Insurance companies may provide any combination of insurance types, but are often classified into three groups:[58]
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 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.
Mutual versus proprietary[edit]
Insurance companies are commonly classified as either mutual or proprietary companies.[59] Mutual companies are owned by the policyholders, while shareholders (who may or may not own policies) own proprietary insurance companies.
Demutualization of mutual insurers to form stock companies, as well as the formation of a hybrid known as a mutual holding company, became common in some countries, such as the United States, in the late 20th century. However, not all states permit mutual holding companies.
Reinsurance companies[edit]
Reinsurance companies are insurance companies that provide policies to other insurance companies, allowing them to reduce their risks and protect themselves from substantial losses.[60] The reinsurance market is dominated by a few large companies with huge reserves. A reinsurer may also be a direct writer of insurance risks as well.
Captive insurance companies[edit]
Captive insurance companies can 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 industr); 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 product 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 or loss control efforts
Other forms[edit]
Other possible forms for an insurance company include reciprocals, in which policyholders reciprocate in sharing risks, and Lloyd’s organizations.[61]
Admitted versus non-admitted[edit]
Admitted insurance companies are those in the United States that have been admitted or licensed by the state licensing agency. The insurance they provide is called admitted insurance. Non-admitted companies have not been approved by the state licensing agency, but are allowed to provide insurance under special circumstances when they meet an insurance need that admitted companies cannot or will not meet.[62]
Insurance consultants[edit]
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 among many companies. Similar to an insurance consultant, an “insurance broker” also shops around for the best insurance policy among 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.
Financial stability and rating[edit]
The financial stability and strength of an insurance company is a consideration when buying an insurance contract. An insurance premium paid currently provides coverage for losses that might arise many years in the future. For that reason, a more financially stable insurance carrier reduces the risk of the insurance company becoming insolvent, leaving their policyholders with no coverage (or coverage only from a government-backed insurance pool or other arrangements with less attractive payouts for losses). A number of independent rating agencies provide information and rate the financial viability of insurance companies.
Insurance companies are rated by various agencies such as AM 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.
Across the world[edit]
Advanced economies account for the bulk of the global insurance industry. According to Swiss Re, the global insurance market wrote $6.287 trillion in direct premiums in 2020.[63] (“Direct premiums” means premiums written directly by insurers before accounting for ceding of risk to reinsurers.) As usual, the United States was the country with the largest insurance market with $2.530 trillion (40.3%) of direct premiums written, with the People’s Republic of China coming in second at only $574 billion (9.3%), Japan coming in third at $438 billion (7.1%), and the United Kingdom coming in fourth at $380 billion (6.2%).[63] However, the European Union‘s single market is the actual second largest market, with 18 percent market share.[63]
Regulatory differences[edit]
In the United States, insurance is regulated by the states under the McCarran–Ferguson Act, with “periodic proposals for federal intervention”, and a nonprofit coalition of state insurance agencies called the National Association of Insurance Commissioners works to harmonize the country’s different laws and regulations.[64] The National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) also works to harmonize the different state laws.[65]
In the European Union, the Third Non-Life Directive and the Third Life Directive, both passed in 1992 and effective 1994, created a single insurance market in Europe and allowed insurance companies to offer insurance anywhere in the EU (subject to permission from authority in the head office) and allowed insurance consumers to purchase insurance from any insurer in the EU.[66] As far as insurance in the United Kingdom, the Financial Services Authority took over insurance regulation from the General Insurance Standards Council in 2005;[67] laws passed include the Insurance Companies Act 1973 and another in 1982,[68] and reforms to warranty and other aspects under discussion as of 2012.[69]
The insurance industry in China was nationalized in 1949 and thereafter offered by only a single state-owned company, the People’s Insurance Company of China, which was eventually suspended as demand declined in a communist environment. In 1978, market reforms led to an increase in the market and by 1995 a comprehensive Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China[70] was passed, followed in 1998 by the formation of China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC), which has broad regulatory authority over the insurance market of China.[71]
In India IRDA is insurance regulatory authority. As per the section 4 of IRDA Act 1999, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), which was constituted by an act of parliament. National Insurance Academy, Pune is apex insurance capacity builder institute promoted with support from Ministry of Finance and by LIC, Life & General Insurance companies.
In 2017, within the framework of the joint project of the Bank of Russia and Yandex, a special check mark (a green circle with a tick and ‘Реестр ЦБ РФ’ (Unified state register of insurance entities) text box) appeared in the search for Yandex system, informing the consumer that the company’s financial services are offered on the marked website, which has the status of an insurance company, a broker or a mutual insurance association.[72]
Controversies[edit]
Does not reduce the risk[edit]
Insurance is just a risk transfer mechanism wherein the financial burden which may arise due to some fortuitous event is transferred to a bigger entity (i.e., an insurance company) by way of paying premiums. This only reduces the financial burden and not the actual chances of happening of an event. Insurance is a risk for both the insurance company and the insured. The insurance company understands the risk involved and will perform a risk assessment when writing the policy.
As a result, the premiums may go up if they determine that the policyholder will file a claim. However, premiums might reduce if the policyholder commits to a risk management program as recommended by the insurer.[73] It is therefore important that insurers view risk management as a joint initiative between policyholder and insurer since a robust risk management plan minimizes the possibility of a large claim for the insurer while stabilizing or reducing premiums for the policyholder.
If a person is financially stable and plans for life’s unexpected events, they may be able to go without insurance. However, they must have enough to cover a total and complete loss of employment and of their possessions. Some states will accept a surety bond, a government bond, or even making a cash deposit with the state.[citation needed]
Moral hazard[edit]
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), a concept known as moral hazard. This ‘insulates’ many from the true costs of living with risk, negating measures that can mitigate or adapt to risk and leading some to describe insurance schemes as potentially maladaptive.[74]
Complexity of insurance policy contracts[edit]
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.
For example, most insurance policies in the English language today have been carefully drafted in plain English; the industry learned the hard way that many courts will not enforce policies against insureds when the judges themselves cannot understand what the policies are saying. Typically, courts construe ambiguities in insurance policies against the insurance company and in favor of coverage under the policy.
Many institutional insurance purchasers buy insurance through an insurance broker. While on the surface it appears the broker represents the buyer (not the insurance company), and typically counsels the buyer on appropriate coverage and policy limitations, in the vast majority of cases a broker’s compensation comes in the form of a commission as a percentage of the insurance premium, creating a conflict of interest in that the broker’s financial interest is tilted toward encouraging an insured to purchase more insurance than might be necessary at a higher price. 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. A tied agent, working exclusively with one insurer, represents the insurance company from whom the policyholder buys (while a free agent sells policies of various insurance companies). Just as there is a potential conflict of interest with a broker, an agent has a different type of conflict. Because agents work directly for the insurance company, if there is a claim the agent may advise the client to the benefit of the insurance company. Agents generally cannot offer as broad a range of selection compared to an insurance broker.
An independent insurance consultant advises insureds on a fee-for-service retainer, similar to an attorney, and thus offers completely independent advice, free of the financial conflict of interest of brokers or agents. However, such a consultant must still work through brokers or agents in order to secure coverage for their clients.
Limited consumer benefits[edit]
In the United States, economists and consumer advocates generally consider insurance to be worthwhile for low-probability, catastrophic losses, but not for high-probability, small losses. Because of this, consumers are advised to select high deductibles and to not insure losses which would not cause a disruption in their life. However, consumers have shown a tendency to prefer low deductibles and to prefer to insure relatively high-probability, small losses over low-probability, perhaps due to not understanding or ignoring the low-probability risk. This is associated with reduced purchasing of insurance against low-probability losses, and may result in increased inefficiencies from moral hazard.[75]
Redlining[edit]
Redlining is the practice of denying insurance coverage in specific geographic areas, supposedly because of a high likelihood of loss, while the alleged motivation is unlawful discrimination. Racial profiling or redlining has a long history in the property insurance industry in the United States. From a review of industry underwriting and marketing materials, court documents, and research by government agencies, industry and community groups, and academics, it is clear that race has long affected and continues to affect the policies and practices of the insurance industry.[76]
In July 2007, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report presenting the results of a study concerning credit-based insurance scores in automobile insurance. The study found that these scores are effective predictors of risk. It also showed that African-Americans and Hispanics are substantially overrepresented in the lowest credit scores, and substantially underrepresented in the highest, while Caucasians and Asians are more evenly spread across the scores. The credit scores were also found to predict risk within each of the ethnic groups, leading the FTC to conclude that the scoring models are not solely proxies for redlining. The FTC indicated little data was available to evaluate benefit of insurance scores to consumers.[77] The report was disputed by representatives of the Consumer Federation of America, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Center for Economic Justice, for relying on data provided by the insurance industry.[78]
All states have provisions in their rate regulation laws or in their fair trade practice acts that prohibit unfair discrimination, often called redlining, in setting rates and making insurance available.[79]
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.[citation needed] Thus, “discrimination” against (i.e., negative differential treatment of) potential insureds in the risk evaluation and premium-setting process is a necessary by-product of the fundamentals of insurance underwriting.[citation needed] For instance, insurers charge older people significantly higher premiums than they charge younger people for term life insurance. Older people are thus treated differently from 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: older 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.[citation needed] However, treating insureds differently when there is no actuarially sound reason for doing so is unlawful discrimination.
Insurance patents[edit]
|
|
This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2018)
|
New assurance 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 Usage Based auto insurance. Early versions were independently invented and patented by a major US auto insurance company, Progressive Auto Insurance (U.S. Patent 5,797,134) and a Spanish independent inventor, Salvador Minguijon Perez.[80]
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 been issued has steadily risen from 15 in 2002 to 44 in 2006.[81]
The first insurance patent to be granted was[82] including another example of an application posted was.[83] It was posted on 6 March 2009. This patent application describes a method for increasing the ease of changing insurance companies.[84]
Insurance on demand[edit]
Insurance on demand (also IoD) is an insurance service that provides clients with insurance protection when they need, i.e. only episodic rather than on 24/7 basis as typically provided by traditional insurers (e.g. clients can purchase an insurance for one single flight rather than a longer-lasting travel insurance plan).
Insurance industry and rent-seeking[edit]
Certain insurance products and practices have been described as rent-seeking by critics.[citation needed] 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.
Religious concerns[edit]
Muslim scholars have varying opinions about life insurance. Life insurance policies that earn interest (or guaranteed bonus/NAV) are generally considered to be a form of riba (usury) and some consider even policies that do not earn interest to be a form of gharar (speculation). Some argue that gharar is not present due to the actuarial science behind the underwriting.[85][better source needed] Jewish rabbinical scholars also have expressed reservations regarding insurance as an avoidance of God’s will but most find it acceptable in moderation.[86]
Some Christians believe insurance represents a lack of faith[87][88] and there is a long history of resistance to commercial insurance in Anabaptist communities (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, Brethren in Christ) but many participate in community-based self-insurance programs that spread risk within their communities.[89][90][91]
