Presentation on theme: "Electronic Support for Endorsements LMG Forum 20 October 2010."— Presentation transcript:
Electronic Support for Endorsements LMG Forum 20 October 2010
Agenda today Project status Issues Measurement and monitoring Next steps Future roadmap
All contract changes in the London market, irrespective of complexity, submitted and agreed electronically using ACORD messaging (two-way electronic messaging). This does not preclude negotiation, whether face to face or otherwise, where appropriate or desired. LIIBA letter November 2009: …all contract changes presented on or after [live date], irrespective of complexity, are submitted and agreed electronically using ACORD messaging. LMA letter December 2009 (and similar IUA letter): At this date, brokers and insurers will cease agreement of in scope endorsements on paper.
Project Status Pilot live 1 October – three weeks in Early positive feedback - first, fastest, most Early evidence of ease, speed and effectiveness of process Practitioner feedback both positive and negative Some firms not yet achieved full usage Process and practice issues
Anecdotal evidence thus far - positive Beazley – quicker than the project manager Aon – 100 endorsements in first three days Catlin – 42% by volume (but query scope), 90% hull, 85% within SLA Broker - Faster agreement and listing of simple endorsements Insurer - This will improve with volume but the admin burden for underwriting assistants is greatly reduced Broker - There are some issues to resolve but it works … and negative As a frontline underwriter I find the system cumbersome, unwieldy and providing little value More chasing required than expected … experienced inconsistent levels of enthusiasm, usage and readiness.
Summary of EMG experiences Some brokers are still ramping-up usage Mostly agree that the process is fit for purpose Mostly disagree that it has yet won over hearts and minds of brokers and underwriters Mixed views on whether trading partners operating process as intended More agree than not that target response times are being met Mixed views on whether there is current benefit Mostly agree that the technology is fit for purpose All agree that the process will ultimately provide benefit Mixed views on whether there are any governance, legal or other impediments All agree or are neutral on satisfactory client service but early days
Issues For example Dual stamps Multi-section risks GUA – leader only responses Point of agreement and Interchange Agreement Linking MRCE with evidence of agreement document in IMR Full list will be published
Measurement and monitoring All firms need to assess whether they are meeting their commitment to the pilot both for participation and response times Assessment against 100% volumes is challenging EMG participants to share electronic versus paper volumes between themselves Qualitative data to be sought from firms against CSFs: Process fit for purpose Participation – firms are fully engaged Practitioners – target response times being met and feedback on benefit Usage – full usage within pilot classes Technology and governance fit for purpose
Next steps First survey of participating firms and interim project report – by early November Second survey of participating firms and interim project report – by early December Post pilot review and final report – by end of January Ongoing identification and analysis of issues ACORD upgrade cycle – now to early 2011
Future Roadmap Decision by LMG 21 October Aspiration to complete implementation across all classes by end of 2011 or early 2012 Confirmation of decision after post pilot review and final report Bilateral activity by some firms
Focus now Meet the commitment made to the full scope of the pilot and response times Respond to surveys Keep providing feedback