First, let me be clear on the “claims process” for agents. The time is past when agents were the first line of adjustment for local claims. Those days of liberal draft authority are long gone. Perhaps for good reason, most carriers’ preferred role for agents to play at claims time today is “none.” Even clients wanting to make a first report of a claim are to be routed directly to the carrier. Whether that means call forwarding, toll-free claims line, iPhone app or website, the message is clear: Agents are to step aside and let the carrier run the process.

Yet this ignores the simple fact that the client still looks to the agent for claims help and guidance. Plus, the agent often feels the need to “be there” to confirm the service and loyalty promised at sales time.

So is there an inherent conflict here? I think not. Bring great value to the claims situation, all while letting the carrier carry the freight and avoiding the dreaded E&O trap of telling the insured whether or not the claim is actually covered. I call this alternate claims path “advocacy.” In short, agents are often best positioned to better perform the task most attorneys will gladly bill for: holding the insured’s hand while making sure the process continues in an orderly fashion to a rightful conclusion. Quick note to remember: specific insurance forms knowledge is just the start, and often a far less valuable asset than knowing how to play the game.

And knowing how to play the game is where The Dread Pirate Roberts excels!

First, even to be in the game required solid skills in sailing and cliff climbing. Nothing will ever substitute for knowing your job and willingness to work. But as became clear, overcoming “inconceivable” odds simply meant being in the right place at the right time to begin the real process. In the same way, agents don’t arrive at the need to be an effective advocate at claims time without many days of prospecting, qualifying, presenting proposals, making sales and building client relationships. Only then will a client look to the agent for trusted claims advice and counsel.

So what does our intrepid hero find after sailing and cliff-climbing? Not the finish line but his next test: one of technique and skill, against a practitioner possessing equally precise knowledge and long practice. This is often the first test in a claim as well, when the agent must communicate with an experienced adjuster who may seem as eager to deny a claim as the insured is to see it paid.

One key lesson from the movie is for the agent to realize this is not a fight to the death, but to avoid error while parrying your adversary’s moves. It is equally, if not more valuable to lead the other side to admit they may be making wrong assumptions as it is to defeat them. Turn the perceived nemesis into a respectful friend, especially as it is highly likely you will work with them again down the road. Have at it with dueling policy language and interpretations, always being sure your arguments are well placed and your counterblows based upon accuracy, not emotions.

Once you have either bested at the game of coverage form skills, or at least played to a draw, your next test will likely be one of endurance. Carriers have an advantage in strength and resources, and will often seem content merely to bludgeon your efforts to death with sheer weight of opinion. Persistence is a solid counter tactic, until they realize you are not only not going away, but actually wearing them down. As in the skills test, your ultimate goal is never their total defeat, since again you will work with them in the future. The better outcome is an acquiescence that your points are worth listening to, if for no other reason than to finally get you off their backs.

Related: Read another column by Chris Amrhein "Insurance Engineering."

Once past the skill and endurance tests, you may now face your most difficult hurdle: dealing with the expert who knows everything. Whether this is a local adjuster or a carrier claims rep, they pride themselves on how no mere mortal can withstand their brilliance. Note a major difference between this test and the first is not the actual forms and insurance knowledge that is the basis of their argument, but their self-assumed superior command of meaning and intent.

My favorite example and personal experience nightmare of the dangers of this attitude occurred years ago when an agent friend called me in some despair over a claim affecting one of his best friends. There had been a horrific traffic accident and the friend’s young child had been killed. There was no doubt as to the facts of the accident or the fault of the other driver. The sticking point was a brief form letter from the friend’s carrier refusing to consider any UM/UIM benefits for the child’s death.

My agent was so upset at the situation, he asked if I would please contact the adjuster for at least a better explanation of his denial, especially considering such an emotionally charged scenario. Puzzled given the seeming clarity of coverage, I agreed to make the call. I found myself talking to a young, fairly recent adjusting course graduate who soon made it clear he was quite proud of his ability to ferret out the most sublime details of coverage language, such as his reason for denial. He was wrong. A few more years in the business, with a bit of the shine knocked off that hubris, and he’d make a fine adjuster. Harken back to our movie and recall the scene where Roberts faced just such an opponent, observing somewhat sarcastically “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.” The proud response? “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!”

Dizzying was just one word for our adjuster. Another would be “obnoxious.”

But recall again Roberts’ strategy to overcome this particular test. He knew trying to go head to head in this battle of wits was a losing proposition. Even if he won, his opponent would never admit to it, and the battle would simply escalate. Yet that is precisely the default approach taken by most, especially if angry or upset. So let’s take a page from our movie hero and find a winning strategy.

I suggested we talk to his supervisor.

Related: Read the article "Language Barrier" by Chris Amrhein.

Note the result. He might have objected if I’d only asked if I could talk to his boss, since he might sense a plot, or me “twisting” the accurate story. As long as both of us were on the conversation, he happily agreed, having no doubt he was about to impress his boss with his genius, plus saving the carrier a lot of money. My goal was simply to get another “adult” in the room.

The three-way conversation was short and sweet. I asked the adjuster to repeat his “flawless” reasoning. His boss paused for just a moment, then told me to let the agent know he’d be hearing from them. In a few days, the denial letter was rescinded, and the carrier later paid a generous UM claim to the parents.

Three tests, three different strategies, three different skill sets—all essential to completing the journey to reconciliation and a happy ending. At the movie’s end, former rivals are allies, evil is conquered and true love reunited. Substitute adjusters for “rivals,” attitude and ego for “evil” and confirming a solid relationship between client and agent for “true love” and the parallels are complete.

So in honor of this month of romance, may I suggest next time an insured implores you to stand with them at a time of pain and loss, your answer should be those magic three little words:

As you wish.