|Examples||Polaris GCO best practice|
|Quote comparisons typically prioritise solely by price only, with no differentiation made for the quotes that do not meet the clients required cover limits.||Quotes should be presented in a way that easily identify those that fully meet and those that partially meet the client’s requirements. Insurer responses that fall below the client’s requirements should be presented separately, clearly identifying the gaps in cover. An un-advised sale e.g. B2C website should not present quotes that do not meet the client’s requirements; a decline is more appropriate where the end customer does not have the knowledge to identify cover shortfalls.|
|Quote comparisons may not always provide a detailed review of the scope of cover provided e.g.indemnity limits, excesses, vehicle cover types etc.||The quote comparison within a broking system forms a fundamental role in ensuring the right customer outcome is achieved. Quote comparison display should be designed to easily identify the key differences in the cover limits, cover type and excesses. Similarly, insurer quote responses should provide all relevant information – and should avoid notes such as “refer to latest policy booklet for important cover information”. A broker should not have to “go offline” unnecessarily to obtain basic cover information.|
|SWH questions, rating notes and insurer documentation have been shown to have inadequate or ambiguous detail. Key warranties are not always provided within the SWH system or are open to interpretation.||Standards, SWH platforms and insurer products should all contribute to the professional presentation of product and sales information. It is essential to consider a typical brokers experience whilst catering for potentially different skills. The use of ‘plain English’ is essential – jargon and abbreviations are not acceptable to all readers, particularly if such wording is then being used directly with customers.|
|Questions are often pre-populated with the “default” answers – this risks influencing the user by not giving questions their due consideration.||A system should be designed with efficiency in mind, but a balance is needed. Pre-populated answers will certainly speed up quote times, but this shouldn’t influence a user to unintentionally misrepresent a risk. Defaulted answers should be avoided, or at the very least be configured at individual user level based on their experience.|
|Choosing the correct trade can be difficult. Trade lists are extensive with varying degrees of synonymy e.g. 10 different types of plumber.||Trade code lists should be managed effectively with the end user in mind – in particular if it is an end-customer on a B2C website. Trade descriptions should not be ambiguous or open to interpretation.
In the plumbers example, there is a high risk that an incorrect variation of the trade could be selected, resulting in a higher premium, different cover or different terms. The Polaris Standards team are currently reviewing trade code lists to help address this.
|Specified items (e.g. contents cover) are aggregated by some insurers, and represented as such on quote comparisons. Where the total aggregated sum provided in the cover is less than that entered, a broker may not easily see what elements of requested cover are not being met.||Insurer responses should be provided and presented in a structure that allows a broker to make easy comparisons. These responses should follow the risk presentation format that the broker made. In the example given, a user may enter multiple types of specified contents items – the insurer responses should match the same breakdowns, thus allowing a user to clearly identify the covers provided (or not).|
Polaris is always looking for experienced broker system users to advise us with regards to our GCO work. If you would like to join the GCO Broker Review Panel for your software house, or would like to know more, then please get in touch.