LEGAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE SUCCESS STORIES

In March, 2015, a 3-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $6,566 from its malpractice insurer at that time. We sent its application to 11 insurers, seven of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $4,102, for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

We renewed the account for a premium of $4,326 in 2016, and $4,538 in 2017.

Thus, the firm’s premium decreased by over 30% compared to its 2015 renewal quote, three years in a row, because we aggressively shopped its application.


Also in March, 2015, a 4-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $10,421 from its malpractice insurer of the past four years. We sent its application to 12 insurers, eight of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $7,817 for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

We renewed the account for a premium of $8,013 in 2016, and $8,319 in 2017.

Thus, the firm’s premium decreased by over 20% compared to its 2015 renewal quote, three years in a row, because we aggressively shopped its application.


In January, 2015, a 6-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $21,421 from its then-current malpractice insurer. We sent its application to 13 insurers, seven of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $16,307, for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

We renewed the account for a premium of $16,826 in 2016, and $17,304 in 2017.

Thus, the firm’s premium decreased by nearly 20% compared to its 2015 renewal quote, three years in a row, because we aggressively shopped its application.


In January, 2016, a 9-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $36,981 from its malpractice insurer of many years. We sent its application to 12 insurers, nine of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $29,240, for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

We renewed the account for a premium of $30,418 in 2017.

Thus, the firm’s premium decreased by more than $6,000 compared to its 2016 renewal quote, two years in a row, because we aggressively shopped its application.


In February, 2016, a 15-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $59,834 from its then-current malpractice insurer. We sent its application to 13 insurers, six of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $49,223, for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

We renewed the account for a premium of $50,704 in February, 2017.

Thus, the firm’s premium decreased by more than $10,000 in 2016 and $9,000 in 2017, compared to its 2016 renewal quote, because we aggressively shopped its application.


In October, 2015, a 21-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $81,860 from its malpractice insurer of many years. We sent its application to 14 insurers, eight of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $68,489 for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

In October, 2016, the winning insurer offered a renewal quote of $71,058. We sent it to the prior insurer, knowing that it regretted losing the account. It quoted $62,723, and won back the account. The firm’s premium for primary coverage thus decreased by over $13,000 in 2015 and $19,000 in 2016, compared to its 2015 renewal quote, because we aggressively shopped its application. That in turn reduced the premium for its excess policy, which is a percentage of the primary policy.


In March, 2016, a 35-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $129,581 from its malpractice insurer of the last nine years. We sent its application to 14 insurers, seven of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $110,533 for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

In March, 2017, the winning insurer offered a renewal quote of $114,628. We sent it to the prior insurer, knowing that it regretted losing the account. It quoted $101,496, and won back the account. The firm’s premium for primary coverage thus decreased by over $19,000 in 2016 and $28,000 in 2017, compared to its 2016 renewal quote, because we aggressively shopped its application. That in turn reduced the premium for its excess policy, which is a percentage of the primary policy.


In November, 2015, a 56-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $204,581 from its malpractice insurer of many years. We sent its application to 15 insurers, six of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $184,533, for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

In November, 2016, the winning insurer offered a renewal quote of $190,628. We sent it to the prior insurer, knowing that it regretted losing the account. It quoted $171,496, and won back the account. The firm’s premium for primary coverage thus decreased by over $20,000 in 2015 and $33,000 in 2016, compared to its 2015 renewal quote, because we aggressively shopped its application. That in turn reduced the premium for its excess policy, which is a percentage of the primary policy.

In December, 2015, a 73-attorney firm asked us to obtain competing quotes, after it received a renewal quote of $258,581 from its then-current malpractice insurer of many years. We sent its application to 16 insurers, six of which offered a proposal. The winning proposal was $222,533, for the same coverage, limits, and deductible as the renewal quote.

We renewed the account for a premium of $227,495 in December, 2016.

Thus, the firm’s premium decreased by more than $36,000 in 2015 and $31,000 in 2016, compared to its 2015 renewal quote, because we aggressively shopped its application.

Print Friendly