Email
Newsletters
R&I ONE®
(weekly)
The best articles from around the web and R&I, handpicked by R&I editors.
WORKERSCOMP FORUM
(weekly)
Workers' Comp news and insights as well as columns and features from R&I.
RISK SCENARIOS
(monthly)
Update on new scenarios as well as upcoming Risk Scenarios Live! events.

Risk Scenario

Caught Out

A typhoon exposes the inadequacies of a U.S. pharmacy company's local insurance policies and hinders its move to Asia.
By: | October 1, 2014 • 9 min read
Risk Scenarios are created by Risk & Insurance editors along with leading industry partners. The hypothetical, yet realistic stories, showcase emerging risks that can result in significant losses if not properly addressed.

Disclaimer: The events depicted in this scenario are fictitious. Any similarity to any corporation or person, living or dead, is merely coincidental.

Good Morning Shah Alam

From his perspective in the third row, John Treme could make out the colorful costumes and motions of the dancers below him.

RiskScenario_CaughtOut

Treme, the risk manager for Vitalex, a pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Pennsylvania, was attending a performance of Joget Lambak, a traditional dance of Malaysia. The occasion was the grand opening of a Vitalex factory in Shah Alam, one of Malaysia’s manufacturing cities.

Normally, Treme wouldn’t be at an event like this. But he’d been conducting some business with a local insurance partner and happened to be in country on the event date: In other words, the timing was right for him to get a ticket.

Treme might’ve been feeling kind of lucky — but he didn’t.

To a focused, open observer, the movements of the assembled dancers and the music of their accompanying musicians were mesmerizing. John Treme, however, was a man easily distracted by his vivid imagination, combined with a razor-sharp memory that wouldn’t leave him alone.

Scenario Partner

Scenario Partner

As Treme watched the dancers, a strong, steady breeze, laden with moisture, passed through the performance space.

“Breeze … storm … tropical storm … typhoon.” Treme’s overactive mind skipped through the severity escalations unbidden. It was just what his brain did.

His brain also harassed him with the memory of his instructions from treasury when he’d been sent to bind the property coverage for the factory in Shah Alam.

“Just get us some basic property coverage with a local partner, we’ll let the global master property program handle the overflow if there ever is any,” the company treasurer told Treme at the time.

That put Treme in a tough spot. It went against his nature to not do as he was bidden. Still, the idea of “basic” coverage in typhoon country gave him the willy-nillies.

“What if something happens?” he asked himself when he couldn’t sleep at night.

“What if we get hit?”

“What are we doing in Malaysia in the first place?” he asked himself in his weaker moments.

He very well knew what Vitalex was doing in Malaysia.

The company had the right specialty with its focus on products in oncological medicine.

Pharmaceutical products in that area were high-growth. But sales in the mature markets like the U.S. and Europe were flat. If Vitalex was going to succeed in the highly competitive world of global pharmacy sales, it needed to move aggressively into high-growth markets like Asia and Southeast Asia.

It also needed to keep costs down, hence the treasurers’ concerns about what he perceived as duplicative or redundant insurance coverages.

A colorful flourish by one of the dancers and a particularly loud sequence from the Malaysian drummers brought Treme back into the moment; somewhat. He reassured himself by counting the offshore layers of reinsurance that Vitalex had on its master global program.

“We’re going to be okay,” he said softly, but still out loud. One of his co-executives looked over at him with concern.

As it turned out, John Treme’s worries were justified. It was really just a matter of time.

Eighteen months after the Vitalex factory in Shah Alam began production, Typhoon Ahayan roared up the Straits of Johor, packing wind speeds of more than 100 miles per hour. The typhoon slammed directly into Shah Alam, causing substantial wind and water damage to Vitalex’s new factory.

“How bad is it?” John Treme asked the plant’s manager, when power was restored sufficiently for phone service, two days after the storm.

“You better get over here,” said Smitty Fields, the plant manager.

A Mortal Blow

Due to a nice run of luck, Vitalex thought of themselves as the chosen ones due to their long string of uninterrupted business with no major property losses.

Scenario_CaughtOut

In placing the coverage for the Shah Alam factory, John Treme engaged in some fairly tense discussions with Terra Firma Ltd., a U.S.-based carrier with an A + rating, which had been on Vitalex’s program for years, long before John Treme came to work for the company.

The Vitalex facility in Shah Alam cost $250 million to build. Against some rather stiff resistance from the underwriters with Terra Firma and Vitalex’s broker, Treme prevailed in placing a $5 million property policy to cover the facility.

The reasoning from the Vitalex C-suite was that the company’s layers of reinsurance on its master global program were robust enough to pick up any slack should the Shah Alam factory suffer a sizable loss. And there was that aforementioned shield of good fortune the company deluded themselves into thinking would last forever.

John Treme was two hours back in country and in his hotel, preparing to visit the typhoon-ravaged Shah Alam factory when he got a disturbing text message.

“Please get here ASAP, I have bureaucrats on my back.”

It was from Smitty Fields.

When Treme got to the factory, the damage the facility suffered was clearly visible. Siding was torn off three quarters of the manufacturing space and parts of the roof appeared to be missing. And that was just on a cursory glimpse. Happily, or perhaps unhappily, some of the office space appeared to be functional.




There were two matching black SUV’s parked conspicuously near the front entrance. When Treme got to Smitty Field’s office, the men who drove those SUV’s were waiting.

“The cavalry’s here,” Smitty said with something resembling a smile when John walked into the office.

John barely had time to shoot Smitty a questioning look before Mr. Yei spoke.

“You are Mr. Treme, correct?” Mr. Yei said.

“Yes, I am,” Treme said. “How can I help you gentlemen?”

Mr. Razak consulted a file briefly before speaking.

“We work for Bank Negara Malaysia, the insurance regulator in this country,” Mr. Razak said. “We have questions about your coverage of this factory.”

“Like what?” Treme said, again shooting Smitty a look, which Smitty ducked.

“Who is your local carrier?” Yei said.

“Ungku Assurance,” Treme said.

“And your carrier in the United States?” Mr. Yei said.

“Terra Firma Ltd.,” John Treme said.

“If I may, gentleman, may I ask what’s going on here? We’ve got a severely damaged factory here and I need to get to work on the assessment and claims process,” Treme said.

“Yes, we think that is highly advisable,” Mr Razak said.

“We only have one question of substance for you today,” Mr. Yei said. “Although I think we are going to have more later,” he said unsmilingly.

“And that is …” Treme began.

“And that is …” Mr. Razak continued for him, holding out a document.

“Why did you arrange for only $5 million in coverage for a $250 million operation, that is, if your valuations can be believed,” Mr. Razak said.

“Gentlemen, we are very well capitalized company with substantial reinsurance protection on our global program,” Treme said.

“I don’t think there’s going to be a problem drawing down from our reinsurers to get this plant back up, if that’s what your concern is,” Treme said.

“I hope that’s the case because it’s of great concern that you have a gap in the tens of millions in your local coverage in all probability,” Mr. Yei said.

Mr. Razak jerked his head in the direction of the factory.

“The good people and the government of Shah Alam trusted that your company came here with good intentions, to do business and create local jobs,” Mr. Razak said.

“Your company’s failure to place adequate local coverage brings that premise substantially into question,” he said.

Minutes later, Treme stood with Smitty Fields, watching the two black SUVs wheel out of the storm-damaged parking lot.

“What do you think all of this means?” Smitty said to Treme.

“I’m not sure, I’m not sure,” Treme said. “I don’t want to think it, but we might be a little bit screwed,” he said.

Busted

Six months later, John Treme was on a conference call with his broker, Fred Tallex, and a vice president with Terra Firma, Suzette Pines.

Scenario_CaughtOut

“Okay Fred, do you want to take us through this?” John said to start things off.

“Sure,” Fred said, sounding like he was already mentally finished with the topic.

“Bank Negara Malaysia informed us yesterday that we are free to draw down the $40 million from Vitalex’s reinsurers to complete the factory restoration,” Fred said. “That’s the good news.”

“You all saw the email this morning,” Fred continued.

“Yes,” said Suzette Pines, somewhat tersely.

John didn’t say anything, yet.

“No one got fined, but the local regulators have got our brokerage and Terra Firma in their cross-hairs now,” Fred said.

“Sure looks like it,” Suzette said.

There was a long, awkward pause, which John attempted to fill.

“Well, we’ve only got a month or two to firm up the coverage on the renovated plant,” Treme said. “Can we get going on that?”

“Who’s we?” Suzette Pines said.

“Well, you’re our carrier in Asia,” Treme said.

“John, not any more we’re not. We have lost our appetite for this risk. A regulator that’s going to be in our grill all day long now will do that.”

“So you’re not …” Treme began.

“Sorry John, sorry but no way,” Suzette said. “No way if I want to keep my job and I do want to keep my job, such as it is,” she said ruefully.

“Guys, I’ve got to go, I need to pick up another call,” Suzette said.

“ ‘Bye Suzette,” Fred said.

Treme was too nonplussed to say goodbye.

“Now what?” Treme said to Fred after Suzette hung up.

“I really don’t know,” Fred said. “This project has so much stink on it I don’t know who we’re going to find and that’s not even bringing up price.”

“Well, can you …” Treme began.

“Yep, I’ll get started today John. You know we got reprimanded too,” Fred said, barely veiling his impatience.

“I know Fred, I know,” John said.

The business restoration delays suffered by Vitalex in getting the reinsurance draw down amidst the ongoing distraction of the investigation by Malaysian insurance regulators had severe impacts on Vitalex’s ambitions in Asia.

Vitalex suffered 14 months of business interruption due to the storm damage and the time needed to jump through regulatory hoops while trying to get the plant rebuilt.

A Munich-based competitor, Mayer Corp., which has a nimble, efficient manufacturing facility in Vietnam, was successful in taking substantial portions of the Asian oncology drug market that Vitalex was counting on as a difference maker.

Other markets might pay out like Asia had the potential too, but it would be years before Vitalex would be in a position to take advantage of them.

Bar-Lessons-Learned---Partner's-Content-V1b

Risk & Insurance® partnered with FM Global to produce this scenario. Below are FM Global’s recommendations on how to prevent the losses presented in the scenario. These “Lessons Learned” are not the editorial opinion of Risk & Insurance®.

Six Dimensions of a Successful Global Risk Management Program

1. Breadth and depth of a network: Risk managers want a consistent level of products and hands-on services delivered as well as the ability to offer broad, compliant, on-the-ground coverage. They need to settle claims locally and they want their carrier to offer consistent performance in terms of policy documentation and contract certainty.

2. State-of-the-art global master form combined with broad “standard” local underlyers: The ideal global program matches local coverage and master coverage as closely as possible. This maximizes coverage in the local territory and the local loss payment. Should a loss occur, it can be paid with certainty at the local level.

3. Balanced global and local service: Most risk managers value consistency when it comes to certain important aspects of their program, including capacity, coverage, claims and the level and quality of key services they choose. Yet keeping local constituencies and decision-makers engaged (and happy) can be an equally important element of a successful global program.

4. Consistent loss prevention engineering service, protocols and deliverables: As companies expand their footprints overseas, they often find the challenges they face in understanding hazards and managing risks grow disproportionately.

Companies often discover the prevailing standards of protection and construction differ significantly from what they may be used to at home. Local codes may be lax or non-existent, often in regions that may be more prone to natural hazards.

5. Claims control and settlement via in-house claims adjustment network: One way of ensuring prompt claims service anywhere in the world, is by insurers recruiting, training and retaining well-qualified claims professionals with on-the-spot authority, who are located around the globe.

6. Success in the global arena: A successful risk management plan depends on a concerted effort from numerous parties, including underwriters, engineers, brokers, contractors and countless others who are integral to its success. Taking that same simple plan “global” means that extended communication lines, cultural differences, language barriers and time zones must be added to the list of challenges.



Dan Reynolds is editor-in-chief of Risk & Insurance. He can be reached at dreynolds@lrp.com.
Share this article:

Reducing Cat Risks

Open to Improvement

Frustration with property CAT models is leading to change.
By: | October 1, 2014 • 8 min read
10012014_11_technology_hurricane

U.S. risk professionals with significant hurricane and other CAT-prone exposures are looking for a clearer picture when it comes to catastrophe loss modeling, an area fraught with confusion and increasing criticism.

Time and again, those whose risks are being evaluated have complained that they have too little control over how their specific exposures generate loss estimates, and how those estimates are calculated.

“Open” systems and “transparency” have become the buzzwords of the catastrophe modeling community of late, but how user-friendly will the newest catastrophe models really become over the next year or so?

Advertisement




It’s a question that the Oasis Loss Modeling Framework hopes to help answer. The London-based nonprofit represents a total of 25 insurers, reinsurers and brokers, including units of Allianz, Zurich, SCOR, Liberty Mutual, Willis, Guy Carpenter, Hiscox, RenaissanceRe and PartnerRe.

Oasis announced in January that its framework would bring down the cost of modeling, and provide transparency and greater flexibility for users via a program that is open to anyone with an interest in creating new catastrophe risk models.

Hopes are high. Still, the reality is that thus far, Oasis has no models available for U.S. hurricane and quake, though program developers hope to have such models available by the end of the year, said Dickie Whitaker, Oasis project director.

Initially, Oasis will offer models of floods in Great Britain and Australia, earthquake in North Africa and the Middle East, and brush fire in Brazil, Whitaker told Risk & Insurance®.

Scott Clark, risk and benefits officer for the Miami-Dade County Public School system, said he wants to see Oasis offer a global open platform that would allow those most knowledgeable about the school system’s risks to go into a modeling system and enter information that will produce the best outcomes — as opposed to the rather limited current system.

“I would like to be able to drill down into second- and third-tier modifiers to best affect the modeling outcomes including roof strapping, roof construction, etc.” — Scott Clark, risk and benefits officer for the Miami-Dade County Public School system

“I would like to be able to drill down into second- and third-tier modifiers to best affect the modeling outcomes including roof strapping, roof construction, etc.,” said Clark.

Currently, critics said, traditional models have been too focused on the aggregation of risk that insurers tend to calculate — rather than individual exposures and properties.

Year-to-Year Variations

The modelers are also criticized for changing models from year to year in ways that do not reflect actual changes in loss exposure.

“There is a tremendous variation between RMS 11 and RMS 13,” said John Burkholder, director of risk management for Broward County, Fla.

For example, when Marsh compared the two models, it found that medium-term rates (which represent storm activity potential based on climate conditions over the next five years) were reduced 28 percent in RMS version 13 for CAT 3 to CAT 5 events, while the nationwide average was reduced 16 percent.

“How could you have that much variation in risk exposure over just a two-year period?” asked Burkholder. “It’s difficult to reconcile those models with the actual individual risks.”

Claire Souch, senior vice president of business solutions, RMS

Claire Souch, senior vice president of business solutions, RMS

Claire Souch, senior vice president of business solutions at RMS in London, said that the main drivers of change between RMS 11 and RMS 13 came from new insights into hurricane activity: the number of hurricanes per year, where hurricanes are formed and where they make landfall.

“The scientific view of hurricane activity has changed since 2011, in part because of the considerable research RMS and other organizations have carried out to determine what drives hurricane landfall frequency,” she said.

“Ocean temperatures in the Atlantic have been increasing,” she said.

“Yet, over the last few years we’ve seen very low levels of hurricanes making landfall, something that the change between the 2011 and 2013 model versions reflected,” said Souch.

Clark of Miami-Dade County schools echoed the concerns of many risk managers.

He recalled the impact of the controversial RMS version 11, which initially more than doubled the school district’s probable maximum losses (PML) to $1.9 billion, making it difficult for Clark to assemble the insurance limits he needed — until he got another modeling firm to reassess the risk.

The way it’s worked traditionally using RMS, AIR or EQECAT modeling, there is a huge blind spot for risk managers and others wanting to know how the models project losses, he said.

Advertisement




Karen Clark of catastrophe risk modeling firm Karen Clark & Co. in Boston, said she understands risk managers’ concerns.

Traditional models may lack quantifiable data and can change quickly and dramatically, she said. When risk specialists are dealing with countrywide exposures, geographical changes may be less critical.

“The traditional models are not robust for individual locations and concentrated exposures.” — Karen Clark,co-founder and CEO, Karen Clark & Co.

Traditional models were never designed with risk managers in mind but with insurers in mind, she said.

“The traditional models are not robust for individual locations and concentrated exposures,” she said.

Models and Granularity

Often, risk managers and their brokers need to bring their underwriters’ attention to outliers that don’t fit with the usual assumptions.

That is one of the problems with traditional models, said Burkholder of Broward County.

“We’ve got a bulkhead at Port Everglades which models as a building,” Burkholder said.

However, it is not nearly as vulnerable.

“It is constructed solely of concrete and steel, so the model should, for loss modeling purposes, recognize its actual characteristics in the results to more accurately reflect the correct exposure,” he said.

In an effort to address some of the problems — particularly with making their systems more transparent to users, all three of the major CAT modeling vendors have released new products: Touchstone from AIR Worldwide, Risk Quantification & Engineering (RQE) from EQECAT and RMS(one) from RMS.

Souch of RMS said that RMS(one) provides “an exposure and risk management platform that enables any company to store and analyze all of the information they have about their risk, acting as a system of record for all of the risk items in the business, with the ability to run RMS and other models.”

She said RMS(one) is exposure and model agnostic so it allows companies to use catastrophe models to simulate what the impact of a hurricane or other disaster might be for all the exposures they have.

In addition, RMS’ models on RMS(one) are open and enable users to understand the impact of different scenarios, she said, such as if three hurricanes made landfall in one year instead of a single hurricane.

AIR Worldwide’s Touchstone is “an open platform, allowing clients to import third-party hazard layers or run multiple alternative models on a single platform for a more complete view of risk,” according to the company.

The major CAT modeling vendors have attempted to address some of the criticisms related to transparency.

Once more, the emphasis is on transparency and user interface.

“For example, say you believe losses from CAT 3 hurricanes should be 10 percent higher than AIR’s standard model says they are,” said Rob Newbold, senior vice president with AIR Worldwide.

A user can go into Touchstone and modify losses to better reflect their loss experience, or their own underwriting policies.

Advertisement




“However, there will always be the AIR default view, alongside any modified views,” said Newbold.

Several firms are now providing data and models through Touchstone. These include Ambiental, ERN, EuroTempest, IHS Inc., KatRisk, Met Office, PERILS, and SSBN.

EQECAT has its own take on the “open model” approach.

Rodney Griffin, senior vice president of client solutions and product management for CoreLogic EQECAT, said that RQE’s simulation platform “runs 181 natural catastrophe probabilistic models for 90 countries across the globe.

The RQE platform is inherently open in that additional models or components such as the hazards or vulnerabilities can be added to the platform.

“CoreLogic EQECAT is committed to being transparent and this is reflected in the granularity of reports down to individual site levels and the very extensive documentation which includes analyses of the key drivers of risk,” Griffin said.

On the compliance side, with respect to Solvency II in Europe and ORSA in the United States, he said the company “provides tailored documentation to transparently support these requirements.”

Karen Clark, co-founder and CEO, Karen Clark & Co.

Karen Clark, co-founder and CEO, Karen Clark & Co.

Oasis, meanwhile, promises to offer perspectives from multiple modeling firms, including Karen Clark & Co. Clark noted that her company’s platform, RiskInsight, allows risk managers to build their own models.

At the same time, she said, companies can also take advantage of Oasis to see what other models say.

Other Oasis modelers include JBA Risk Management, Spa Risk LLC, and Long Beach, Calif.-based ImageCat, which plans to focus specifically on earthquake risk via SesmiCat.

“The compelling case for the Oasis is that risk managers will be able to have access to the best of breed models tailored for specific hazards and specific regions through a single portal and at a reasonable cost,” said Charles Huyck, executive vice president at SesmiCat creator ImageCat, Inc.

“SeismiCat, for example, can potentially provide risk managers access to a host of sophisticated earthquake modeling capabilities previously utilized only by the structural engineering community in the United States,” he said.

So how exactly does a risk manager tap Oasis?

Advertisement




A risk manager can join as an associate member, which is free, said Whitaker. Full members are financial institutions or underwriters, all of whom pay a membership fee, he said.

Risk managers can download the software and search for a model of the geographical region and peril in question, and then negotiate their fee with the provider, he said.

Karen Clark said that the costs to access Oasis or RiskInsight will undoubtedly be a lot less than for the traditional modelers.

“Quite simply, you’re going to get more models on it,” Clark said when asked why industry members might want to tap Oasis versus an individual modeler like her firm.

“Via Oasis, you’ll be able to look at many different models’ views. That’s the [whole] idea,” Clark said.

Janet Aschkenasy is a freelance financial writer based in New York. She can be reached at riskletters@lrp.com.
Share this article:

Sponsored: Liberty International Underwriters

A Renaissance In U.S. Energy

Resurgence in the U.S. energy industry comes with unexpected risks and calls for a new approach.
By: | October 15, 2014 • 5 min read

SponsoredContent_LIU
America’s energy resurgence is one of the biggest economic game-changers in modern global history. Current technologies are extracting more oil and gas from shale, oil sands and beneath the ocean floor.

Domestic manufacturers once clamoring for more affordable fuels now have them. Breaking from its past role as a hungry energy importer, the U.S. is moving toward potentially becoming a major energy exporter.

“As the surge in domestic energy production becomes a game-changer, it’s time to change the game when it comes to both midstream and downstream energy risk management and risk transfer,” said Rob Rokicki, a New York-based senior vice president with Liberty International Underwriters (LIU) with 25 years of experience underwriting energy property risks around the globe.

Given the domino effect, whereby critical issues impact each other, today’s businesses and insurers can no longer look at challenges in isolation one issue at a time. A holistic, collaborative and integrated approach to minimizing risk and improving outcomes is called for instead.

Aging Infrastructure, Aging Personnel

SponsoredContent_LIU

Robert Rokicki, Senior Vice President, Liberty International Underwriters

The irony of the domestic energy surge is that just as the industry is poised to capitalize on the bonanza, its infrastructure is in serious need of improvement. Ten years ago, the domestic refining industry was declining, with much of the industry moving overseas. That decline was exacerbated by the Great Recession, meaning even less investment went into the domestic energy infrastructure, which is now facing a sudden upsurge in the volume of gas and oil it’s being called on to handle and process.

“We are in a renaissance for energy’s midstream and downstream business leading us to a critical point that no one predicted,” Rokicki said. “Plants that were once stranded assets have become diamonds based on their location. Plus, there was not a lot of new talent coming into the industry during that fallow period.”

In fact, according to a 2014 Manpower Inc. study, an aging workforce along with a lack of new talent and skills coming in is one of the largest threats facing the energy sector today. Other estimates show that during the next decade, approximately 50 percent of those working in the energy industry will be retiring. “So risk managers can now add concerns about an aging workforce to concerns about the aging infrastructure,” he said.

Increasing Frequency of Severity

SponsoredContent_LIUCurrent financial factors have also contributed to a marked increase in frequency of severity losses in both the midstream and downstream energy sector. The costs associated with upgrades, debottlenecking and replacement of equipment, have increased significantly,” Rokicki said. For example, a small loss 10 years ago in the $1 million to $5 million ranges, is now increasing rapidly and could readily develop into a $20 million to $30 million loss.

Man-made disasters, such as fires and explosions that are linked to aging infrastructure and the decrease in experienced staff due to the aging workforce, play a big part. The location of energy midstream and downstream facilities has added to the underwriting risk.

“When you look at energy plants, they tend to be located around rivers, near ports, or near a harbor. These assets are susceptible to flood and storm surge exposure from a natural catastrophe standpoint. We are seeing greater concentrations of assets located in areas that are highly exposed to natural catastrophe perils,” Rokicki explained.

“A hurricane thirty years ago would affect fewer installations then a storm does today. This increases aggregation and the magnitude for potential loss.”

Buyer Beware

On its own, the domestic energy bonanza presents complex risk management challenges.

However, gradual changes to insurance coverage for both midstream and downstream energy have complicated the situation further. Broadening coverage over the decades by downstream energy carriers has led to greater uncertainty in adjusting claims.

A combination of the downturn in domestic energy production, the recession and soft insurance market cycles meant greatly increased competition from carriers and resulted in the writing of untested policy language.

SponsoredContent_LIU

In effect, the industry went from an environment of tested policy language and structure to vague and ambiguous policy language.

Keep in mind that no one carrier has the capacity to underwrite a $3 billion oil refinery. Each insurance program has many carriers that subscribe and share the risk, with each carrier potentially participating on differential terms.

“Achieving clarity in the policy language is getting very complicated and potentially detrimental,” Rokicki said.

Back to Basics

SponsoredContent_LIUHas the time come for a reset?

Rokicki proposes getting back to basics with both midstream and downstream energy risk management and risk transfer.

He recommends that the insured, the broker, and the carrier’s underwriter, engineer and claims executive sit down and make sure they are all on the same page about coverage terms and conditions.

It’s something the industry used to do and got away from, but needs to get back to.

“Having a claims person involved with policy wording before a loss is of the utmost importance,” Rokicki said, “because that claims executive can best explain to the insured what they can expect from policy coverage prior to any loss, eliminating the frustration of interpreting today’s policy wording.”

As well, having an engineer and underwriter working on the team with dual accountability and responsibility can be invaluable, often leading to innovative coverage solutions for clients as a result of close collaboration.

According to Rokicki, the best time to have this collaborative discussion is at the mid-point in a policy year. For a property policy that runs from July 1 through June 30, for example, the meeting should happen in December or January. If underwriters try to discuss policy-wording concerns during the renewal period on their own, the process tends to get overshadowed by the negotiations centered around premiums.

After a loss occurs is not the best time to find out everyone was thinking differently about the coverage,” he said.

Changes in both the energy and insurance markets require a new approach to minimizing risk. A more holistic, less siloed approach is called for in today’s climate. Carriers need to conduct more complex analysis across multiple measures and have in-depth conversations with brokers and insureds to create a better understanding and collectively develop the best solutions. LIU’s integrated business approach utilizing underwriters, engineers and claims executives provides a solid platform for realizing success in this new and ever-changing energy environment.

SponsoredContent

BrandStudioLogo

This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty International Underwriters. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.


LIU is part of the Global Specialty Division of Liberty Mutual Insurance.
Share this article: