Casualty loss reserve seminar september 11 2001 l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 27

Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 11, 2001 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 11, 2001. Reserving for Construction Defects Presented by Michael D. Green & Carolyn Wettstein. Overview. Background Montrose Decision What is a Construction Defect Program Knowledge Data Organization

Download Presentation

Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 11, 2001

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Casualty loss reserve seminar september 11 2001 l.jpg

Casualty Loss Reserve SeminarSeptember 11, 2001

Reserving for Construction Defects

Presented by

Michael D. Green & Carolyn Wettstein


Overview l.jpg

Overview

  • Background

  • Montrose Decision

  • What is a Construction Defect

  • Program Knowledge

  • Data Organization

  • Difficulties with Traditional Development Methods

  • Non Traditional Reserving Methods

  • Current Trends

  • What Lies Ahead


Background l.jpg

Background

Groundwork Being Laid

  • Population growth

  • Building boom

  • Shortage of skilled workers

  • Contractors cutting corners

  • Shift in type of residences


Background4 l.jpg

Background

  • Law firms target homeowners associations

  • Insurers begin to react

  • Creates insurance availability and affordability crisis

  • Coverage issues


Montrose decision l.jpg

Montrose Decision

  • Continuous trigger theory applied to pollution case

  • Early construction defect case was Stonewall Insurance Company vs. City of Palos Verdes Estates

  • Carriers respond to claims on prorata basis

    • Frequency rises

    • Severity falls

  • Insureds coverage is generally maximized

  • Reinsurers less exposed

  • Indemnity apportioned based on time on risk

  • Expense apportioned based on number of carriers


Example 3 million claim l.jpg

Example:$3 Million Claim


What is a construction defect l.jpg

What is a Construction Defect?

Comes from a Variety of Sources

  • Faulty workmanship

    • Plumbing / drainage / irrigation

    • Improper materials

    • Structural failure or collapse

    • Electrical wiring

    • Insulation

  • Landslides and Earth Settlement Conditions

    • Expansive soils

    • Underground water

    • Vertical settlement

    • Earthquakes

  • Important to Understand Specific Definitions used by the Company


What is a construction defect8 l.jpg

What is a Construction Defect?

Two Types of Defects

  • Patent

    • Defect detectable through reasonable inspection

    • Statue of limitations generally 2 – 4 years

  • Latent

    • Defect not detectable through reasonable inspection and is manifested over a period of time

    • Time limit governed by statute of repose which begins on the date construction is completed

    • California is generally 10 years


Program knowledge l.jpg

Program Knowledge

  • What is exposure mix (general contractor, designer/builders, subcontractors)

  • Is exposure residential or commercial construction

  • Which states have construction defect exposure

  • Is exposure information available

  • What is the definition of a construction defect claim

  • How is accident date determined

  • What reinsurance agreements are in place


Data organization l.jpg

Data Organization

  • California vs. Non California (or other specific states)

  • General Contractors vs. Subcontractors

  • Report year data


Difficulties with traditional development methods l.jpg

Difficulties with Traditional Development Methods

  • Uncertain determination of accident date

    • Varies by company and frequently within a company

  • Uncertain determination of future development pattern

    • Appears to be lengthening

    • Influx of claim activity along recent accident year diagonals

  • Uncertain determination of tail factor selection

    • One assumption to use is no more development after 13 years for California

    • Not sure if it will hold


Slide12 l.jpg

12


Non traditional reserving methods l.jpg

Non Traditional Reserving Methods

  • Montrose Adjustment Method

  • Transactional Count / Incremental Paid Loss Method

  • Report Year Analysis (pure IBNR estimated using a selected exposure distribution)


Montrose adjustment method l.jpg

Montrose Adjustment Method


Slide15 l.jpg

15


Slide16 l.jpg

16


Slide17 l.jpg

17


Slide18 l.jpg

18


Report year analysis l.jpg

Report Year Analysis


Slide20 l.jpg

20


Slide21 l.jpg

21


Slide22 l.jpg

22


Slide23 l.jpg

23


Slide24 l.jpg

24


Current trends l.jpg

Current Trends

  • Frequencies

    • 1994 – 1999 rising

    • 2000 flat

  • Severities

    • 1994 – 1999 stable

    • 2000 flat to declining

  • ALAE to loss ratios

    • Rising over time

    • Recommend monitoring separately from loss as still evolving


What lies ahead l.jpg

What Lies Ahead?

California

  • Housing availability crisis

    • Shortage of skilled workers

    • High real estate prices

    • Population boom

    • Insurance availability crisis

  • Calderon Act (1/96)

    • Mandatory mediation session between association and builder prior to filing lawsuits

    • Appears to have little impact

  • Alan O. Aas vs. Superior Court (12/00)

    • Upheld lower court ruling that plaintiffs could not seek damages for construction defects that had not yet caused property damage


What lies ahead27 l.jpg

What Lies Ahead?

Other States

  • Areas of rapid increase in population

    • Baby boomers retiring – NV, FL, TX, AZ, CO

    • Seen increase in activity but legal landscape is different

    • Statute of limitations shorter

    • Minimal use of continuous trigger theory

    • Claim frequency is rising


  • Login