Responding to Andrew Paddick's initiative

Who 'owns' the client'The issue of who owns the client is never going to go away. Understandably, the broker has usually done the work of finding the client in the first place and does not wish to see the results of his efforts forfeited to someone else later.What brokers often overlook is the fact that although the client has a business relationship with the broker - and there may indeed may be contract for services between them - the client has a legally binding contract with the insurer. Evidence of that contract is called a policy. That contract is directly between the insurer who, after all is the risk carrier, and the insured.It is not surprising, therefore, that insurers have always felt more than a little attachment to the person who pays the premium. Insurers' legal obligations are to the insured and not the broker. The broker is largely, but not exclusively, the agent of the insured.It is also understandable that people like Andrew Paddick will strenuously defend the brokers; that is his job. But brokers also need to remember that it is in their interests to stay on the right side of insurers. If the relationship sours for whatever reason brokers should not be surprised if insurers pursue their legitimate interests with vigour. Insurers do not owe the brokers a living any more than the brokers owe the insurers a livingAnd, if it came to the crunch, the unpalatable truth is that insurers can live without brokers. In personal lines and increasingly in the commercial field insurers have demonstrated considerable ability in doing their own direct marketing. Brokers cannot live without insurers.Geoffrey H Lloyd PrincipalAssociated Insurance ExpertsCambridge