“They’re funny things, accidents. You never have them till you’re having them.”

Eeyore’s advice notwithstanding, even seasoned brokers can differ about accident insurance.
Some of the very debated subjects in the benefits company—particularly in the worksite marketplace—is the complete worth of accident insurance for the consumer.

There’s little uncertainty the overall popularity of accident insurance. It’s a staple in a broker’s employees and worksite portfolio —mostly man— continue to purchase it. Having said that, there are a sizable minority of brokers and other insurance professionals who believe quite strongly that accident insurance is overvalued, over-used remains a policy regularly misrepresented to workers and.

Most brokers, though, still understand the worth of accident insurance and put it to use often. In reality, and much as with every other insurance product, the value of an injury plan is based on the situation for the group along with the worker.

When discussing accident insurance, most brokers mention the importance of handicap plans first. The injury detractors frequently point to an accident in a few heads and confusion between a DI policy, as well as the fact that when offered side by side, sometimes the consumer will unwisely choose the coverage of an accident strategy when the impairment strategy is a better worth. The supporters of accident point out the price savings that having a strong injury plan, notably one with an affliction rider, can bring at least some protection for an employee and when an employee cannot manage a disability strategy.

Of course, that is part of the problem to the anti-accident crowd.

If it’s clarified correctly though, is there actually any value to an accident insurance policy? The brokers who don’t enjoy mishap strategies unsurprisingly say no. Again the advocates of injury strategies point out that all injury strategies are not created equally.

Getting “x” amount for a busted finger sure can help pay for deductibles or alternative cost, after all that’s partly accident insurance was designed in the first place.

Every agent concurs that life insurance and disability insurance are the primary needs for all groups, assuming they are able to afford disability.

It’s also common knowledge that offering three worksite products at a time or more than two more often than not results in a poor enrollment for all of these. Some consider injury is a definite first-year plan to be offered alongside life insurance or handicap. Others asserted it’s more of a second-year product to be offered upon re-registration. Obviously, that belief hinged on other products and the complete benefits package contained.

Under the appropriate circumstances , even the injury detractors begrudgingly grant a value in the proper injury plan, explained the appropriate way, in the final analysis. It might be a strategy using an illness rider or without, covering injury at work, (or more commonly off the occupation), a plan with the sports package (or without) as long as it met the right standards they saw the worth.

Whatever strategy, with whatever company, had to have claims paid according to one “justly and quickly.” Nothing can destroy a group for an agent quicker than that is unpaid — or slowly paid—injury claims. This really is generally the first coverage in a group that probably will have more claims than any other single product, and will post a claim. The complete group will immediately discovered a slow answer from a carrier. That can hurt an agent’s relationship with their customer and directly change re- enrollment and retention.