Interview with Darla Finchum, Head of MetLife Auto & Home

Darla Finchum

As part of our series of profiles of insurance professionals, we interviewed Darla Finchum, Head of MetLife Auto & Home. She is responsible for growth and management of the company’s personal and small commercial lines, as well as transforming the business to meet the needs of today’s technology-focused consumers. Finchum is also an active member of MetLife’s U.S. Business Diversity & Inclusion Task Force.

I.I.I.: Please tell us a little about your professional background. How did you end up working in insurance and what has your career trajectory been like at MetLife?

Darla Finchum: I’ve spent my career in personal insurance in the property and casualty industry. I started right out of college in the claims organization of an insurance carrier. Claims is where we put people’s lives back together in some of the most devastating moments. I developed a passion for what insurance does for people and for society. It is such a noble profession.

Once I knew that I had a passion and intellectual curiosity for insurance and what the industry stood for, I sought out roles and opportunities in various parts of the insurance business—from underwriting to sales to operations to services. I really began to understand the customer, the back end and front end, the business operations, and why it’s important for us to be a partner in the lifetime of our customers.

I came to MetLife Auto & Home through an acquisition in 2000 and have held various leadership roles including chief claims officer, prior to my current role as head of the business. It’s a real privilege to lead MetLife Auto & Home, drive our business growth and ultimately be there for our customers.

In your early career, has there been a mentor or boss who particularly encouraged and inspired you? If so, is there anything they said or did that you still draw on in your role as leader?

DF: I have been fortunate to meet, connect, and build mentor relationships with many individuals in both my professional and personal lives. My network and group of trusted advisors include former bosses, colleagues both inside and outside my organization, as well as individuals I’ve connected with outside of work, people I have met in life. I believe it’s essential to have a network you can call on, who will tell you what you need to hear and be there in pivotal moments to help in making those big decisions.

Most organizations agree that a diverse workforce is a good thing. Sometimes overshadowed by discussions about diversity is the topic of inclusion. One HR consultant described diversity as the “who” and inclusion as the “how”. How is MetLife promoting inclusion?

DF: MetLife has developed initiatives designed to strengthen an inclusive work environment. Designed in collaboration with human resources partners, business leaders, and external resources, the initiatives focus on three pillars: Attraction, Development/Advancement, and Retention. We define inclusion as a commitment to recognizing and appreciating the variety of characteristics that make individuals unique in an atmosphere that promotes and celebrates individual and collective achievement aligned to our values. We promote a culture where we respect others and listen for both facts and feelings to show respect for others’ perspectives. We focus on commonalities and value differences by identifying areas of agreement and shared goals.

Diversity, inclusion, and associate engagement are top priorities for me as a leader. Our Enterprise Local Inclusion Action Teams and Americas U.S. Diversity Task Force are two programs I’m involved in to promote and create inclusion across MetLife. Understanding employee values not only supports and helps them to thrive; it also has a positive impact on the business. Being involved in these enterprise teams gives me the opportunity to implement best practices across the broader organization, starting at the top with my senior leadership team.

How does MetLife go about recruiting employees from non-insurance backgrounds?

DF: It’s important for businesses to have look outside their industry to not only hire people with great experience but also individuals with intellectual curiosity, an ownership mindset, and who are willing to challenge the status quo, take risks, and experiment. MetLife leverages our recruitment marketing platform to promote jobs on our career site and various diverse job boards.  In addition to job boards, our recruitment teams leverage several tools and channels to meet prospective candidates where they are and promote our employer brand, such as social media, Glassdoor, Indeed, job fairs, AI tools, community-based organizations, and employee referrals.  MetLife is focused on targeting candidates who align with our core behaviors and values from a variety of industries.

What steps is MetLife taking/has taken to build a consumer-centric culture?

DF: Today’s consumers are aware of what’s possible and expect to engage with businesses on their own terms and in their preferred channels. At MetLife Auto & Home, we are focused on putting the customer at the center of our business to ensure we are delivering products and coverage our customers need, as well as quality service and experience they want.

We provide a personalized experience in which our customers can engage with us whenever, wherever, and however they chose. Whether that’s over the phone, through our website and apps, or in-person, we are a trusted advisor ensuring we provide the right types of guidance and advice to our customers.

In today’s world of emerging technologies, it’s important to have a balance of leveraging the latest technology like artificial intelligence, aerial imagery, and drones with the human connection. While digitalization and speed are core to today’s customer experience, the human connection is important in insurance. Immediately after an auto accident a customer may want to speak with a person at their carrier to verbally explain what happen, ask questions, and receive reassurance the claim will be handled. Once the initial claim has been submitted, a customer may choose to only receive updates via email and/or the app as they have the confidence in us that the claim will be properly handled.

And finally – What are you passionate about outside of work?

DF: While I’m passionate about insurance and my career, I’m just as (if not more!) passionate about my family – I strive for work-life balance. Whether it’s watching my grandson play baseball, a girl’s trip with my daughters or our annual family vacations, spending time with my family is a top priority and joy of my life. The balance of work and life is something I encourage for all our associates to make a priority. I remind them they can have it all, but they can’t do it all, so surround yourself with people who will help you along the way.

 

From the I.I.I. Daily: Our most popular content, September 20 to September 26

Here are the 5 most clicked on articles from this week’s I.I.I. Daily newsletter.

To subscribe to the I.I.I. Daily email daily@iii.org.

 

 

 

Don’t get burned by e-cigarettes

Getty images

Electronic cigarettes have been marketed as a healthier alternative to smoking tobacco, but a recent outbreak of lung disease linked to e-cigarettes shows that smoking is unsafe in any form, and insurers are cautioned to review their books of business for exposures to e-cigarettes.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported 12 deaths and 805 cases of lung injury linked to e-cigarettes (or vaping) as of this week.  Of the 373 cases where data on the patients was available, about three-quarters were male, two-thirds were 18 years to 34 years old and 16 percent were younger than 18 years

The cause of the illnesses has not been linked to any specific ingredients or devices. And while health officials continue to investigate, people are cautioned to refrain from using e-cigarettes altogether, and particularly to stay away from vaping liquids or devices sold on the street.

And if the outbreak of lung disease is not bad enough, e-cigarette batteries have been known to explode, causing serious injuries and a few deaths. A study from George Mason University estimated there were more than 2,000 visits to U.S. emergency rooms from 2015 to 2017 for e-cigarette burns and explosion-related injuries.

In a recent blog post, Tim Fletcher, Senior Emerging Issues Specialist at Gen Re suggests that in response to the situation insurers should review their small commercial retail book to determine whether any are selling e-cigarettes. Such retailers could include convenience stores, gas stations, and liquor stores. The blog lists several forms and ISO exclusions for e-cigarettes.

The Gen Re blogger reminds insurers that the duty to defend exists in all standard CGL occurrence forms with the potential to incur uncapped defense costs.

Travel company collapse offers lessons in risk

Most people don’t like to think about risk — especially when planning a holiday abroad. If they think about travel risk at all, it tends to be in terms of nuisances like flight cancellations or misrouted luggage.

The collapse of British travel company Thomas Cook, which left many thousands of travelers stranded, highlights the types of risks travelers rarely think about.

This week’s seemingly overnight collapse of British travel company Thomas Cook – leaving approximately 600,000 travelers stranded worldwide and leading U.K. authorities to launch what has been called be the “largest peacetime repatriation ever” – underscores several of the myriad risks that most travelers rarely think about.

For better or worse, when I hear “repatriation” the word is typically followed in my mind by “of remains.” While mass repatriations like the one occurring this week are rare, people often die while traveling for pleasure or business. Whether it’s headline-grabbing strings of mysterious deaths like those in the Dominican Republic earlier this year or more common, less publicized deaths by auto, drowning, or natural causes, the cost and complexity of returning the bodies of loved ones can compound the stresses typically experienced by grieving families. A travel policy with adequate coverage for repatriation of remains is a relatively inexpensive way to help address this burden.

Now, you’re even more likely to become ill or injured while traveling than you are to die. Have you checked your current health insurance to see what it does and doesn’t cover when you’re traveling outside your country? Depending on what you learn, you may want to consider buying medical travel insurance. If your health policy does provide international coverage, the U.S. State Department advises that you remember to carry your insurance policy identity card and a claim form.

In the case of a serious illness or injury, the State Department says, medical evacuation can cost more than $50,000, depending on your location and condition. A policy that covers medical evacuation and emergency extraction (say, in the event of natural disaster or political unrest) also is worth considering for international trips.

Perhaps the most important lesson to draw from the “surprise” collapse of 178-year-old Thomas Cook is that it wasn’t exactly a surprise for those who were paying attention. As the U.K.-based Guardian news site reports, “The tour operator’s woes go back much further” than its inability to secure a £200 million lifeline from its bankers. The Guardian calls Thomas Cook “a victim of a disastrous merger in 2007, ballooning debts and the internet revolution in holiday booking. Add in Brexit uncertainty, and it was perhaps only a matter of time before the giant of the industry collapsed.”

Travelers often are so focused on capturing bargains that they don’t take the time to research the organizations bringing them great deals or the safety considerations in the lovely destinations being marketed to them. In travel, as in other adventures, it’s often the case that “you get what you pay for.”

Maybe a bit of research might have kept some of the hundreds of thousands of inconvenienced Thomas Cook clients from putting all their holiday eggs in a single overstuffed basket.

Big, nasty claims in the casualty sector: no end in sight

Getty images

On September 19 Advisen hosted its second annual Big, Nasty Claims Conference at the New York Law School. The discussion focused on the issues that are driving mass torts and class actions that have the potential to exceed $100 million.

In her opening remarks, Ellen Greiper, partner with Lewis Brisbois, said that seven to nine figure verdicts are becoming common, a statement echoed by many of the panelists. And in his keynote address, Sherman “Tiger” Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association cited the trend of courts becoming a vehicle for public change that started with the tobacco litigation in the 1990s and continues through today’s opioids liability litigation. He also noted that the sheer “critical mass” of claimants is driving astronomical verdicts, for example the Xarelto® blood thinner lawsuit had 25,000 claimants and resulted in a $775 million verdict.

He mentioned speaking with an insurer who was ready to settle an older, expired claim for $150,000. Then legislation came through, changing the statute of limitations – and the claim demand changed to $50 million. “It’s not going to stop here. It’s never a one-off when it comes to this type of activity. Toxic torts, there are any number of events this will migrate to. Be on the alert for the exposure,” he warned the audience. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s just exploding.”

Joyce also cited liberal expert evidence rules, and the bending of personal jurisdiction rules, especially in so-called judicial hellholes, leading the way to more and bigger casualty losses.

Jim Blinn, executive vice president, Client Solutions, Advisen and Jesse Paulson, managing director, U.S. Excess Casualty Leader, Marsh, led the session dealing with frequency and severity trends for losses larger than $100 million, including a growing number of verdicts that breach the $1 billion threshold. The audience got a glimpse into Advisen’s proprietary excess casualty loss database via a slide listing recent colossal verdicts. Topping the list were Monsanto’s Roundup, Johnson & Johnson’s Pinnacle hip replacements and opioids and PG&E’s Camp Fire related losses.

In a session dealing with the insurance industry’s response to large claims Kathy Reid, senior vice president of Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance said that the more information the insurer has about a client the better — uncertainty causes price to increase. She said that while this is not the best time for insurers to come into the market some middle market casualty business can still be profitable.

So what types of Big Nasty Claims keep insurance executives up at night? Paul DeGiulio, senior vice president of General Casualty and Health Care Claims, Allied World, cited incidents causing multiple claims such as train wrecks or industrial explosions. Aging infrastructure and commercial auto (with rising fatalities on the road) are also areas of concern. And in premises liability, more businesses are being held liable when customers fall victim to crime in parking lots and garages.

 

 

University of Pennsylvania PennApps XX Hackathon Recap

By Brent Carris, Research Assistant, Insurance Information Institute

Left to right: Brett Lingle, Zoë Linder-Baptie, James Ballot and Brent Carris

The Wharton Risk Center  and the Insurance Information Institute  co-sponsored the second annual Hack-for-Resilience at PennApps XX, the nation’s oldest and largest student-run college hackathon. Presentations were given by Carolyn Kousky and Brett Lingle of the Wharton Risk Center School; and the I.I.I.’s James Ballot.

From September 6 – 8, 18 student teams used software and hardware technologies to “hack”—conceive and build new apps and devices—ways to combat the risks posed by natural disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. The students also vied to create either a product or service that provided insurance in a customer-friendly manner, a category generally known as Insurtech.

A panel of judges from the I.I.I. and the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center selected the winners.

First place in the Insurtech category was Wildfire Protect– a parametric wildfire insurance product designed to provide immediate payouts to insureds that experience property damage from wildfire.

Second place was a tie between Prophet Profit and Navig8. Prophet Profit is an app designed to help households save money by allocating funds in all sectors of the stock market. The Navig8 team created an app to assist the visually impaired communicate during a disaster.

First place in the resilience category was awarded to a hack called Phoenix. This team created an autonomous drone which detects and extinguishes fires.

You can see all other entries and winners here.

A world without TRIA: The formation of a federal terrorism insurance backstop

On September 11, 2001 terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. The attacks remain the deadliest and most expensive terrorist incidents in U.S. history, with insurance losses totaling about $47.0 billion in 2019 dollars, according to I.I.I. estimates.

In the wake of the attacks the U.S. Congress enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA). The act creating a federal backstop for catastrophic terrorism losses that is designed to keep terrorism risk insurance available and affordable. It was renewed in 2005, 2007 and again in 2015. The act is set to expire on December 31, 2020.

Over the next months the Triple-I Blog will run stories featuring key participants in the terrorism risk insurance market and highlight news stories from our database from the periods immediately following 9/11 (before TRIA) and 2015 (when TRIA briefly lapsed).

Below is an abstract from the I.I.I. database citing a BestWeek article from October 1, 2001. The article refers to the fact that the heaviest insured losses were absorbed by foreign and domestic reinsurers, the insurers of insurance companies. Because of the lack of public data on, or modeling of, the scope and nature of the terrorism risk, reinsurers felt unable to accurately price for such risks and largely withdrew from the market for terrorism risk insurance in the months following September 11, 2001

For more on the importance of a federal terrorism backstop read the I.I.I. report, A World Without TRIA: Incalculable Risk.

From the I.I.I. Daily: Our most popular content, September 6 to September 12

Here are the 5 most clicked on articles from this week’s I.I.I. Daily newsletter.

  1. Producers, stars of ‘Bones’ settle with Twentieth Century Fox, Wall Street Journal
  2. How does an autonomous car work? Washington Post
  3. A world without TRIA: Incalculable risk, Insurance Information Institute: special report
  4. Contaminant found in marijuana vaping products linked to deadly lung disease, Washington Post
  5. California’s wildfire season is roaring back to life, Washington Post

To subscribe to the I.I.I. Daily email daily@iii.org.

 

Wildfire response: a conversation with a fire chief

Frank Frievalt

California endured the largest and most destructive wildfires in state history in 2017 and 2018. The aftermath has left many wondering whether catastrophic wildfires will be the new normal for California and other fire-prone states, and, if so, what can be done. As the 2019 wildfire season progresses, there is a sense of urgency in the discussions among homeowners and business owners, policymakers, insurance companies and community leaders about how to change the paradigm in which wildfire-prone areas manage and respond to wildfire risks.

The Insurance Information Institute was fortunate to get an opportunity to speak with someone who is on the front lines of wildfire response. Frank Frievalt is the Fire Chief at Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District and part of the Western Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA).  He is leading the insurance section of the WFCA’s Wildfire Initiative. The WFCA has recently formed a partnership with ISO and Interra to help better understand wildfire risk for communities.

I.I.I.: Many are concerned that the severity of wildfire events in the United States will only increase. Do you agree? If so, what do you think some of the major factors for this increase are?

FF: What we currently have is an alignment of factors. We have 100 years of 100 percent fire suppression policy, so fuel loadings are off the scale in environments where fire is part of the natural ecology. We have growth of houses built in the Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) fueled by market forces (there is an estimated $250 billion in assessed home valuation in the 11 western states). There is the weather piece – the data is pretty clear that we are having a shift in climate which is not likely to change quickly. You also have ignitions which are mostly caused by people, and unless people’s general behavior improves remarkably, I don’t see any reason why the contributing factors are going to change.

I.I.I.: Tell us about the Wildfire Initiative and how you see a partnership between the WFCA and insurers developing?

Frank Frievalt:  After becoming the Mammoth Lakes Fire Chief in late 2012 I began to notice a disconnect with ISO’s FireLine risk assessment ratings for structures in WUI communities and the Defensible Space guidelines we use in the Western Fire Service. I set out to understand how ISO’s FireLine worked and reached out to ISO.

The main thing that we need to do is get technical facts empirically validated about mitigations for structural hardening that will deter ember reception at the structure. That’s how we’re losing most of the structures, it’s not direct flame contact. Once we have them identified and validated then we have to look into how these mitigations can be applied actuarially. We’ve been working with ISO who are really open to closing the knowledge gap.

Part of our goal is to have fire services and the insurance industry stand shoulder to shoulder and look at the mitigations that actually change the needle on outcomes, because we have the same goal – the protection of life and property.

I.I.I.: What are some of the public policy missteps that you see in relation to wildfire mitigation?

We’re only now coming to understand that the federal policy of 100 percent fire suppression will guarantee significant fuel loading and once the fire is established it’s going to burn extremely hot.

California has the most robust WUI code in the country; but that’s not a common situation.  Fire Chiefs we collaborate with in the West are frequently opposed by developer and even local government interests when attempting to incorporate more stringent WUI codes.

We really cannot approach the present WUI problem using past approaches from the fire service, insurance industry, or legislation; we are experiencing conditions that are significantly different from the past both as individual variables, and synergistically among each other.

I.I.I.: What do you think about recent wildfire legislation in California?

FF: Anytime there is a social disruptor people get frustrated and call their legislator, and then we start to see reactive-based legislation that is quickly passed, but frequently lacks the necessary detail to implement, track, and manage it.

About 11 months ago there was a flood of this type of legislation that hit California.  AB 1516 is one of the most significant pieces but it needs to be followed closely and massaged. It calls for a risk model advisory group and we are working with legislators on that.

The success of public policy requires public buy-in. No public policy is effective that’s just purely enforcement related. The best work that’s going to be done is not by my firefighters or insurance agents – it’s going to be done by Mr. and Mrs. Smith  annually and diligently maintaining proscribed defensible space, maintaining structural hardening (mostly retrofits), and then federal, state, and local government works on fuels management which is on the perimeter of communities.

We have got to get a connection with what we’re doing in defensible space inspections and what we’re doing in risk modeling. If my defensible space requirements are the same as the insurance company’s requirements to retain insurance at an affordable rate, then we increase our level of public buy-in to the mitigations that matter.

I.I.I.:  Could you suggest a practical list of mitigations for homeowners?

FF: This is not the definitive list, we are still working to come up with that, but here is what I can offer now:

  1. Roof Material
  2. Roof Assembly (Gaps, flashing, sub-roofing underlayment)
  3. Vents (Eaves, Attic, Foundation)
  4. Decking Material
  5. Decking Assembly (Enclosure, flashing, board gaps)
  6. Fencing
  7. Siding Material
  8. Siding Assembly (Gaps, underlayment, fire-resistivity assembly)
  9. Double-pane windows*
  10. Garage Doors

*Window assembly (an unintended consequence of the energy efficiency push led to vinyl windows, which melt and drop out making the building exposed to embers – windows are a big issue)

It’s vitally important the we collectively (and that includes I.I.I.) get involved in measuring the most cost-effective retrofit mitigations for these items. New houses can be built to new code but older houses need to retrofit.

Preliminary studies are indicating that structures built to the 2008 WUI code, and those that had a successful first WUI inspection had a 30 percent less loss to wildfire.

I.I.I.: Can you talk about the role emerging technology plays in mitigation and firefighting?

FF: This area is moving remarkably fast, perhaps too fast; we have a situation where technologies are seeking problems to solve rather than a situation where problems are seeking the best technical tools toward solutions.  We need to focus on asking the right questions first.  That said, I believe that big data analysis, real-time modeling at the parcel level, hyperspectral imaging, full-scale ember laboratory experimentation, and converting hazard mitigations to actuarial risk are among the top technological leverage points emerging in the WUI discussion.

I.I.I.:  Any thoughts on the future of fireproof houses?

FF: I’m not sure the “fireproof” house is plausible in the literal sense.  A concrete box would not burn, but it doesn’t have much curb appeal either.  The future of survivable houses in the WUI will exist in the shared space between fiscally and socially acceptable risk, market forces on development cost/sales, and the level of effort communities are willing to put into prevention of, and response to, the wildfires that are a natural part of the western ecosystem.

I.I.I.:  What are some of the public education efforts of the initiative?

FF: The public education will be secondary to where the science leads us.  Whatever we settle on, the public education message must be consistent in content, and recognition, between the fire service and the insurance industry.  The terminal objective of public education is to induce informed decisions that encourage behaviors beneficial to the public good.  If we fail to send a consistent message, public education efforts will be fragmented and lack credibility; we will have failed to serve the public good.

 

 

 

I.I.I. report contemplates a world without TRIA

Terrorism, by design, is unpredictable, hugely destructive, and to date uninsurable through private market methods alone.

Few events demonstrate this better than the 9/11 attacks, in which terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. The attacks remain the deadliest and most expensive terrorist incidents in U.S. history, with insurance losses totaling about $47.0 billion in 2019 dollars, according to I.I.I. estimates.

U.S. and international insurers were able to pay virtually all the claims from the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath. But insurers also made it clear that they could not, on their own, cover future losses caused intentionally by people acting strategically to attack select targets intentionally. In response to these concerns, the U.S. Congress enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), creating a federal backstop for catastrophic terrorism losses that is designed to keep terrorism risk insurance available and affordable. Renewed in 2005, 2007 and again in 2015, the act is set to expire on December 31, 2020.

Although the expiration is still more than a year away, U.S. commercial insurers are preparing for the possibility that the federal backstop might expire, and federal financial assistance is unavailable for a catastrophic terrorist event.

A new I.I.I. report, A World Without TRIA: Incalculable Risk, concludes that the terrorism insurance market is more robust than in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but – similar to the situation in 2015 – does not appear to have the ability to bear all terrorism risk.

In this context, the report offers a historical overview of TRIA – why it exists and how it functions – to inform the discussion about the potential consequences should the program disappear. The report discusses:

  • Commercial terrorism risk insurance before the 9/1 1 attacks
  • How the attacks changed the terrorism risk insurance marketplace
  • The enactment of the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act and the program’s structure
  • What happened when the program briefly expired in 2015
  • How a failure to reauthorize the program in 2020 could affect terrorism risk insurance

Over the next months the Triple-I Blog will run stories featuring key participants in the terrorism risk insurance market and highlight news stories from our database from the periods immediately following 9/11 (before TRIA) and 2015 (when TRIA briefly lapsed). You can follow the topic here.