Total Objects | Insurance Blog

It is amazing how many people still refer to the administration of outwards reinsurance as a bit of a dark art. One area that could fit this description is how the precedence sequence for excess of loss contracts should be decided. As we are all aware, one of the fundamentals of insurance is that you cannot over recover and, as such, where reinsurance has the potential to do this there must be benefit rules, which by default define the precedence sequence.

Unfortunately, it is still common to come across reinsurance technicians who decide the precedence sequence on an event by event basis in order to maximise the recoveries. If the reinsurers were aware that it was down to the technician as to whether they were liable or not, what action would they be taking? It also makes it difficult to automate the recoveries without intervention by the technician each time a new event is processed.

One example of a simple situation is where a contract has a loss warranty. The normal rule is that the contract with the larger loss warranty benefits the contract with the smaller or no loss warranty. If, however, the contract with the larger warranty has a wider scope in terms of the accounts (lines of business) protected, the normal rule would be that the contract with the narrower scope benefits the contract with the wider scope. This simple situation is often easily resolved but there can be more complex situations.

Also, because these contracts are only being looked at when there are claims, the underwriter and broker who designed and placed the RI programme are no longer available to ask. This underlines how important it is that with an outwards reinsurance system all the rules are captured each year as the reinsurance programme is entered into the system; the benefit rules and, as such, the precedence sequence are defined and the programme tested using realistic data scenarios.

Tags: EL, excess of loss, precedence sequence, Reinsurance
Posted in Reinsurance | | No Comments »

One of the more difficult aspects of providing outwards reinsurance administration systems is the calculation of reinstatement premiums. The basic concept is very straightforward and certainly calculating the reinstatement premium for the contract is, but, in my experience, the difficulty is that most of our clients want the reinstatement premiums to be calculated by event.

If we take, for example, a simple excess of loss contract where the recoveries are made on a losses-occurring-during basis (LOD) and there is one reinstatement. There could be three events in chronological order that can make recoveries from that contract A, B and C. If event C has claims that are processed first and makes a partial recovery, the corresponding reinstatement premium costs will be attributed to event C but as A and B make recoveries, event C would be refunded. Should the reinstatement premium be reattributed across the events now making the recoveries? Some say yes whereas others will say no. We end up with the situation where, although the contract is LOD, the reinstatement premium is handled as if on a settlement basis.

The problem can also be illustrated with the same contract and events. Event A makes a total recovery and all the reinstatement premium is attributed to event A. Event B then makes a partial recovery. However, event A has a claims refund and half the recovery disappears, event B remains the same and event C makes a partial recovery.

The problem is not too bad as long as the reinstatement premium costs are increasing but, if recoveries are to be refunded and, as such, paid reinstatement premium needs to be recovered, the calculation of the reinstatement premium can become complex especially where the reinstatement provision provides reinstatements at different percentages e.g. 1 free, 5 at 100% and 1 free.

The problem where events start refunding also applies to contracts that are processed on a settlement basis.

The simple way (and probably the correct way) to calculate reinstatement premium is by the contract ignoring any distribution by event and this is the method that most brokers will use. (This also leads to another problem in that the distribution by currency of the reinstatement premium can be different when the settlement basis by event is adopted.) Each time, the total reinstatement premium is calculated to the contract and by deducting the prior reinstatement premium gives the due premium this time. The reinstatement premium could then be distributed across the events making the recoveries and although this wouldn’t reflect the settled basis it would at least mean that the costs were always attributed to the events making the recoveries and the currency distribution would always agree with the brokers.

Tags: reinstatement premiums, Reinsurance
Posted in Reinsurance | | No Comments »

I became the first guest blogger on Reinsurance Magazine’s blog.re, run by Katherine Blackler. The blog focused on social media, prompted by the launch of Buzz the latest Facebook-competitor. This one, though, is a Google venture, linked into the Gmail platform, so it has a head start.

It’ll be interesting to see how it gets on…

Tags: Reinsurance, social media
Posted in Reinsurance | | No Comments »