Portellus, Inc., a leader in business-user driven change-management solutions, and Technology Alliance Partners LLC (TAP), a cross-industry business and technology consultancy, announced today that they have formed a partnership to combine consulting and technology synergies focused on the delivery of rapid implementations, enterprise flexibility, low total cost of ownership and high return on investment (ROI).
"The formation of a partnership between TAP and Portellus was a natural fit due to the synergies between TAP's solution delivery methodology and experience and Portellus' configurable approach to product design," said Richard Dolman, managing partner at Technology Alliance Partners. "Both companies are dedicated to providing customers with swift solution delivery, client empowerment, process agility and low system maintenance costs. Together, these commonalities make for a complementary partnership in strategic business processes and leading technology that create a powerful competitive advantage."
TAP's business process-centric methodology focuses on creating a sound framework for process optimization, best execution, solution design, implementation best practices, and change management. Portellus' products are architected to be service-oriented and configurable, thus avoiding lengthy and costly coding efforts.
Both companies are well positioned to address the technology and business needs of multiple vertical markets including financial services, communications, insurance, healthcare and manufacturing.
"Our two companies working together on projects in different industries offers prospective clients deep domain experience and highly flexible solutions that translates to a clear-cut ROI, creates competitive advantages, and works to future proof organizations from ever-changing technology shifts," said David Duignan, vice president of worldwide sales at Portellus. "We look forward to engaging with the talented team at TAP on strategic projects."
Companies interested in learning more about the way the two companies work together are encouraged to contact either firm.
About TAP
Technology Alliance Partners, LLC (TAP) is a premiere business and technology consultancy leveraging broad cross-industry experience to provide a full range of consulting services to support the analysis, design and implementation of effective business solutions. Based in Denver, Colorado, TAP is comprised of highly motivated and creative professionals dedicated to improving our customer's business competitiveness and profitability through the design and implementation of optimized business processes and supporting information technology. For more information, visit www.techap.net or call John Tesone at 303-881-7635.
About Portellus
Portellus, Inc. is a leading provider of next-generation technology solutions for industries requiring the automation of numerous complex business decisions. The company's Business Rules Management System (BRMS), Integration Services Hub, Web Portals and vertical market solutions utilize a service-oriented architecture (SOA) to deliver loosely coupled applications and flexible solutions, enabling clients to gain competitive advantages, reduce costs, mitigate risk, increase profitability, comply with regulatory requirements and swiftly respond to marketplace dynamics. Portellus' solutions are in production with, financial institutions, insurance companies, mortgage bankers, investment banks and Wall Street investors. For more information, visit www.portellus.com or call 949-250-9600.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Judge Rules Employee Benefits Case Against CNA Financial Corporation Will to Go to Trial, According to Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink
Judge Holderman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that a case against CNA Financial Corporation should to go to trial on claims that the company illegally denied severance benefits to terminated employees.
The suit is brought on behalf of 90 former members of CNA's sales force, whose division was sold to another company. These sales people continued to work until the date of the sale, not knowing that CNA had secretly amended its severance plan months before, cutting them out of more than $4 million in severance benefits. Even though the severance plan required reasonable notice of any changes, CNA's only notice was a clause inserted in the company's internal intranet posting of the plan. The court found that this was not reasonable notice and also found that members of the company's appeals committee, who had determined the notice was reasonable, had a conflict of interest. The court overturned their decision that the notification was timely.
According to Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, this decision is groundbreaking. The court held the company's internal appeals committee to a higher standard of scrutiny because it "was acting under a potential conflict of interest." The court found a conflict because a favorable decision by the appeals committee--all of whom were company employees--could ultimately cost the company millions of dollars. The court also allowed a common law fraud claim to go to trial to determine if the company's decision not to give adequate notice was made in bad faith. Judge Holderman dismissed a claim for federal common law breach of contract. The plaintiffs brought their claims under ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. ss. 1001, et seq. and federal common law.
Read the entire opinion (Rosenberg, et al. v. CNA Financial Corp and the CNA Severance Pay Plan, No. 04 C 8219) at: www.mmmglaw.com/CM/CurrentCaseUpdates/Summary_Judgment_Ruling1.pdf.
According to its company literature, CNA, based in Chicago, IL, is the country's seventh largest commercial insurance writer and the 13th largest property and casualty company. CNA's insurance products include standard commercial lines, specialty lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages. CNA services include risk management, information services, underwriting, risk control and claims administration.
The plaintiffs are represented by Palmer Freeman of James C. Anders & Associates, 1303 Blanding Street Columbia, SC 29202, Richard D. Ries of the Law Offices of R. Don Ries, 712 Richland Street, Columbia, SC 29201, Thomas R. Meites and Paul W. Mollica of Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink, 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60603, and Johanna J. Raimond of the Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd., 321 S. Plymouth Court, Suite 1515, Chicago, IL 60604.
CNA is represented by Wilber H. Boies, Aron J. Frakes, Monica Marie Quinn and Nancy G. Ross of McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, 227 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60606.
ABOUT MEITES, MULDER, MOLLICA & GLINK
Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink represents plaintiffs in nationwide class actions and multi-party complex litigation in federal and state courts, focusing on employment discrimination, workplace benefits, whistleblower actions, consumer rights, and securities litigation. The firm's guiding principle is to pursue cases that have a positive impact on society by advocating on behalf of classes of employees, investors, consumers, and others whose legal rights have been denied.
Contact:
Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink
Thomas R. Meites, 312-263-0272
The suit is brought on behalf of 90 former members of CNA's sales force, whose division was sold to another company. These sales people continued to work until the date of the sale, not knowing that CNA had secretly amended its severance plan months before, cutting them out of more than $4 million in severance benefits. Even though the severance plan required reasonable notice of any changes, CNA's only notice was a clause inserted in the company's internal intranet posting of the plan. The court found that this was not reasonable notice and also found that members of the company's appeals committee, who had determined the notice was reasonable, had a conflict of interest. The court overturned their decision that the notification was timely.
According to Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, this decision is groundbreaking. The court held the company's internal appeals committee to a higher standard of scrutiny because it "was acting under a potential conflict of interest." The court found a conflict because a favorable decision by the appeals committee--all of whom were company employees--could ultimately cost the company millions of dollars. The court also allowed a common law fraud claim to go to trial to determine if the company's decision not to give adequate notice was made in bad faith. Judge Holderman dismissed a claim for federal common law breach of contract. The plaintiffs brought their claims under ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. ss. 1001, et seq. and federal common law.
Read the entire opinion (Rosenberg, et al. v. CNA Financial Corp and the CNA Severance Pay Plan, No. 04 C 8219) at: www.mmmglaw.com/CM/CurrentCaseUpdates/Summary_Judgment_Ruling1.pdf.
According to its company literature, CNA, based in Chicago, IL, is the country's seventh largest commercial insurance writer and the 13th largest property and casualty company. CNA's insurance products include standard commercial lines, specialty lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages. CNA services include risk management, information services, underwriting, risk control and claims administration.
The plaintiffs are represented by Palmer Freeman of James C. Anders & Associates, 1303 Blanding Street Columbia, SC 29202, Richard D. Ries of the Law Offices of R. Don Ries, 712 Richland Street, Columbia, SC 29201, Thomas R. Meites and Paul W. Mollica of Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink, 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60603, and Johanna J. Raimond of the Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd., 321 S. Plymouth Court, Suite 1515, Chicago, IL 60604.
CNA is represented by Wilber H. Boies, Aron J. Frakes, Monica Marie Quinn and Nancy G. Ross of McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, 227 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60606.
ABOUT MEITES, MULDER, MOLLICA & GLINK
Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink represents plaintiffs in nationwide class actions and multi-party complex litigation in federal and state courts, focusing on employment discrimination, workplace benefits, whistleblower actions, consumer rights, and securities litigation. The firm's guiding principle is to pursue cases that have a positive impact on society by advocating on behalf of classes of employees, investors, consumers, and others whose legal rights have been denied.
Contact:
Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink
Thomas R. Meites, 312-263-0272
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Controversies
Insurance insulates too much
By creating a "security blanket" for its insureds, an insurance company may inadvertently find that its insureds may not be as risk-averse as they might otherwise be (since, by definition, the insured has transferred the risk to the insurer). This problem is known to the insurance industry as moral hazard. To reduce their own financial exposure, insurance companies have contractual clauses that mitigate their obligation to provide coverage if the insured engages in behavior that grossly magnifies their risk of loss or liability.
For example, life insurance companies may require higher premiums or deny coverage altogether to people who work in hazardous occupations or engage in dangerous sports. Liability insurance providers do not provide coverage for liability arising from intentional torts committed by the insured. Even if a provider were so irrational as to desire to provide such coverage, it is against the public policy of most countries to allow such insurance to exist, and thus it is usually illegal.
Closed community self-insurance
Some communities prefer to create virtual insurance amongst themselves by other means than contractual risk transfer, which assigns explicit numerical values to risk. A number of religious groups, including the Amish and some Muslim groups, depend on support provided by their communities when disasters strike. The risk presented by any given person is assumed collectively by the community who all bear the cost of rebuilding lost property and supporting people whose needs are suddenly greater after a loss of some kind. In supportive communities where others can be trusted to follow community leaders, this tacit form of insurance can work. In this manner the community can even out the extreme differences in insurability that exist among its members. Some further justification is also provided by invoking the moral hazard of explicit insurance contracts.
In the United Kingdom The Crown (which, for practical purposes, meant the Civil service) did not insure property such as government buildings. If a government building was damaged, the cost of repair would be met from public funds because, in the long run, this was cheaper than paying insurance premiums. Since many UK government buildings have been sold to property companies, and rented back, this arrangement is now less common and may have disappeared altogether.
Complexity of insurance policy contracts
Insurance policies can be complex and some policyholders may not understand all the fees and coverages included in a policy. As a result, people may buy policies on unfavorable terms. In response to these issues, many countries have enacted detailed statutory and regulatory regimes governing every aspect of the insurance business, including minimum standards for policies and the ways in which they may be advertised and sold.
Many institutional insurance purchasers buy insurance through an insurance broker. Brokers represent the buyer (not the insurance company), and typically counsel the buyer on appropriate coverages, policy limitations. A broker generally holds contracts with many insurers, thereby allowing the broker to "shop" the market for the best rates and coverage possible.
Insurance may also be purchased through an agent. Unlike a broker, who represents the policyholder, an agent represents the insurance company from whom the policyholder buys. An agent can represent more than one company.
Redlining
Redlining is the practice of denying insurance coverage in specific geographic areas, purportedly because of a high likelihood of loss, while the alleged motivation is unlawful discrimination.
In determining premiums and premium rate structures, insurers consider quantifiable factors, including location, credit scores, gender, occupation, marital status, and education level. However, the use of such factors is often considered to be unfair or unlawfully discriminatory, and the reaction against this practice has in some instances led to political disputes about the ways in which insurers determine premiums and regulatory intervention to limit the factors used.
An insurance underwriter's job is to evaluate a given risk as to the likelihood that a loss will occur. Any factor that causes a greater likelihood of loss should theoretically be charged a higher rate. This basic principle of insurance must be followed if insurance companies are to remain solvent. Thus, "discrimination" against (i.e., differential treatment of) potential insureds in the risk evaluation and premium-setting process is a necessary by-product of the fundamentals of insurance underwriting. For instance, insurers charge older people significantly higher premiums than they charge younger people for term life insurance. Older people are thus treated differently than younger people (i.e., a distinction is made, discrimination occurs). The rationale for the differential treatment goes to the heart of the risk a life insurer takes: Old people are likely to die sooner than young people, so the risk of loss (the insured's death) is greater in any given period of time and therefore the risk premium must be higher to cover the greater risk. However, treating insureds differently when there is no actuarially sound reason for doing so is unlawful discrimination.
What is often missing from the debate is that prohibiting the use of legitimate, actuarially sound factors means that an insufficient amount is being charged for a given risk, and there is thus a deficit in the system. The failure to address the deficit may mean insolvency and hardship for all of a company's insureds. The options for addressing the deficit seem to be the following: Charge the deficit to the other policyholders or charge it to the government (i.e., externalize outside of the company to society at large).
Health insurance
Health insurance, which is coverage for individuals to protect them against medical costs, is a highly charged and political issue in the United States, which does not have socialized health coverage. In theory, the market for health insurance should function in a manner similar to other insurance coverages, but the skyrocketing cost of health coverage has disrupted markets around the globe, but perhaps most glaringly in the U.S. See health insurance.
Dental insurance
Dental insurance, like health insurance, is coverage for individuals to protect them against dental costs. In the U.S., dental insurance is often part of an employer's benefits package, along with health insurance.
Insurance patents
See insurance patent for more details.
New insurance products can now be protected from copying with a business method patent in the United States.
A recent example of a new insurance product that is patented is telematic auto insurance. It was independently invented and patented by a major U.S. auto insurance company, Progressive Auto Insurance (U.S. Patent 5,797,134 ) and a Spanish independent inventor, Salvador Minguijon Perez (EP patent 0700009).
The basic idea of telematic auto insurance is that a driver's behavior is monitored directly while he or she drives and the information is transmitted to the insurance company. The insurance company uses the information to assess the likelihood that a driver will have an accident and adjusts premiums accordingly. A driver who drives great distances at high speeds, for example, might be charged a different rate than a driver who drives short distances at low speeds. The precise effect on charges is not known as it is not clear that a high speed long distance driver incurs greater risk to an insurance pool than the slow around-town driver.[citation needed]
A British auto insurance company, Norwich Union, has obtained a license to both the Progressive patent and Perez patent. They have made investments in infrastructure and developed a commercial offering called "Pay As You Drive" or PAYD.
Many independent inventors are in favor of patenting new insurance products since it gives them protection from big companies when they bring their new insurance products to market. Independent inventors account for 70% of the new U.S. patent applications in this area.
Many insurance executives are opposed to patenting insurance products because it creates a new risk for them. The Hartford insurance company, for example, recently had to pay $80 million to an independent inventor, Bancorp Services, in order to settle a patent infringement and theft of trade secret lawsuit for a type of corporate owned life insurance product invented and patented by Bancorp.
There are currently about 150 new patent applications on insurance inventions filed per year in the United States. The rate at which patents have issued has steadily risen from 15 in 2002 to 44 in 2006.
The insurance industry and rent seeking
Certain insurance products and practices have been described as rent seeking by critics. That is, some insurance products or practices are useful primarily because of legal benefits, such as reducing taxes, as opposed to providing protection against risks of adverse events. Under United States tax law, for example, most owners of variable annuities and variable life insurance can invest their premium payments in the stock market and defer or eliminate paying any taxes on their investments until withdrawals are made. Sometimes this tax deferral is the only reason people use these products. Another example is the legal infrastructure which allows life insurance to be held in an irrevocable trust which is used to pay an estate tax while the proceeds themselves are immune from the estate tax.
Criticism of insurance companies
Some people believe that modern insurance companies are money-making businesses which have little interest in insurance. They argue that the purpose of insurance is to spread risk so the reluctance of insurance companies to take on high-risk cases (e.g. houses in areas subject to flooding, or young drivers) runs counter to the principle of insurance.
Other criticisms include:
· Insurance policies contain too many exclusion clauses. For example, some house insurance policies do not cover damage to garden walls.
· Most insurance companies now use call centres and staff attempt to answer questions by reading from a script. It is difficult to speak to anybody with expert knowledge.
By creating a "security blanket" for its insureds, an insurance company may inadvertently find that its insureds may not be as risk-averse as they might otherwise be (since, by definition, the insured has transferred the risk to the insurer). This problem is known to the insurance industry as moral hazard. To reduce their own financial exposure, insurance companies have contractual clauses that mitigate their obligation to provide coverage if the insured engages in behavior that grossly magnifies their risk of loss or liability.
For example, life insurance companies may require higher premiums or deny coverage altogether to people who work in hazardous occupations or engage in dangerous sports. Liability insurance providers do not provide coverage for liability arising from intentional torts committed by the insured. Even if a provider were so irrational as to desire to provide such coverage, it is against the public policy of most countries to allow such insurance to exist, and thus it is usually illegal.
Closed community self-insurance
Some communities prefer to create virtual insurance amongst themselves by other means than contractual risk transfer, which assigns explicit numerical values to risk. A number of religious groups, including the Amish and some Muslim groups, depend on support provided by their communities when disasters strike. The risk presented by any given person is assumed collectively by the community who all bear the cost of rebuilding lost property and supporting people whose needs are suddenly greater after a loss of some kind. In supportive communities where others can be trusted to follow community leaders, this tacit form of insurance can work. In this manner the community can even out the extreme differences in insurability that exist among its members. Some further justification is also provided by invoking the moral hazard of explicit insurance contracts.
In the United Kingdom The Crown (which, for practical purposes, meant the Civil service) did not insure property such as government buildings. If a government building was damaged, the cost of repair would be met from public funds because, in the long run, this was cheaper than paying insurance premiums. Since many UK government buildings have been sold to property companies, and rented back, this arrangement is now less common and may have disappeared altogether.
Complexity of insurance policy contracts
Insurance policies can be complex and some policyholders may not understand all the fees and coverages included in a policy. As a result, people may buy policies on unfavorable terms. In response to these issues, many countries have enacted detailed statutory and regulatory regimes governing every aspect of the insurance business, including minimum standards for policies and the ways in which they may be advertised and sold.
Many institutional insurance purchasers buy insurance through an insurance broker. Brokers represent the buyer (not the insurance company), and typically counsel the buyer on appropriate coverages, policy limitations. A broker generally holds contracts with many insurers, thereby allowing the broker to "shop" the market for the best rates and coverage possible.
Insurance may also be purchased through an agent. Unlike a broker, who represents the policyholder, an agent represents the insurance company from whom the policyholder buys. An agent can represent more than one company.
Redlining
Redlining is the practice of denying insurance coverage in specific geographic areas, purportedly because of a high likelihood of loss, while the alleged motivation is unlawful discrimination.
In determining premiums and premium rate structures, insurers consider quantifiable factors, including location, credit scores, gender, occupation, marital status, and education level. However, the use of such factors is often considered to be unfair or unlawfully discriminatory, and the reaction against this practice has in some instances led to political disputes about the ways in which insurers determine premiums and regulatory intervention to limit the factors used.
An insurance underwriter's job is to evaluate a given risk as to the likelihood that a loss will occur. Any factor that causes a greater likelihood of loss should theoretically be charged a higher rate. This basic principle of insurance must be followed if insurance companies are to remain solvent. Thus, "discrimination" against (i.e., differential treatment of) potential insureds in the risk evaluation and premium-setting process is a necessary by-product of the fundamentals of insurance underwriting. For instance, insurers charge older people significantly higher premiums than they charge younger people for term life insurance. Older people are thus treated differently than younger people (i.e., a distinction is made, discrimination occurs). The rationale for the differential treatment goes to the heart of the risk a life insurer takes: Old people are likely to die sooner than young people, so the risk of loss (the insured's death) is greater in any given period of time and therefore the risk premium must be higher to cover the greater risk. However, treating insureds differently when there is no actuarially sound reason for doing so is unlawful discrimination.
What is often missing from the debate is that prohibiting the use of legitimate, actuarially sound factors means that an insufficient amount is being charged for a given risk, and there is thus a deficit in the system. The failure to address the deficit may mean insolvency and hardship for all of a company's insureds. The options for addressing the deficit seem to be the following: Charge the deficit to the other policyholders or charge it to the government (i.e., externalize outside of the company to society at large).
Health insurance
Health insurance, which is coverage for individuals to protect them against medical costs, is a highly charged and political issue in the United States, which does not have socialized health coverage. In theory, the market for health insurance should function in a manner similar to other insurance coverages, but the skyrocketing cost of health coverage has disrupted markets around the globe, but perhaps most glaringly in the U.S. See health insurance.
Dental insurance
Dental insurance, like health insurance, is coverage for individuals to protect them against dental costs. In the U.S., dental insurance is often part of an employer's benefits package, along with health insurance.
Insurance patents
See insurance patent for more details.
New insurance products can now be protected from copying with a business method patent in the United States.
A recent example of a new insurance product that is patented is telematic auto insurance. It was independently invented and patented by a major U.S. auto insurance company, Progressive Auto Insurance (U.S. Patent 5,797,134 ) and a Spanish independent inventor, Salvador Minguijon Perez (EP patent 0700009).
The basic idea of telematic auto insurance is that a driver's behavior is monitored directly while he or she drives and the information is transmitted to the insurance company. The insurance company uses the information to assess the likelihood that a driver will have an accident and adjusts premiums accordingly. A driver who drives great distances at high speeds, for example, might be charged a different rate than a driver who drives short distances at low speeds. The precise effect on charges is not known as it is not clear that a high speed long distance driver incurs greater risk to an insurance pool than the slow around-town driver.[citation needed]
A British auto insurance company, Norwich Union, has obtained a license to both the Progressive patent and Perez patent. They have made investments in infrastructure and developed a commercial offering called "Pay As You Drive" or PAYD.
Many independent inventors are in favor of patenting new insurance products since it gives them protection from big companies when they bring their new insurance products to market. Independent inventors account for 70% of the new U.S. patent applications in this area.
Many insurance executives are opposed to patenting insurance products because it creates a new risk for them. The Hartford insurance company, for example, recently had to pay $80 million to an independent inventor, Bancorp Services, in order to settle a patent infringement and theft of trade secret lawsuit for a type of corporate owned life insurance product invented and patented by Bancorp.
There are currently about 150 new patent applications on insurance inventions filed per year in the United States. The rate at which patents have issued has steadily risen from 15 in 2002 to 44 in 2006.
The insurance industry and rent seeking
Certain insurance products and practices have been described as rent seeking by critics. That is, some insurance products or practices are useful primarily because of legal benefits, such as reducing taxes, as opposed to providing protection against risks of adverse events. Under United States tax law, for example, most owners of variable annuities and variable life insurance can invest their premium payments in the stock market and defer or eliminate paying any taxes on their investments until withdrawals are made. Sometimes this tax deferral is the only reason people use these products. Another example is the legal infrastructure which allows life insurance to be held in an irrevocable trust which is used to pay an estate tax while the proceeds themselves are immune from the estate tax.
Criticism of insurance companies
Some people believe that modern insurance companies are money-making businesses which have little interest in insurance. They argue that the purpose of insurance is to spread risk so the reluctance of insurance companies to take on high-risk cases (e.g. houses in areas subject to flooding, or young drivers) runs counter to the principle of insurance.
Other criticisms include:
· Insurance policies contain too many exclusion clauses. For example, some house insurance policies do not cover damage to garden walls.
· Most insurance companies now use call centres and staff attempt to answer questions by reading from a script. It is difficult to speak to anybody with expert knowledge.
Financial viability of insurance companies
Financial stability and strength of an insurance company should be a major consideration when purchasing an insurance contract. An insurance premium paid currently provides coverage for losses that might arise many years in the future. For that reason, the viability of the insurance carrier is very important. In recent years, a number of insurance companies have become insolvent, leaving their policyholders with no coverage (or coverage only from a government-backed insurance pool or other arrangement with less attractive payouts for losses). A number of independent rating agencies, such as Best's, Fitch, Standard & Poor's, and Moody's Investors Service, provide information and rate the financial viability of insurance companies.
Size of global insurance industry
Life insurance premia written in 2005
Non-life insurance premia written in 2005
Global insurance premiums grew by 9.7% in 2004 to reach $3.3 trillion. This follows 11.7% growth in the previous year. Life insurance premiums grew by 9.8% during the year, thanks to rising demand for annuity and pension products. Non-life insurance premiums grew by 9.4%, as premium rates increased. Over the past decade, global insurance premiums rose by more than a half as annual growth fluctuated between 2% and 10%.[citation needed]
Advanced economies account for the bulk of global insurance. With premium income of $1,217 billion in 2004, North America was the most important region, followed by the EU (at $1,198 billion) and Japan (at $492 billion). The top four countries accounted for nearly two-thirds of premiums in 2004. The United States and Japan alone accounted for a half of world insurance premiums, much higher than their 7% share of the global population. Emerging markets accounted for over 85% of the world’s population but generated only 10% of premiums. The volume of UK insurance business totaled $295 billion in 2004 or 9.1% of global premiums.
Life insurance and saving
Certain life insurance contracts accumulate cash values, which may be taken by the insured if the policy is surrendered or which may be borrowed against. Some policies, such as annuities and endowment policies, are financial instruments to accumulate or liquidate wealth when it is needed. See life insurance.
In many countries, such as the U.S. and the UK, the tax law provides that the interest on this cash value is not taxable under certain circumstances. This leads to widespread use of life insurance as a tax-efficient method of saving as well as protection in the event of early death.
In U.S., the tax on interest income on life insurance policies and annuities is generally deferred. However, in some cases the benefit derived from tax deferral may be offset by a low return. This depends upon the insuring company, the type of policy and other variables (mortality, market return, etc.). Moreover, other income tax saving vehicles (e.g., IRAs, 401(k) plans, Roth IRAs) may be better alternatives for value accumulation. A combination of low-cost term life insurance and a higher-return tax-efficient retirement account may achieve better investment return.
In many countries, such as the U.S. and the UK, the tax law provides that the interest on this cash value is not taxable under certain circumstances. This leads to widespread use of life insurance as a tax-efficient method of saving as well as protection in the event of early death.
In U.S., the tax on interest income on life insurance policies and annuities is generally deferred. However, in some cases the benefit derived from tax deferral may be offset by a low return. This depends upon the insuring company, the type of policy and other variables (mortality, market return, etc.). Moreover, other income tax saving vehicles (e.g., IRAs, 401(k) plans, Roth IRAs) may be better alternatives for value accumulation. A combination of low-cost term life insurance and a higher-return tax-efficient retirement account may achieve better investment return.
Types of insurance companies
Insurance companies may be classified as
· Life insurance companies, which sell life insurance, annuities and pensions products.
· Non-life or general insurance companies, which sell other types of insurance.
General insurance companies can be further divided into these sub categories.
· Standard Lines
· Excess Lines
In most countries, life and non-life insurers are subject to different regulatory regimes and different tax and accounting rules. The main reason for the distinction between the two types of company is that life, annuity, and pension business is very long-term in nature — coverage for life assurance or a pension can cover risks over many decades. By contrast, non-life insurance cover usually covers a shorter period, such as one year.
In the United States, standard line insurance companies are your "main stream" insurers. These are the companies that typically insure your auto, home or business. They use pattern or "cookie cutter" policies without variation from one person to the next. They usually have lower premiums than excess lines and can sell directly to individuals. They are regulated by state laws that can restrict the amount they can charge for insurance policies.
Excess line insurance companies (aka Excess and Surplus) typically insure risks not covered by the standard lines market. They are broadly referred as being all insurance placed with non-admitted insurers. Non-admitted insurers are not licenced in the states where the risks are located. These companies have more flexibility and can react faster than standard insurance companies because they don't have the same regulations as standard insurance companies. State laws generally require insurance placed with surplus line agents and brokers to not be available through standard licensed insurers.
Insurance companies are generally classified as either mutual or stock companies. This is more of a traditional distinction as true mutual companies are becoming rare. Mutual companies are owned by the policyholders, while stockholders (who may or may not own policies) own stock insurance companies. Other possible forms for an insurance company include reciprocals, in which policyholders 'reciprocate' in sharing risks, and lloyds organizations.
Insurance companies are rated by various agencies such as A.M. Best. The ratings include the company's financial strength, which measures its ability to pay claims. It also rates financial instruments issued by the insurance company, such as bonds, notes, and securitization products.
Reinsurance companies are insurance companies that sell policies to other insurance companies, allowing them to reduce their risks and protect themselves from very large losses. The reinsurance market is dominated by a few very large companies, with huge reserves. A reinsurer may also be a direct writer of insurance risks as well.
Captive insurance companies may be defined as limited-purpose insurance companies established with the specific objective of financing risks emanating from their parent group or groups. This definition can sometimes be extended to include some of the risks of the parent company's customers. In short, it is an in-house self-insurance vehicle. Captives may take the form of a "pure" entity (which is a 100% subsidiary of the self-insured parent company); of a "mutual" captive (which insures the collective risks of members of an industry); and of an "association" captive (which self-insures individual risks of the members of a professional, commercial or industrial association). Captives represent commercial, economic and tax advantages to their sponsors because of the reductions in costs they help create and for the ease of insurance risk management and the flexibility for cash flows they generate. Additionally, they may provide coverage of risks which is neither available nor offered in the traditional insurance market at reasonable prices.
The types of risk that a captive can underwrite for their parents include property damage, public and products liability, professional indemnity, employee benefits, employers liability, motor and medical aid expenses. The captive's exposure to such risks may be limited by the use of reinsurance.
Captives are becoming an increasingly important component of the risk management and risk financing strategy of their parent. This can be understood against the following background:
· heavy and increasing premium costs in almost every line of coverage;
· difficulties in insuring certain types of fortuitous risk;
· differential coverage standards in various parts of the world;
· rating structures which reflect market trends rather than individual loss experience;
· insufficient credit for deductibles and/or loss control efforts.
There are also companies known as 'insurance consultants'. Like a mortgage broker, these companies are paid a fee by the customer to shop around for the best insurance policy amongst many companies .
Similar to an insurance consultant, an 'insurance broker' also shops around for the best insurance policy amongst many companies. However, with insurance brokers, the fee is usually paid in the form of commission from the insurer that is selected rather than directly from the client.
Neither insurance consultants nor insurance brokers are insurance companies and no risks are transferred to them in insurance transactions.
Third party administrators are companies that perform underwriting and sometimes claims handling services for insurance companies. These companies often have special expertise that the insurance companies do not have.
· Life insurance companies, which sell life insurance, annuities and pensions products.
· Non-life or general insurance companies, which sell other types of insurance.
General insurance companies can be further divided into these sub categories.
· Standard Lines
· Excess Lines
In most countries, life and non-life insurers are subject to different regulatory regimes and different tax and accounting rules. The main reason for the distinction between the two types of company is that life, annuity, and pension business is very long-term in nature — coverage for life assurance or a pension can cover risks over many decades. By contrast, non-life insurance cover usually covers a shorter period, such as one year.
In the United States, standard line insurance companies are your "main stream" insurers. These are the companies that typically insure your auto, home or business. They use pattern or "cookie cutter" policies without variation from one person to the next. They usually have lower premiums than excess lines and can sell directly to individuals. They are regulated by state laws that can restrict the amount they can charge for insurance policies.
Excess line insurance companies (aka Excess and Surplus) typically insure risks not covered by the standard lines market. They are broadly referred as being all insurance placed with non-admitted insurers. Non-admitted insurers are not licenced in the states where the risks are located. These companies have more flexibility and can react faster than standard insurance companies because they don't have the same regulations as standard insurance companies. State laws generally require insurance placed with surplus line agents and brokers to not be available through standard licensed insurers.
Insurance companies are generally classified as either mutual or stock companies. This is more of a traditional distinction as true mutual companies are becoming rare. Mutual companies are owned by the policyholders, while stockholders (who may or may not own policies) own stock insurance companies. Other possible forms for an insurance company include reciprocals, in which policyholders 'reciprocate' in sharing risks, and lloyds organizations.
Insurance companies are rated by various agencies such as A.M. Best. The ratings include the company's financial strength, which measures its ability to pay claims. It also rates financial instruments issued by the insurance company, such as bonds, notes, and securitization products.
Reinsurance companies are insurance companies that sell policies to other insurance companies, allowing them to reduce their risks and protect themselves from very large losses. The reinsurance market is dominated by a few very large companies, with huge reserves. A reinsurer may also be a direct writer of insurance risks as well.
Captive insurance companies may be defined as limited-purpose insurance companies established with the specific objective of financing risks emanating from their parent group or groups. This definition can sometimes be extended to include some of the risks of the parent company's customers. In short, it is an in-house self-insurance vehicle. Captives may take the form of a "pure" entity (which is a 100% subsidiary of the self-insured parent company); of a "mutual" captive (which insures the collective risks of members of an industry); and of an "association" captive (which self-insures individual risks of the members of a professional, commercial or industrial association). Captives represent commercial, economic and tax advantages to their sponsors because of the reductions in costs they help create and for the ease of insurance risk management and the flexibility for cash flows they generate. Additionally, they may provide coverage of risks which is neither available nor offered in the traditional insurance market at reasonable prices.
The types of risk that a captive can underwrite for their parents include property damage, public and products liability, professional indemnity, employee benefits, employers liability, motor and medical aid expenses. The captive's exposure to such risks may be limited by the use of reinsurance.
Captives are becoming an increasingly important component of the risk management and risk financing strategy of their parent. This can be understood against the following background:
· heavy and increasing premium costs in almost every line of coverage;
· difficulties in insuring certain types of fortuitous risk;
· differential coverage standards in various parts of the world;
· rating structures which reflect market trends rather than individual loss experience;
· insufficient credit for deductibles and/or loss control efforts.
There are also companies known as 'insurance consultants'. Like a mortgage broker, these companies are paid a fee by the customer to shop around for the best insurance policy amongst many companies .
Similar to an insurance consultant, an 'insurance broker' also shops around for the best insurance policy amongst many companies. However, with insurance brokers, the fee is usually paid in the form of commission from the insurer that is selected rather than directly from the client.
Neither insurance consultants nor insurance brokers are insurance companies and no risks are transferred to them in insurance transactions.
Third party administrators are companies that perform underwriting and sometimes claims handling services for insurance companies. These companies often have special expertise that the insurance companies do not have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)