as part of the medical expense coverage, police and fire services have always been paid for through tax dollars. If insurers were forced to begin covering these services, insurance costs would increase to compensate for the added expense, and that would tend to drive up rates. Insurers are honored to provide consumers with assistance following an accident and are committed to paying all appropriate bills and charges associated with an accident. However, public safety is a basic role of government and these charges amount to double taxation. And that is the way the public quite correctly perceives them.

These wedge issues can present a serious challenge to the important relationship between insurers and their customers. This year, as lawmakers are presented with the negative claims that insurers are putting profits before the best interest of their customers, we must be ready to make our voices heard. We must be strong advocates with policymakers and the public on the vital role our industry plays on a daily basis in protecting peoples' property and dreams.

These issues will make a difference for you, your customers, your companies and the industry. Insurance agents and brokers can have a lot of influence with local lawmakers and we encourage you to join with thousands of other insurance professionals nationwide who advocate on behalf of a healthy and competitive insurance marketplace and protect the best interests of insurance consumers.