2019 Fall #15
Hello,
I'm unclear why the last claim in the table of 800k, which the insurer has not paid the claimant, isn't included in the calculation for provision for reinsurance. My thought is that it's because it's already reflected in the 800k in the first bullet for Recoverables on known case loss & LAE reserves. But the examiners report says: "It is unclear whether this $800,000 came from the recoverables on known case loss & LAE reserves or from the claim with accident date November 29, 2018; the source may have varied by candidate." This makes it seem like credit should be received for either including or excluding it, but including it is listed as a common error. Is anyone able to clarify this? Thank you!
Comments
This statement you quote from examiner's comment is confusing. They are referring to answers that added the 800 unpaid claim to the 800 case recoverable.
They tried to put in a trick in the listed claims. Since 800 is unpaid, it does not belong in paid recoverable.
But it's only fair to assume that it belongs with the case recoverable.
They did not accept answers that took it to be in addition to the already stated case recoverable.
Which dates do we compare to figure out if its been over 90 days? What make sense to me is compare the Payment date (insurer to claimant) to the Payment date (reinsurer to insurer) to see if that difference is over 90 days. Or do we compare Accident date to Payment date (reinsurer to insurer)?
You compare the insurer-to-claimant payment date to reinsurer-to-insurer unpaid at 12/31/2018.