As conditions in insurance markets worldwide slowly improve, CIOs are beginning to re-assess their strategies to drive a new set of IT priorities and are increasing their IT budgets.
The new reality of only modest premium growth in most mature markets is driving focus on simultaneously improving operational efficiency and organizational flexibility. As a result, Ovum is seeing the re-emergence of IT projects focused on legacy system consolidation/transformation and replacement.
Within emerging insurance markets, expanding core platforms and infrastructure to support growth in these regions remains the priority.
Consumers' demands for “anywhere, anytime” interaction continue to drive significant IT investment in digital channels across all regional markets.
These findings come from the latest Ovum Insurance Technology Spend Forecasts, available on the Ovum Knowledge Center. These interactive models provide a highly detailed breakdown of IT spending through 2017, segmented by geography, insurance type, insurance business function, and IT category.
The sharp decline in new business growth across all life insurance markets following the global slowdown led most insurers to rapidly and significantly cut their IT budgets. However, accelerating year-on-year growth in 2013, following some cautious expansion from 2011, confirms that life insurers are now moving from a cost-cutting mindset toward reinvestment in strategic IT projects. Ovum expects this growth in IT budgets to continue at a 7.6% compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2013 and 2017 to reach a global value of just over $49 billion.
IT spending across global non-life insurance markets varies less and has generally lower growth rates. However, Ovum expects IT spending by non-life insurers to grow at a 5.7% CAGR overall to reach $60 billion in 2017. IT spending in the most mature regional markets of North America and Europe will continue to remain significantly greater (at least twice the size) than the faster-growing Asia-Pacific region beyond 2017.
As insurers emerge from short-term cost-cutting, CIOs are beginning to prioritize projects that drive customer acquisition and retention or improve operational effectiveness – ideally both. All insurers should at least be re-assessing their current IT approach to ensure sufficient focus is given to revenue-growth initiatives, to prevent becoming stuck in a “maintenance only” IT strategy.
Within the European markets, intensive competition and prolonged slow premium growth is driving a focus on customer retention, with online portal projects being key IT initiaitives for many life insurers. These initiatives are a critical means of driving process efficiency, reducing operational costs, and responding to the demands of policy-holders for self-service functionality. As the requirements of Solvency II recede and the imperative to deliver sustainable reduction in operational costs becomes increasingly urgent, European life insurers are also refocusing on the issue of legacy system modernization. Legacy systems are not a new concern, but market conditions are now forcing insurers to address the problem. As a result, Ovum expects to see continued expansion of IT budgets in support of consolidation/transformation and core system replacement projects, to reach annual spending of nearly $5 billion by 2017.
A key priority driving IT spending by North American life insurers is the need to comply with emerging regulation such as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Solvency Modernization Initiative (SMI). The impact of regulatory compliance on IT budgets will continue to be felt up to 2017, driving spending on enterprise risk management (ERM) and enhanced management information systems (MIS) in particular. Ovum forecasts a 9.7% CAGR in this area.
The Asia-Pacific region will see the most significant growth at an 11.6% CAGR to reach annual IT spending nearing $15 billion by 2017, overtaking the European market to become the second-largest regional market. This expansion is being driven by life insurers needing to “build out” core systems and infrastructure to capture the strong growth opportunities in the region.
The goal of increasing new revenue through greater customer interaction is a critical objective for non-life insurers in both the North American and Asia-Pacific markets. Although North American non-life insurers are already well advanced in terms of online channel deployment and functionality, Ovum expects budgets directly related to digital channels to grow at a 9.0% CAGR, with mobile and social media emerging as the key focus of channel-related IT projects. Among Asia-Pacific non-life insurers, Ovum expects advanced functionality (such as policy application, quotation, payments, claim tracking, etc.) served via digital channels to see rapid development in the next 24 months.
European insurers in general are less advanced in the implementation of digital channels than their North American counterparts, although there is significant variation between individual players. However, Ovum expects this gap to rapidly diminish as the deployment of online portals and mobile channels emerges as a key priority from 2013 onward. IT spending in support of digital channels will grow at a 7.4% CAGR to 2017, with much of this growth occurring early on.
This is Part 1 of a two-part series on waiver of premium. Part 2 can be found here.
Insurance actuaries consider waiver of premium (WOP) a neglected liability — a supplemental benefit rider that has yet to be fully evaluated for risk exposure or cost containment, unknowingly costing individual and group life insurance carriers billions in liability every year.
The problem is that many companies don't have accurate claim management systems capable of reporting what's really happening with the life waiver reserves that are sitting on their books. But with a 44 percent increase in disability claims by people formerly in the workplace1, it's time this largely ignored liability is held up to the light.
Why Companies Need To Pay Attention
Most life insurers aren't fully aware of how much of a liability they're carrying when it comes to their waiver of premium reserves. Moreover, they're even less likely to know critical information such as the number of open life waiver claims, the percentage of approvals and denials, or claims still holding reserves that perhaps maxed out years ago.
Tom Penn-David, Principal of the actuarial consulting firm Ant Re, LLC explains: “There are generally two components to life waiver reserves. The first is active life reserves (for individual insurers only) and the second is disabled life reserves, which is by far the larger of the two. A company that has as few as 1,000 open waiver claims with a face value of $100,000 per policy, may be reserving $25+ million on their balance sheet, depending on the age and terms of the benefits. This is a significant figure when coupled with the fact that many life insurers do not appear to be enforcing their contract provisions and have a higher than necessary claim load. Reserve reductions are both likely and substantial if the proper management systems are in place.”
Unfortunately, by not knowing what's broken the situation can't be fixed. Companies need to examine their numbers in order to recognize the level of reserve liability they're carrying, and to see for themselves the significant financial and operational consequences of not paying attention. Furthermore, a company's senior financial management team may be underestimating the actual number of their block of waiver claims, thus downplaying the potential for savings in this area. Typically, the block of existing claims is much larger than new claims added in any given year, and often represents the largest portion of overall liability.
“Life companies are primarily focused on life insurance reserves and not carefully looking at waiver of premium,” Oscar Scofield of Factor Re Services U.S. and former CEO of Scottish Re., says. “There could be a significant reserve redundancy or deficiency in disabled life reserves and companies need to pay attention to recognize the impact this has on their bottom line.”
To illustrate this point, let's take a quick look at the financial possibilities for a company with even a small block of life waiver claims:
|Example – Individual Life Carrier||Current Reserve Snapshot||With Proactive Management|
|Number of Open WOP Claims||1,000||1,000|
|(*) Average Disability Life Reserves (DLR)||$19,989,255||$19,989,255|
|(*) Average Mortality Reserves||$3,046,722||$3,046,722|
|Average Premiums Paid by Carrier on Approved WOP Claims||$754,427||$754,427|
|Average Total Reserve Liabilities||$23,790,404||$23,790,404|
|Claim Approval Percentage||90%||60%|
|Reserves Based on Approval Percentage||$21,411,364||$14,274,242|
|Potential Reserve Savings||$7,137,121|
* The above reserve data is based on Statutory Annual Statements.
As you can see, even under the most conservative scenarios, the reserve savings are substantial when a proactive waiver of premium claim management process is put into action.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) requires life companies to report financials that include both the number of policyholders who aren't disabled with life waiver, as well as reserves for those who are currently disabled and utilizing their life waiver benefits. But many items, like the number of new claims or the amount of benefit cost are not reported. Moreover, companies rarely move beyond these life waiver reporting touch-points to effectively monitor their life waiver claim management processes or to identify the impact of contract definitions on their claim costs.
The new and ongoing volume of claim information, manual processing, and the fact that life waiver claims involve months if not years of consistent, close monitoring, is humanly challenging — if not impossible. For example, it's not out of the ordinary to have only a few people assigned to process literally thousands of life waiver claims.
It's unfortunate, but this type of manual claim reporting continues to remain unchanged as claim personnel (working primarily off of three main documents: the attending physician's statement, the employee statement, and the claim form), quickly push claims through the system. The process is such that once these documents are reviewed (and unless there are any questionable red flags), the claim continues to be viewed as eligible, is paid, and then set-up for review another 12-months down the road. As long as the requests continue to come in and the attending physician still classifies the claimant as disabled and incapable of working, there isn't much done to proactively manage and advance the claim investigation.
An equally challenging part of the life waiver claim process is working off the attending physician statement — both when claims are initially processed, as well as when they are recertified. Typically very generic in nature, the statement often only indicates whether or not the claimant is or continues to be unable to work. This problematic approach essentially permits the physician to drive the course of the claim decision away from the management of the insurance company. The insurer, who is now having to rely on the physician's report to fully understand and evaluate the scope of the claimant's medical condition, has little information in which to manage the risk.
For example, did the evaluation accurately assess the claimant's ability to work infrequently or not at all? Are they able to sit, stand, walk, lift, or drive? If so, then what are the specific measurable limitations? Is there potential to transition them back into their previous occupation or into an occupation that requires sedentary or light duty — either now or in the near future? In order for companies to move beyond the face value of what has initially been reported, and to monitor where the claimant is in the process, they need to build better business models.
Closing The Technology Gap
The insurance industry as a whole has always been a slow responder when it comes to technology. But for companies to optimize profitability, closing the gaps in life waiver claim management and operational inefficiencies will require a combination of technology and human intervention. Investing in the right blend of people, processes, and technology with real-time capabilities, can substantially reduce block loads and improve overall risk results.
Constructing a well-defined business model to apply standardized best practices that can support and monitor life waiver claims is critical. The adjudication process must move beyond obvious “low hanging fruit” to consistently evaluate the life of the claim holistically. It means not only examining open claim blocks, but also those that are closed, to better identify learning and coaching opportunities to improve future claim outcomes.
Additionally, segmentation can provide great insight into specific areas within the block, by applying predictive modeling techniques. It can evaluate how claims were originally assessed, the estimated duration, and why a claim has been extended. For example, was there something regarding the claim that occurred to warrant the extension of benefits such as change in diagnosis?
Predictive modeling also looks at how certain diagnoses are trending within the life waiver block, so if anything stands out regarding potential occupational training opportunities, benefit specialists can effectively introduce the appropriate vocational resources at the right time for the insured.
Capabilities to improve outcomes in waiver of premium operations through technology and automation should include these three primary assessments:
- Financial: Companies need to start looking at waiver of premium differently. They need to continually evaluate the declining profit margins on in-force reserves in order to identify the impact on profits. Even if a waiver of premium reserve block is somewhere between 10 and 200 million dollars, potential savings are likely to be 10 to 20%. Better risk management tools can substantially control internal costs and improve reserve balances.
- Operational: Current business models have to move beyond the manual process to steer the claim down the right path from start until liability determination. Standardized automation brings together fragmented, disparate information systematically across multiple platforms, essentially unifying communications between the attending physician and the insurance company. This well-managed infrastructure gathers, updates, and integrates relevant data throughout the life of the claim.
- Availability: A critical way to improve the life waiver claim process is through accurate reporting. By breaking down the silos between the attending physician, case manager, and the insurance company, claim related information can immediately be uploaded and reported in real-time. Proactively enhancing the risk management process to enable companies to consistently receive updated claimant health evaluation and physical limitation reports, is critical for best determining return-to-work employment opportunities.
Three Technology Touch-Points in Waiver of Premium Operations
Front end: Assessment of the initial claim and determining the best possible duration time.
Mid-point: An open claim should be reassessed to determine continued eligibility and to evaluate the direction of the claim if lasting longer than projected-and why.
End-point: The evaluation process continues to ensure claims are being re-evaluated at regular intervals, examining the possibility of getting the claimant back to work.
Why Waiver Of Premium Matters
What's typically happening is that most company's life claim blocks are managed on the same platform and in the same manner as their life claims, so ultimately the life waiver block is improperly managed. Life companies need to recognize that a waiver of premium block is not a life block but a disability block, and needs to be managed differently. For example, older actuarial tables do not reflect the fact that people with disabilities are living longer, potentially leaving companies with under-stated reserve liabilities.
Ultimately, having a good handle on the life waiver block will prove beneficial for both the carrier and the insured.
Part 2 of this series will discuss specifically how the introduction of process and technology into this manual and asynchronous area can deliver substantial benefits to life carriers.
1 Social Security Administration, April 2013.
Most ceding companies avail themselves of catastrophe reinsurance, a product that pays anywhere from 90 to 100% of aggregated event loss after the ceding company’s retention up to the limits obtained. Generally the retention is determined as some fraction of the company’s surplus and the exposure profile of the company from any one catastrophe. The ceding company wants that retention high enough to not merely be swapping dollars with the reinsurer for frequency events, but low enough that the “shock” of the sudden demand for cash to pay claims does not impair the company.When a broker tells a ceding company what the rate-on-line is for a catastrophe treaty … (the rate for a limit of coverage) or the inverse of a payback period, that number is not assuming any reinstatement of limits occurring. The reinsurers have now worked it that the reinstatement premium will in effect accelerate the payback period and increase the actual rate-on-line by requiring 100% as to time in reinstatement calculations. This was not always the case — at one time the reinsurer only charged for the reinstatement limits at a pro rated factor of the time remaining on the treaty.
Catastrophe reinsurance is somewhat unique in that its limits must be reinstated, but reinstating those limits now generally comes at a price higher than the original limits costs. This is so because the reinstated limits are only good for the remainder of the treaty period, not for the entire annual contract period as were the original limits. For example, suppose a Texas ceding company had a catastrophe treaty for the period from Jan 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 and a hurricane came through Houston on October 1, 2012, exhausting the cedant’s treaty limit. The cost to reinstate that entire limit is the same dollars as it was to initially secure the original limit, but the second limit is good only from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Thus, the limits costs are the same for a three-month period reinstatement as they were for a twelve-month original limit of the same amount.
Reinsurers may tell ceding companies at renewal time that they are renewing at the expiring rate, but what the ceding company must be aware of is that a reinsurer’s practice is not unlike the federal government saying it will not raise tax rates, but then taking away some deductions so that the net effect is to increase the tax owed. At renewal, the ceding company may find that because of some change in the treaty definitions initiated by the reinsurer, it will have to pay more for the treaty even thought the “rate” stayed the same. The net effect may be that while the rate did not change, the measurement against that rate did change, making the actual treaty costs increase or coverage decrease.
Consider also that if the ceding company had been carrying its original limits equal to the one in one hundred year storm, and such limits were appropriate, the reinstatement limit is now being carried for a second one in one hundred year event occurring in the same year, but happening again in the next three months, a highly unlikely scenario. The reinsurer is actually making the ceding company reinstate the catastrophe limit at a higher cost for an event that is even less likely to occur … but never fear, the reinsurer will offer to sell the ceding company yet another product that will cover the reinstatement costs … a treaty now for a charge slightly below the reinstatement costs that will pay the reinstatement premiums for the catastrophe treaty so that the ceding company will have reinstatement limits available in the event a second one in one hundred year catastrophe strikes within the next three months. (A pre loss, pre pay option treaty so to speak, where the ceding company can prepay the reinstatements now at a discounted rate!)
One of the primary attributes making for sound-rating analysis is the law of large numbers. That is, enough units are insured providing that sufficient losses are experienced in order to provide predictability to an event. By its very nature, catastrophes are generally unusual events as far as the individual ceding company is concerned. Regional ceding companies may experience an event that exceeds its retention only once every several years. Reinsurers thus, by in large, do not price catastrophe treaties for ceding companies on the individual cedant’s catastrophe experience.
Rates for catastrophe insurance are based on “cat models.” Cat models are used against the ceding company’s risk locations and dollars of exposure at those locations. That is, all other things being equal, having 5 billion dollars of insurance exposure along the coast where the models predict a hurricane will strike will cost the ceding company more to reinsure than 5 billion dollars of inland exposure, where the models show the effects of a hurricane are less intense.
During any catastrophe, claims are filed in multiples of what the ceding company may be used to dealing with on a normal basis, and the ceding company may be required to utilize the services of independent adjusters to augment their own claims personnel services. The combination of high volume, tyranny of the urgent, and utilization of temporary staff provides ample opportunity for mistakes in coding, reinsurance reinstatement premium calculations, and event identification.
Event identification is simply the realization that the loss may not be correctly identified to the named event covered. Not all policyholders may immediately turn in a claim, and a claim that is turned in months after the event may be miscoded and missed in reinsurance recovery. Additionally, not all reinsurance recovery is utilized because the cedant did not realize that certain subsequent events are covered.
For example, suppose a claim is paid and closed, and a recovery is made from the reinsurer for the event. Two years later the ceding company receives a suit alleging bad faith and deceptive practices and other allegations that the claim was mishandled. Many insurance companies will put its Errors and Omissions carrier on notice of the allegation being made. However, not all will notify the reinsurer of possible additional development under the treaty for the catastrophe under the ECO/XPL* portion of the cat treaty, which treaty has already been tapped. The ceding company will likely have a per claim retention under its Errors and Omissions policy, plus it is responsible for the stated limits of the policy it issued to the insured before its Errors and Omissions coverage kicks in. Whereas the cat treaty retention has already been met, meaning the ECO/XPL coverage of the cat contract will essentially provide Errors and Omissions coverage sooner to the cedant.
Additionally, depending on the definition of net retained loss under the treaty, it is possible under given circumstances that the ceding company could collect twice for the same Errors and Omissions loss, once under the treaty’s ECO/XPL and if large enough, additionally under its Errors and Omissions policy. An argument by the reinsurer that a collection under the Errors and Omissions policy inures to the treaty should be challenged with a claim that then the premium of the Errors and Omissions policy must similarly reduce the measure (earned premium) against the rate the reinsurer is charging. In other words the reinsurer does not get the inuring benefit of the Errors and Omissions without a corresponding allowance for its costs to the cedant. However, the cedant may be better off arguing the definition of retained loss under the treaty than to argue for the inuring costs.
During the turmoil of a catastrophic event, it is entirely likely that other reinsurance treaties will be overlooked or receive lesser attention. Most per risk treaties have a single occurrence limit, so that the per risk treaty is not used for catastrophic events. However, in many instances the per risk treaty inures to the cat treaty, so that the costs of the per risk treaty reduces the measure against which the cat rate is multiplied. In other words the costs of the per risk treaty reduces the costs of the cat treaty, because technically, the per risk treaty is supposed to be used up to the measure of its occurrence limit before the cat treaty is utilized; the recovery paid by the per risk treaty reduces the catastrophe loss.
As well, premiums may be missed or double paid, inuring contracts overlooked, or checks directed to the wrong reinsurer. I have seen the case during a catastrophe where a premium payment check was directed to the wrong Lloyds Syndicate, and such Syndicate was either so disorganized or so unethical, that it did not return the misdirected funds until after a formal request was made by the ceding company for the return over a year later. You can’t tell me the Syndicate thought that it was entitled to the money or did not realize it was not in the ceding company’s program.
The reinsurers are not your “friends.” They are not in the business to watch out for the interests of the ceding company — reinsurers are in business to make money, just as ceding companies are in business to make money. In 2010, just the top five reinsurers wrote over 98 billion dollars in premiums.
In a brokered market, the intermediaries do not only work for the interests of the ceding companies — they are in many cases dual agents. The word “intermediary” means go between, and for purposes of finances, intermediaries are the agent of the reinsurer, as provided in a standard intermediary clause ever since the federal case of 673 F.2d 1301; The Matter of Pritchard & Baird, Inc., which held that for purposes of money transfer, the broker is the agent of the reinsurer. Money received by the intermediary from the ceding company is considered money to the reinsurer, but money received by the intermediary from the reinsurer is not considered money to the ceding company.
Even all these years after Pritchard and Baird, I have recently witnessed where an unscrupulous reinsurer told the ceding company that it must collect from the intermediary the refund funds portion representing the intermediary brokerage fees. I have also witnessed where this same ceding company signed and agreed to placement slip terms but some 9 months later when the contract wording was finally provided, change the minimum premiums to equal the deposit premiums within the contract, successfully slipping this change by the cancer chemo patient general manager of the small ceding company and then arguing that it had no record of any change. Such behavior is inexcusable and would never have been caught without an independent reinsurance recovery review.
If reinsurers did things right, then the National Association of Insurance Commissioners would not have needed to adopt a rule requiring that final contract wordings must be signed within 9 months of the contract’s effective date to allow for accounting treatment as prospective, as opposed to retroactive, reinsurance.
It’s absurd to think that this type of rule should be necessary in the first place. The 9-month rule, which really comes out of Part 23 of SSAP 62, requires that the reinsurance contract be finalized — reduced to written form and signed within 9 months after commencement of the policy period. In effect the reinsurers being remiss in generating a timely reinsurance contract punishes the ceding company. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners also found it necessary to adopt the so-called 90-day rule. This rule requires the US ceding companies to take a penalty to surplus in an amount equal to 20% of reinsurance recoverables on paid losses 90 days past due. The rule also requires a 20% penalty to surplus for all recoverables due from so-called “slow payers.”
In effect reinsurers have been so remiss in generating timely contracts and paying bills in a timely manner that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners had to create rules to prod them into doing the right thing by punishing the ceding company if they don’t.
It also never ceases to amaze me the attitude of ceding companies in their thrill of receiving a 25% ceding commission from the reinsurer in a proportional treaty for business that costs the ceding company 33% to generate. Or how the reinsurer now “did them a favor” by allowing a 27% ceding commission in the renewal. Or how that so called quota share treaty that the reinsurer is supposedly a “partner” in has a catastrophe cap included for the benefit of the reinsurer. If this represents what it is like to partner and be the “friend” of ceding companies, then the plaintiff’s bar should certainly also be considered a friend of ceding companies.
Reinsurance intermediaries are required to be licensed in most states. Penalties are imposed on unlicensed intermediaries. In some states, led by New York through its Rule & Regulation 98, reinsurance intermediaries must have written authorization from a reinsured before procuring reinsurance for the reinsured. The reinsurance intermediary must provide the reinsured with written proof that a reinsurer has agreed to assume the risk. The reinsurance intermediary also must inquire into the financial condition of the reinsurer and disclose its findings to the reinsured and disclose every material fact that is known regarding the reinsured to the reinsurer.
Record keeping requirements also exist, mandating that the reinsurance intermediary keep a complete record of the reinsurance transaction for at least 10 years after the expiration of the reinsurance contract. Reinsurance intermediaries under these regulations are now responsible as fiduciaries for funds received as reinsurance intermediaries. Funds on reinsurance contracts must be kept in separate, identifiable accounts and may not be comingled with the reinsurance intermediaries’ own funds.
Most of the time the intermediary’s sales pitch to the ceding company emphasizes how it has a great relationship with the reinsurers, the inference being that such a relationship will ultimately provide for a better price for the ceding company in the negotiation process, as if the reinsurer will do a “favor” for the intermediary which will directly benefit the ceding company. Such fairy tale thinking is best left to children’s books and not in the board rooms of ceding companies. The truth is the intermediary is more dependent for its success on the relationship it has with the reinsurer than it is on the ceding company, and the intermediary is not about to alienate the reinsurer for the sake of a ceding company.
In the brokered market, the ceding company typically has no say in the treaty terms. What most small to medium ceding companies fail to realize is that just as an insurance policy that it issues is subject to being a contract of adhesion by virtue of the legal maxim of contra proferentem, so too is the reinsurance treaty to the reinsurer.
The Latin phrase “contra proferentem” is a standard in contract law, which provides that if a clause in a contract appears to be ambiguous, it should be interpreted against the interests of the person who insisted that the clause be included. In other words, if you speak ambiguously in a contract, your words can literally be used against you. This is designed to discourage people from including ambiguous or vague wording in contracts because it would run against their interests. This is a decisive advantage for many ceding companies in what are often ambiguously defined treaties produced by reinsurers.
All too often the ceding company simply falls in line with what the reinsurer says is the proper interpretation of the treaty language. Whether such complicity is reflective of the incorrect notion that the reinsurer is their “friend” and operates in its best interests or just ignorance, the fact is that ceding companies are often not fully utilizing the product for which they have dearly paid.
The services offered by such entities as Boomerang Recoveries, LLC provide for the ceding company a second look at the treaties it purchased and how it structured its recoveries from its various treaties. Every “touch point” along the recovery process provides for possible missed opportunity. An expressed reluctance by a ceding company to have its recoveries reviewed by an independent reinsurance professional represents misplaced loyalties. The loyalty of a ceding company is to its policyholders or its stockholders, not to its reinsurers.
Good faith and fair dealing owed by a ceding company to the reinsurer does not include foregoing rightful reinsurance recoveries or agreeing with every position of the reinsurer. In this day of increased litigation for Errors and Omissions and Directors and Officers issues, ceding companies should be more concerned with demonstrating their due diligence and exhibiting fiduciary responsiveness by trying to recover every dollar that they are entitled to receive under the treaty contracts, than in worrying about what reinsurers may think about an independent review of its reinsurance recovery process.
Think of it this way, if the ceding company obtained some tax advice on a return it had filed which showed that by refiling, it would be refunded $1,000,000 on the taxes it paid to Uncle Sam, will the officers of that company argue that filing an 1120X (Corporate Amended Tax Return) is a bad idea because it might look like an admission that the company had not taken every deduction entitled to it when it was originally filed or that the IRS might think poorly of the company? That would be absurd, but so too are the arguments that recasting and review of past reinsurance recoveries is a bad idea.
As we have seen:
- Every touch point in the recovery process is a potential to miss recovery … its just human nature to make more mistakes at the time of crisis than otherwise.
- Catastrophe treaties are not priced for individual company experience, but by models, so that additional recoveries will not directly impact the future rate charged the ceding company.
- Reinsurers are not in business to be your friend. Ceding companies pay sufficient premiums to collect all that they are entitled to collect under the treaty.
- Reinsurers will not tell ceding companies when a mistake is made or that it owes a ceding company more money.
- Intermediaries do not make a commission and are not paid to assure that the ceding company appropriately and fully utilizes the treaties that are placed.
- Reinsurance treaties are esoteric and a ceding company cannot rely on an intermediary to watch out for its best interests or interpret contracts in its favor.
- Increasing Directors and Officers exposures demand that officers and managers demonstrate their due diligence and the full filling of fiduciary duties. Even if no additional funds are shown as recoverable after a review, the effort is demonstrative of duties fulfilled.
- Intermediaries are dual agents and primarily “sell” their services to ceding companies by emphasizing the great relationship they have with reinsurers. Ceding companies need to understand that great reinsurer relationships do not mean better terms for ceding companies or that the intermediary is willing to sacrifice that relationship for the sake of the ceding company. Indeed, intermediary relationships with reinsurers are an extension of and built upon their loyalty to those reinsurers, not the ceding companies.
- Reinsurance treaties follow the legal maxim that ambiguities are construed against the drafter of the contract. Ceding companies need a truly independent expert that is not tied to the reinsurer, as is the intermediary, to argue for them and review recoveries on their behalf.
Cronyism has no place in today’s economy. Insurance managers are not reinsurance recovery experts, and utilizing the services of independent reinsurance recovery experts should be thought of as no different than utilizing the services of legal or tax experts to maximize the financial position of the ceding company. The deference ordinarily given to a reinsurer by a ceding company is substantially more than it would ever give to say, an insurer that carried its fleet auto coverage or its Directors and Officers coverage. Ceding companies should stop thinking of reinsurance as some sort of friendship pact and start considering it as they would any other insurance protection it purchased for its financial stability.
* Excess of policy limits, extra contractual obligations