Issuing Company Codes and Carrier Names on Certificates of Insurance

[Sara Lieser]

Does your agency create an issuing company code for every possible variation of a company name such as Selective Insurance Company of America or Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast so that it reflects this full and correct name on a Certificate of Insurance, Binder, etc.?  Or, do you use a single issuing company code - something like "Selective Insurance Company?"

[Jan Regnier]

Sara

We have the issuing companies set up to put on the Billing screens so the billing screens reflect the Issuing and Billing company.  When the Certs are set up we put in the Issuing Company actual name.

[Marie (Zionkowski) Gozikowski]

We do the general name "Selective Insurance" - have never had a problem with that, as long as the NAIC code is correct...

Of course, we handle mostly small commercial - and holders for big accounts are getting smarter / more picky

:-)

[brinkerdana]

I've always seen issuing companies entered for certs, etc.

[Robin Deatherage]

We use the issuing company name.  It's a real pain because we have a ton of carriers and as you know they each have a bunch of issuing companies.  I really hate it and wish we only used the billing company.  I tried to get that changed a couple years ago but our personal lines dept said they have to list the issuing company on auto id cards.  I'm not sure if that's true or not but that's what they told me so I gave up the fight.    

Back to the original question, I do not think it matters for certificates though.

[Jim Jensen]

I think there are several in either camp, according to a similar question in the Ascnet community. I've been a stickler for accuracey and detail in documents, so we have always used the specific issuing company. This does have other potential advantages at times. Progressive used to pay different commissions according to the writing company, so having each in allowed us to input the correct commission. We also have some carriers where the issuing company indicates the "preferred" level of the premium since they file different rates for each company name. Having the correct issuing company tells us right away which level of premium they are on. Additionally, a couple of carriers issue commission statements for each issuing carrier. Thus to be consistent, if one would split those, then they all should be split up into each issuing carrier.

[Mark Rowe]

Back to the original question, I do not think it matters for certificates though.

In MA this has become a problem for contractors as the state DOI now has inspectors on jobsites check for workers comp and they must have a certificate (or policy) in hand showing that they have coverage and the policy numbers and company names must match what the state has in their system or they could be shut down until they provide the info.

[brinkerdana]

I know CA requires the issuing company name on the ID cards.  It is a pain to have so many company codes.  It would be nice if we had more than 3 spaces available for coding.  The same 7 letter codes used for customers, cert holders, etc would be really nice. 

[Henry Bender]

There are close to 48,000 combinations of 2 and 3 Alpha/Numeric codes (excluding use of symbols). If you want a spreadsheet of them in order, please email me. You can use it to fill in your current ones, and reorganize if you wish. Also, good to avoid using the same code twice when doing so.

We originally set up our Carrier only codes (Ico/Writing) using 000-999 assigned alphabetically. These are codes that should never be used as Bco (Billing co) and should never be set up in the G L. Presently, we have to delete the G L codes so an error will occur, if incorrectly used.

We use a Billing code of "NOT"(No GL Code on this, either) for carriers written through multiple Brokers.

We originally set up our Bco codes as A## and allowed some room for new codes, but we did not allow enough separation for the many new codes to follow, so some are not aphabetically, but they are close.

It would be great if TAM had Carrier Only Codes that could not be used in the Bco box, and would not have G L Codes set up needlessly. Also, it would be nice to be able to select alphabetically in the Ico, and the Bco boxes (by type) without regard to the 3 digit code.

Also, columns in the company file for Company Types (Carrier/Broker/Type (Ico/Bco, or Both) would be helpful, and even more so, if all columns could be sorted.

I put in a PMR on this idea months ago, and never heard anything. As I said elsewhere, I've almost given up hope on the PMR process for TAM.

[Jim Jensen]

.It would be great if TAM had Carrier Only Codes that could not be used in the Bco box, and would not have G L Codes set up needlessly. Also, it would be nice to be able to select alphabetically in the Ico, and the Bco boxes (by type) without regard to the 3 digit code.

Uncheck the "allow at billing screen box" on the Company detail screen. Then it won't be allowed on the billing screen. That would also keep it from being used an issuing carrier too though. If you want a company used on the billing screen, but not as the billing company, change the code for the billing company on the company detail screen. Then it should automatically fill the correct billing company when setting up the billing screen. For example, Liberty uses about 5 issuing companies in Indiana, but they all are billed under Indiana Insurance Co. So each of them is set with IND as the billing company on their company detail setup screen. So any policy I set up under Peerless, Consolidated, Netherlands or Indiana automatically default to IND as the billing company.

When creating a new company, it asks if you want a GL account created to for. Simply answer 'no' and it won't add it to your chart of accounts. Doesn't get rid of existing ones, but at you can control new ones.

[Henry Bender]

We do fill in the Billing co when it is specific to one Broker or Company. We only use the "NOT" when we have more than one Broker associated with a carrier, such as Lloyds.

We are on 10.7, and I do remember that the system would sometimes ask if you wanted to set up a G L. I just tested several combinations for Carrier/Broker and could not get that question. It wouldn't even remove the G L Codes when I deleted the test codes.

Anytime there is a change made to the Company screens, or the Producer screens.  more useless G L Codes are set up again. There should be an option on the screens to set up only the codes that you need. We have G L sub Codes for direct bill commission by company, for P & C and L&H. We used to breakout Personal Lines, but it became to difficult to split up the companies that had both mixed together on the same statement. Also, we are on a Cash Basis, so we don't want a Payable G L by Producer, we want G L codes in the expense section, and who need a G L Payable code for a Company that is entirely Direct Bill? These all get in the way when you are selecting G L Codes for entry.

[Jim Jensen]

I just added a new carrier to the database and after filling in the detail screen (name, address, rating, etc.) and choosing "ok" it asked if I wanted to create a GL Account. "No", I replied.

[Henry Bender]

According to Applied, it will only prompt to "add a G L account" if the Carrier is set up for Direct Bill only. This makes sense. I'm going to change any that don't need to be set up for Agency Bill. At least I won't have to delete them again, if any changes are made to the Company screens.

Thanks for helping to get a better understanding of how to avoid some of the unnecessary G L Codes.

Now, if we just get Applied to understand that we don't need G L payable codes for Producers, when on a Cash Basis, and we don't need  G L codes for Agency Bill Income, for Direct Bill only Companies(when set up to "detail" by Billing Company).