|
fzA455 posted:Never trusted the Chinese e-cig companies, as I use an e-cig right now. What's working with them like? I can't imagine they give a poo poo. From an underwriting standpoint we always work with a US based office, even it it's just a shell company secretary that relays things back to a Chinese office - but most eCig sellers really do have a US presence, even if 100% of their products are sourced from China. Sometimes it's not really a retailer's fault when they end up "holding the bag" on a loss for a product they had nothing to do with manufacturing because they'll buy from an importer/vendor that "has insurance" but after a claim find out it's a Chinese policy that has no/no enforceable obligation to respond to claims in the US. We basically assume all eCig accounts that hit our desk have at least one product that we'd be on the hook for if it failed and underwrite accordingly. I've seen plenty of explosion and fire losses that were during charging (generally from using the wrong charger or overcharging a cheap unit), during use (generally in a mechanical mod, but not always), in the pocket/purse, everything. It's definitely a product that can be very easily mis-used - which, generally, we consider a failure of the product, if it's too easy for the average consumer to injure themselves with it and the manufacturer doesn't do anything to address the issue, that's a problem. I have no idea what the solution is. Some brands of batteries have the problem way, way more frequently than others. Wrestling events mostly likely have a variety of policies - an equipment floater that covers their mobile property, a liability policy for the event spaces they occupy and event attendees, and a workers comp policy for the performers. Big companies like the WWE likely have a substantial self-insured retention and their policies are, I assume, standard market placement. Smaller firms would probably fall into E&S. I haven't seen one personally but I've seen like, BMX events and they structure pretty similarly. The Gathering does have insurance, and I have gotten in the account, and consequently there's not much I can say about it. They've never sent the official claim history (loss runs) so I wouldn't have much interesting to say anyway.  Fermented Tinal posted:Hay, paper, or metal? The worst losses I see are on cardboard balers, but generally they're all a bit messy. The metal ones for shredding and baling the springs of mattresses are tough too, I've seen a couple of videos of them running and I think they lull people into a false sense of security with the relatively slow speed, like if I didn't know better I'd assume I had time to reach in and grab something too. Griefor posted:Can/will the insurance company go after the Schlitterbahn owners to recover the costs they did cover? I assume they're completely broke but it seems logical that the owners would be liable since their negligence caused everything. Generally you can't subrogate against your own client but since there's, in my opinion, pretty clear evidence that the insurance was obtained under falsified pretenses (literally no company would knowingly insure an amusement part with rides outside of applicable ASTM standards), they may be able to sue for some kind of recovery. When all is said and done with the state case against the park they may say "gently caress it, we'll spend too much in court costs for a settlement they can't pay," and not bother. I don't know enough about the park's policy to know how much recourse the insurance carrier has. Casualty insurance exists to make 3rd parties whole financially from the negligence of the insured, like basically every policy I write I am gambling on my belief that the insured is not going to screw up (or at least that I will make enough premium over the course of writing a policy 3-5 years to make up for a screw up), this is unique in that intentional negligence resulting in fatality is manslaughter/murder and illegal activity isn't insurable. If Schlitterbahn successfully defends the charges/is found not guilty that when things would get weird from an insurance standpoint.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:
I heard about that one too, actually! My mainest boss works in concrete road stuff. Apparently the button-pusher needed a shitload of therapy. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:Though the park operator, construction firm, and raft manufacturer in the Schlitterbahn incident all paid out to the family in the civil suit, since the park operators/owners committed fraud in ASTM assessments, materially misrepresented claim frequency, committed intentional negligence in a criminal capacity, etc. it's likely their policy probably doesn't have to pay dick on defense or indemnity on a criminal trial (though it would have paid/did pay on the civil suit). For this case I heard they settled the civil suit for 20 million, but if had went to trial the max that could have been awarded was only like 1 to 3 million (thanks to tort reform laws passed by this same republican that is getting the 20 million). Why would the insurance company pay more than max the court could award?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
ianmacdo posted:For this case I heard they settled the civil suit for 20 million, but if had went to trial the max that could have been awarded was only like 1 to 3 million (thanks to tort reform laws passed by this same republican that is getting the 20 million). Sometimes it's good faith, sometimes it's not wanting to be known as the company in court that fought paying out on a little kid getting decapitated (most likely), sometimes it's easier cost wise to write a check than to fight it in court. The $20m was shared over multiple parties (the park, the construction firm, the raft manufacturer) and while the park paid the lion's share, that makes the numbers make a little more sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:From an underwriting standpoint we always work with a US based office, even it it's just a shell company secretary that relays things back to a Chinese office - but most eCig sellers really do have a US presence, even if 100% of their products are sourced from China. Sometimes it's not really a retailer's fault when they end up "holding the bag" on a loss for a product they had nothing to do with manufacturing because they'll buy from an importer/vendor that "has insurance" but after a claim find out it's a Chinese policy that has no/no enforceable obligation to respond to claims in the US. We basically assume all eCig accounts that hit our desk have at least one product that we'd be on the hook for if it failed and underwrite accordingly. I've seen plenty of explosion and fire losses that were during charging (generally from using the wrong charger or overcharging a cheap unit), during use (generally in a mechanical mod, but not always), in the pocket/purse, everything. It's definitely a product that can be very easily mis-used - which, generally, we consider a failure of the product, if it's too easy for the average consumer to injure themselves with it and the manufacturer doesn't do anything to address the issue, that's a problem. I have no idea what the solution is. Some brands of batteries have the problem way, way more frequently than others. That's great information. Thank You. Does it make it extra complicated that the device is built by one company and the batter(ies) another? In case of casualty, Smok (lovely devices) can be like, no it was the lovely Trustfire battery, and Trustfire can be like, no it was the lovely Smok mod...
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
fzA455 posted:That's great information. Thank You. Does it make it extra complicated that the device is built by one company and the batter(ies) another? In case of casualty, Smok (lovely devices) can be like, no it was the lovely Trustfire battery, and Trustfire can be like, no it was the lovely Smok mod... Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure parties can be found partially at fault and assigned a portion of the blame even if they don’t agree. So for example you might find the battery company and mod company take a quarter of the blame each for a poor quality product while the eCig company could take half for ease of misuse and lack of warnings of overcharging or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
fzA455 posted:That's great information. Thank You. Does it make it extra complicated that the device is built by one company and the batter(ies) another? In case of casualty, Smok (lovely devices) can be like, no it was the lovely Trustfire battery, and Trustfire can be like, no it was the lovely Smok mod... Ruggan posted:Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure parties can be found partially at fault and assigned a portion of the blame even if they don’t agree. So for example you might find the battery company and mod company take a quarter of the blame each for a poor quality product while the eCig company could take half for ease of misuse and lack of warnings of overcharging or something. Shared liability is definitely a thing ("yeah my battery was a piece of poo poo, but it still wouldn't have exploded if your mod wasn't a piece of poo poo too!") but most of the time this will come down to discovery and investigation. The insurance companies representing each seller/manufacturer/importer/etc. will hire expert investigators to pinpoint what is the most likely cause of failure (or determine what percentage each device was responsible for the failure, if it really is a case of shared liability). Expert examination and investigation is a big part of legal expenses in a eCig loss. Same thing with hoverboards, for a while any house fire where a hoverboard was present in the house was immediately assumed to be caused by the board, so hiring fire investigators to determine if it actually was became a huge part of the losses. Forced CPSC recalls and UL2272 standards have cleared that up significantly but there's no equivalent push for eCig battery and device safety standards. Hell, people got mad when the FDA set up liquid standards. 13Pandora13 fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 13:04
|
|
|
What goes wrong with resistance bands? Snap and hit you in the face with one end?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:What goes wrong with resistance bands? Snap and hit you in the face with one end? Iirc this happened to Senator Reid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:What goes wrong with resistance bands? Snap and hit you in the face with one end? That's part of it, they snap and take out eyes. The other part is, well, this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4s_UCYVbA "It's just a joke!" ...until one or more of the bands snap, the guy breaks his neck, and the gym and band manufacturer get destroyed in court for his "prank" because he needs lifetime care after. It's easy to laugh at that one because nothing bad happens (thankfully) but that's not always the case. One bad one we had someone had made a makeshift slingshot from a band and a hanger, the hanger snapped, the piece lodged so far into his eyesocket it caused brain injury. I don't even understand why, yeah resistance bands are super cheap but an actual slingshot is like, $9 on Amazon. I feel like this makes me sound like a buzzkill but I swear I'm not, I just find pranks/jokes that are likely to result in actual damage to someone else (physically or financially) incredibly selfish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:One bad one we had someone had made a makeshift slingshot from a band and a hanger, the hanger snapped, the piece lodged so far into his eyesocket it caused brain injury. AHHHHHHHHH gently caress
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:One bad one we had someone had made a makeshift slingshot from a band and a hanger, the hanger snapped, the piece lodged so far into his eyesocket it caused brain injury. Is this on youtube
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:Is this on youtube I've never looked, but if you google "resistance band accident" there's several videos of varying degrees of  . The Harry Reid pictures are  as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:I feel like this makes me sound like a buzzkill but I swear I'm not, I just find pranks/jokes that are likely to result in actual damage to someone else (physically or financially) incredibly selfish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:What goes wrong with resistance bands? Snap and hit you in the face with one end? https://youtu.be/LGH_GUbdTeQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
John Smith posted:The issue is the jury actually awarding such damages. As a jury member, I would almost never agree to award such damages. I stand firmly with big business. I feel like this might be a troll, but giving you the benefit of the doubt I don't think most underwriters have a "it's always the claimant's fault" attitude at all, we do see plenty of claims that are because the insured screwed up. Tort reform is a really complicated issue and I'm not entirely certain I'm for it. Yes, there's people who get awarded massive judgements for things they have a big hand in causing, and yeah that's unfair to the businesses and their insurance carriers. ~However~ a lot of large, punitive judgements are justified. For example, the "hot coffee" lawsuit is still often cited as an example of why tort reform is needed even though it's pretty well known at this point that 1. the coffee was so hot it fused the woman's labia, 2. McDonalds had been warned multiple times they were serving the coffee way, way too hot (190 degrees), to the point it was degrading the structural integrity of the lovely cups they were using, and 3. part of the settlement was a gag order preventing the woman from discussing any of this. Her original suit demand was only the cost of her medical bills and related expenses (a very reasonable $20k) which McDonalds refused. The value of the settlement was completely valid, and the punitive nature of it finally got McDonalds to serve coffee in sturdier (more expensive) cups that could handle the serving temp (also contrary to popular belief, they still serve coffee 170-190 degrees).  Interesting factoid, most military stuff isn't insured. The government just deals with losses itself. The injured parties/the families do not have a lot of legal recourse to sue, even with the Federal Tort Claims Act, Military Claims Act, and Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act the circumstances under which a suit can be brought are pretty specific and limited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:I feel like this might be a troll, but giving you the benefit of the doubt I don't think most underwriters have a "it's always the claimant's fault" attitude at all, we do see plenty of claims that are because the insured screwed up. But I generally disagree with awards for emotional damages and so forth. I would be willing to consider strict economic damage where the plaintiff himself acted properly. I am extremely conservative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
John Smith posted:Not a troll. I am simply disgusted by the entire tort system. And sure, I can entirely agree that there are legitimate claims. Beep boop emotions do not process in my autistic insurance brain
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
John Smith posted:Not a troll. I am simply disgusted by the entire tort system. And sure, I can entirely agree that there are legitimate claims. The cases where there's large emotional damage payouts are pretty rare (but I think that's why people hear about them). Oddly, the worst state for insane payouts is West Virginia (like, across the board, not just specific causes of loss like NY), which has been pretty solidly conservative for nearly 20 years now. I think there's a balance to be reached but I don't really know how to get there without unfairly penalizing people with legitimate grievances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:Beep boop emotions do not process in my autistic insurance brain 13Pandora13 posted:The cases where there's large emotional damage payouts are pretty rare (but I think that's why people hear about them). Oddly, the worst state for insane payouts is West Virginia (like, across the board, not just specific causes of loss like NY), which has been pretty solidly conservative for nearly 20 years now. I think there's a balance to be reached but I don't really know how to get there without unfairly penalizing people with legitimate grievances. Banning or sharply limiting emotional damages can be a good step forward. Alternatively, for awards to be determined by a panel of judges specialising in that specific technical field. If there are Admiralty Courts, then why not similarly specialised courts here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Banning is a step back since mental trauma is something that can gently caress someone up for life. The fun part is that it's impossible to be truly objective about what damage (if any) was done to a specific person by a specific incident
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
John Smith posted:Your rationalist argument sure is convincing. Many sound points to consider... Honestly? Cost. Hiring experts is expensive, someone who is both an expert in law and an expert in XYZ would be doubly so. I'm not against it, but good luck finding funding for it. No lawyer lobby is going to let something like that happen. Plus finding a jury with equal understanding of all contributing factors is next to impossible; if anything I should be selected for every jury I'm called for simply because of my experience and I/my coworkers are dismissed almost 100% of the time for that exact reason. Lawyers don't want educated juries/judges, they want pliant and suggestible ones. (not that I'm saying you're dumb or uneducated if you served on a jury, only that on paper there's nothing that makes you look like too knowledgeable in law to disqualify you)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:Honestly? Cost. Hiring experts is expensive, someone who is both an expert in law and an expert in XYZ would be doubly so. I'm not against it, but good luck finding funding for it. No lawyer lobby is going to let something like that happen. Plus finding a jury with equal understanding of all contributing factors is next to impossible; if anything I should be selected for every jury I'm called for simply because of my experience and I/my coworkers are dismissed almost 100% of the time for that exact reason. Lawyers don't want educated juries/judges, they want pliant and suggestible ones. They can publish a series of award benchmarks for specific levels of damage, to serve as precedent. And almost never agree to deviate from the award ranges. If it is constitutional, they can also inflict court costs on any party that appeals and the judgement is against them. These series of reforms will sharply limit nonsense cases, while allowing judicial review for legitimate cases. But yes, politics is the thing. What is good is not necessarily what is desired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
If someone (knowingly and deliberately) lied in their application does that instantly invalidate the entire policy, or do you as the insurer have to demonstrate that it was materially relevant to the claim at hand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:If someone (knowingly and deliberately) lied in their application does that instantly invalidate the entire policy, or do you as the insurer have to demonstrate that it was materially relevant to the claim at hand? It varies from state to state what the legal repercussions are, but nearly every policy will have as part of the insuring agreement a clause that voids the policy in the case of intentional material misrepresentation. For example, if you claim your dog treats are made in the US, and a series of claims comes in from dogs being poisoned and it comes out in investigation they were actually made in China and you knew as much, there's no coverage. But, if you were buying from a supplier that said they were a US factory and it ends up they were lying to you, and you had no idea, you likely still have coverage for those claims because you hadn't knowingly misrepresented your risk (but your carrier will probably cancel your policy after, as they wrote it on the belief they were US produced). It would be case by case how it shook out legally, but generally yes, your policy would be invalidated if you straight up lied. In some states it's a civil penalty, in some states it's a felony, in some states there's no additional penalty besides losing your coverage. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
John Smith posted:Not a troll. I am simply disgusted by the entire tort system. And sure, I can entirely agree that there are legitimate claims. This sounds all well and good. The problem is, how do you define strict economic costs? If someone breaks your arm, the impact on your life extends far beyond the medical bills you accrue. You are impoverished by the additional burden of dealing with your injury in a way that's difficult to assign a price tag to, and you're still very obviously worse off even after they pay every penny of your medical expenses. You can throw up your hands and say "life's not fair, accidents just happen, deal with it." Which might be a reasonable enough approach for random happenstance, but if you let people get away with injuring people and not having to pay the real cost, you're going to have accidents "just" happen a lot more frequently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:You can throw up your hands and say "life's not fair, accidents just happen, deal with it." Which might be a reasonable enough approach for random happenstance, but if you let people get away with injuring people and not having to pay the real cost, you're going to have accidents "just" happen a lot more frequently. If you're settling in to explain externalities or compassion to John Smith, I recommend a very comfy chair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:For example, if you claim your dog treats are made in the US, and a series of claims comes in from dogs being poisoned and it comes out in investigation they were actually made in China and you knew as much, there's no coverage. But, if you were buying from a supplier that said they were a US factory and it ends up they were lying to you, and you had no idea, you likely still have coverage for those claims because you hadn't knowingly misrepresented your risk (but your carrier will probably cancel your policy after, as they wrote it on the belief they were US produced). What about option C: I claim my dog & cat treats are both made in the US, but the dog treats are made in China and I intentionally lied about it. However the cat treats that are making people's cats sick really are made in the US. How do you feel about binding arbitration? As someone on "the other side" of that deal, do you think it should just be done away with or would it still be a useful cost-saving tool even if laws were passed to make the arbitration process more fair?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Klyith posted:What about option C: I claim my dog & cat treats are both made in the US, but the dog treats are made in China and I intentionally lied about it. However the cat treats that are making people's cats sick really are made in the US. I think that would come down to jurisdiction and the specific wording of your insuring agreement and any applicable exclusions. I imagine most claims departments will fight it pretty hard since the policy was obtained under fraudulent circumstances. Suits over coverage disputes can drag on for months, if not years, it gets really complicated and it's where you run into poo poo like "what is the definition of "is" in the policy?" From a carrier side arbitration has it's advantages - an insured's company with mandatory arbitration is going to have a legal team specifically for that on retainer even outside of their coverage that has both expertise in the business and the arbitration process, wheres the average consumer will be lucky to find a lawyer with one or the other. On a personal opinion side though, it's bad for consumers and IMHO, it's kind of hosed up that a corporation as an entity is a "person" but an actual person trying to file suit against one loses their rights to a jury, judge, appeals, etc. in court if they're stuck in arbitration. As a concept, I think truly fair arbitration would be excellent and would alleviate a lot of the congestion in the courts while allowing people to seek fair compensation for their losses - and not even just in insurance litigation, but divorces, etc. People run emotional and there's an imbalance in legal power though so I don't know that such a system can realistically function in 21st century America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:This sounds all well and good. The problem is, how do you define strict economic costs? If someone breaks your arm, the impact on your life extends far beyond the medical bills you accrue. You are impoverished by the additional burden of dealing with your injury in a way that's difficult to assign a price tag to, and you're still very obviously worse off even after they pay every penny of your medical expenses. Subjunctive posted:If you're settling in to explain externalities ... to John Smith, I recommend a very comfy chair. Subjunctive posted:If you're settling in to explain ... compassion to John Smith, I recommend a very comfy chair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:It varies from state to state what the legal repercussions are, but nearly every policy will have as part of the insuring agreement a clause that voids the policy in the case of intentional material misrepresentation. For example, if you claim your dog treats are made in the US, and a series of claims comes in from dogs being poisoned and it comes out in investigation they were actually made in China and you knew as much, there's no coverage. But, if you were buying from a supplier that said they were a US factory and it ends up they were lying to you, and you had no idea, you likely still have coverage for those claims because you hadn't knowingly misrepresented your risk (but your carrier will probably cancel your policy after, as they wrote it on the belief they were US produced). It would be case by case how it shook out legally, but generally yes, your policy would be invalidated if you straight up lied. Does companies or people or whatever lying about their situation to get cheaper policies make them more desirable to insurance companies because they know they are not likely going to have to pay out? I'm not sure but I would imagine there is a law against insurance companies issuing policies that they know they won't have to cover. However, is there any groups where historically this happens more often and insurance companies are likely to chase those types of customers because even though they didn't know they were being lied to, they know it is likely? Say, small businesses that can't really afford the insurance but are trying to get the cheapest policies because they legally have to possibly? Or some other subset or group?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
Twenty Four posted:Does companies or people or whatever lying about their situation to get cheaper policies make them more desirable to insurance companies because they know they are not likely going to have to pay out? No way, it's a huge pain in the rear end and expensive to fight in court (because fraudsters are pretty much always going to fight to get their claim paid). An ideal policy is an informed and active insured (eg cares about their losses and tweaks their business model accordingly after a loss to address issues) that's had low frequency, high severity losses, because they care about protecting their reputation but you can still get a pretty chunky premium. I haven't noticed any particular trend as far as business type and propensity for fraud, but that might be one of those things you need a bigger statistical view to see any possible trends. There's not particular class of business that has a reputation for "oh you better watch out underwriting XYZ, the apps are always full of poo poo." I approach all apps cautiously, not because I think an insured is lying but because I know that the average person does not think like an underwriter. "I sell kitchen goods, pots, pans, coffee grinders, etc., all made in China," is an accurate and honest description. I'm still going to require an inventory manifest or website or something to review the products because if "etc." includes pressure cookers, it's a completely different rating structure and terms. They're not lying, they just don't necessarily know what's relevant information to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:No way, it's a huge pain in the rear end and expensive to fight in court (because fraudsters are pretty much always going to fight to get their claim paid). An ideal policy is an informed and active insured (eg cares about their losses and tweaks their business model accordingly after a loss to address issues) that's had low frequency, high severity losses, because they care about protecting their reputation but you can still get a pretty chunky premium. This was a good response, thank you for that! It made me think of a follow up. Can you think of any situations or products that you were like "heck no I'm not going to insure that" or put in an unreasonably high bid (even if it wasn't a high amount total, just high for what it was). Did anyone ever take you up on one of those either because no one else would make a decent offer or for some reason that left you scratching your head?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
What effects do major claims have on the businesses you insure? I'm curious mostly about summer camps, but would be interested in any part of the recreation industry. Are these places able to weather deaths, catastrophic injuries, etc. and remain in operation, or will a major event like that cause them to close? Also, do guides/outfitters work with folks like you, or are they served by the standard market?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Related to the above, do you ever insure against "brand" or "goodwill" losses, such as a downturn in attendance after an accident?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Twenty Four posted:This was a good response, thank you for that! Haha, I just wrote an account I was hoping was going to place somewhere else. Sometimes there's something that gives you an "off" feeling but there's no technical reason to pass on it and it's within your company's underwriting guidelines and you're kind of stuck. Underwriting, especially in E&S, is very dependent on an underwriter's judgement but at the end of the day I have file audits and performance metrics as much as in any other field and "well I just didn't like it, no reason in particular," doesn't necessarily look good to my managers. On this one I was over the expiring pricing (for lower limits) and thought I was safe. Guess their renewal from their expiring carrier company went way up. Baronash posted:What effects do major claims have on the businesses you insure? I'm curious mostly about summer camps, but would be interested in any part of the recreation industry. Are these places able to weather deaths, catastrophic injuries, etc. and remain in operation, or will a major event like that cause them to close? It really depends - if there's one or two big losses in a five year history with really crazy circumstantial events leading up to the event, it may impact the premium minimally (what we refer to as a "shock loss"). Many losses, or losses of a similar kind within a 5 year period are a bigger problem - it shows you've got an issue that you're not addressing. If you've got frequency issues the very, very loose loss rating calculation is generally: (all pre-deductible losses in a five year span/5)*1.5 = minimum applicable premium for account to remain in profit. That's very loose though and things like raising deductible, lowering limits, exclusions, etc. can impact that pricing a lot. There's certain claim types that are rough for a smaller business to move past - molestation, death or dismemberment of a minor child, etc. - but a lot of larger businesses can move past it if it's a one off and there's public apology and obvious correction. Multiple large, gruesome losses on small-medium businesses, even if the public forgives them, will make insurance financially unfeasible in a lot of cases; if they want to continue operations uninsured and are legally allowed to do so, that's their prerogative, but if their loss pattern continues the lawsuits will do them in eventually. Guides and outfitters go both ways depending on details. Guided hunts supplying firearms/bows will generally go E&S. Spelunking, bouldering/free climbing, etc. as well. Guided hikes with solid check-in procedures, good emergency communication systems, etc. being done in well -known parks and trails will often go standard market. Subjunctive posted:Related to the above, do you ever insure against "brand" or "goodwill" losses, such as a downturn in attendance after an accident? It's not part of a standard policy, but it's available from some carriers. Business income losses are, generally speaking, a part of property coverage but a casualty loss isn't a "triggering event" for property coverage so it would need to be added via endorsement to the casualty policy. It's not cheap and it's difficult to underwrite because you basically have to pay the loss before determining fault since the effect of the event is immediate; casualty insurance isn't designed to protect you from your own negligence, it's to protect others from your negligence. It is not socially beneficial for insurance to pay people to suck, basically if you're negligent it should harm you enough so you stop being negligent and hurting/causing financial loss to others. Some crisis response coverage endorsements (aka mass shooter insurance) include it, but not all. Even if a school, venue, hotel, etc. is found to be partially liable in court for a mass shooting from a carrier side we don't necessarily see it that way so there's no conflict as far as "paying you for your own negligence" on the goodwill losses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Is your personal performance judged based on the number and severity of claims that come back against your policies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Is your personal performance judged based on the number and severity of claims that come back against your policies? No, unless I hosed up something major on the account review (like, didn't put a cancer exclusion on a tobacco account) on multiple accounts. Claims will happen, my job wouldn't exist if they didn't. My metrics are based mostly on quote ratio (number of accounts I send a quote on to number of accounts I personally handle) with bind ratio and premium volume as smaller factors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
If they're smart they would also base some metrics on policies you turn away or price really highly. Try to keep an eye on those companies to see if they had any huge claims or issues, give bonuses or kudos or whatever to people with good risk avoidance skills
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Sentient Data posted:If they're smart they would also base some metrics on policies you turn away or price really highly. Try to keep an eye on those companies to see if they had any huge claims or issues, give bonuses or kudos or whatever to people with good risk avoidance skills That stuff can come into play, but it's not a standardized metric like ratios are. Like, a couple years back I declined a risk manufacturing bridge collapse sensors, and the client just so happened to have a unit on that bridge that just collapsed in Florida. My acumen for risk is well-regarded in my company and management tells me as much. You don't really make it in E&S underwriting long if you consistently lose money, it's a fairly tight-knit circle. Any time there's a disaster, a massive recall, etc. the first thing that happens is the managers search our file history for any related account and send out "good job" or "prepare your loss ratio anus" emails accordingly. Having a blown loss ratio from something like that isn't the end of the world but it's not something people like to hear happened anyway. My former manager blew up his book a couple years back on an account we'd been on a couple of years, they added a new product, the product immediately caused multiple fires resulting in injuries and major property destruction (and was subsequently forced into recall). Not his fault, no way for anyone to have known what was going to happen, but it set him back almost $2m for the year. That sucks no matter how big your book is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 02:26
|
|