There have been several times in my career that I have been amazed at the insurance industry’s ability to hid in its ivory towers and utterly fail to connect with consumers when it comes time to campaign in the political or regulatory arena.
Consider the latest example of this, from Insurance Journal:
Insurance companies have invested nearly $10 million in the campaign to kill the measure and the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, which [Washington State Referendum 67] would enact.[...]
“What benefit will the public realize from its annual $650 million ‘investment?’ More teachers? Better roads? Improved public safety? No. What we can expect are more frivolous lawsuits clogging our court system and increasing our insurance costs,” [a letter sent by State Farm to voters] states.
A State Farm policyholder, who asked not to be identified out of fear of retaliation, sent the Seattle Post-Intelligencer a copy of the letter and said it angered him.
“It felt like a threat,” he said. “And because of that letter, I’m going to vote for the referendum.”
You’d think that in the wake of the blood-letting on credit scoring and the aftermath of Katrina, some folks in the industry would have gotten the clue by now.
I’ve joked in the past that the Property & Casualty insurance industry in the U.S. is a small, incestuous family, given the tendency for folks inside the field to know one another, and the amount of company-hopping that goes on.
However, recurrences of foolishness when it comes to consumer/voter relations has me wondering if “inbred” might be a more appropriate adjective than “incestuous”.