Actuarial Discussion Forum

Actuarial Jobs from Actuary.com    Submit Your Actuarial Resume Anonymously
Actuarial Blog - Actuarial Employment Articles, Help, Jobs and News
Other Insurance Jobs    Other Financial Jobs    Other Health Jobs    Other IT Jobs    Other Jobs, Careers and Employment    Actuarial News
Directory of Actuarial Exam Study Courses - Online    Directory of Actuarial Exam Study Materials    Directory of Actuarial Exam Study Seminars - Live
Directory of Actuarial Recruiters    Directory of Actuarial Schools    Actuarial Grads Network    Actuary.com 



D.W. Simpson & Co, Inc. - Worldwide Actuarial Jobs
Life Jobs 
Health Jobs Pension Jobs Casualty Jobs Salary Apply
Pauline Reimer, ASA, MAAA - Pryor Associates
Nat'l/Int'l Actuarial Openings: Life P&C Health Pensions Finance
ACTEX Publications and MadRiver Books
Serving students worldwide for over 40 years
Advertise Here - Reach Actuarial Professionals
Advertising Information
Actuarial Careers, Inc. - Actuarial Jobs Worldwide
Search positions by geographic region, specialization, or salary
Ezra Penland Actuarial Recruiters - Top Actuarial Jobs
Salary Surveys  Apply Online   Bios   Casualty   Health   Life   Pension

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Why choose casualty to go into?

  1. #11
    Actuary.com - Level IV Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by dagojr View Post
    Is it important in interviews to know which way you're leaning?
    Of course, you are always leaning toward the industry your interviewer belongs to.

  2. #12
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by joeorez View Post
    Our exposures are more dynamic. Insurance against loss from satellites. Internet liability. Cell phone radiation liability. [...]
    I know this is off-topic somewhat, but I hope that "cell phone radiation liability" isn't an actual insured risk. Scientific studies are quite conclusive about this topic; and the conclusion is: there is no causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer. None.

  3. #13
    Actuary.com - Level II Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by majamin View Post
    I know this is off-topic somewhat, but I hope that "cell phone radiation liability" isn't an actual insured risk. Scientific studies are quite conclusive about this topic; and the conclusion is: there is no causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer. None.
    LOL... i hope you are just acting naiive :wink:

  4. #14
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ya5er View Post
    LOL... i hope you are just acting naiive :wink:
    I'm not really sure what to make of your reply. For courtesy's sake, I would like to avoid an argument over my original reply (the risks of cell phone radiation), and just say that I was curious whether or not companies practice selling insurance for non (or absurdly low) risks. If so, would that not be a case for fraud?

  5. #15
    Actuary.com - Level II Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    80
    It seems like it would only be fraud if they explicitly misrepresented the level of risk. But simply offering to insure against cell phone radiation or gamma ray bursters or zombiepocalypse has the advantage that simply by mentioning such a policy, you can *suggest* that it's a risk worth insuring against, without ever having to actually lie about any real numbers.

  6. #16
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by gmalivuk View Post
    It seems like it would only be fraud if they explicitly misrepresented the level of risk. But simply offering to insure against cell phone radiation or gamma ray bursters or zombiepocalypse has the advantage that simply by mentioning such a policy, you can *suggest* that it's a risk worth insuring against, without ever having to actually lie about any real numbers.
    This honestly makes me somewhat uncomfortable. If the risk is essentially zero (i.e. zombiepocalypse), how could a policy insuring against this risk be justified as worth insuring against? This sounds no different than selling someone a device that claims very ambiguous health benefits, knowing full well that it does not have any health benefits at all (beyond placebo of course ... should we call this placebo insurance?).

    The idea seems unethical, because at best, you are misleading or not divulging the situation in its entirety (at worst, you are inflating the risk, even if by "suggestion", to vulnerable and misinformed clients). In any case, I wonder if anyone has any experiences of this kind of thing. I'm only speculating and toying with this idea.

  7. #17
    Actuary.com - Level II Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by majamin View Post
    This sounds no different than selling someone a device that claims very ambiguous health benefits, knowing full well that it does not have any health benefits at all
    You mean like all the stuff they advertise for with the caveat that "These statements have not been approved by the FDA" or whatever?

    Sure, I agree that it's sort of unethical to insure against something when you the insurer know full well the risk is essentially zero. But unethical doesn't mean illegal, and that doesn't make it fraud in the legal sense.

  8. #18
    Actuary.com - Posting Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,106
    I don't know about P&C risk but DOI looks very closely at what's filed by Health insurers.

  9. #19
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11
    I someone is willing to take the losing side of a bet there will always be someone to take the winning side.

  10. #20
    Actuary.com - Level II Poster bsd058's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by majamin View Post
    This honestly makes me somewhat uncomfortable. If the risk is essentially zero (i.e. zombiepocalypse), how could a policy insuring against this risk be justified as worth insuring against? This sounds no different than selling someone a device that claims very ambiguous health benefits, knowing full well that it does not have any health benefits at all (beyond placebo of course ... should we call this placebo insurance?).

    The idea seems unethical, because at best, you are misleading or not divulging the situation in its entirety (at worst, you are inflating the risk, even if by "suggestion", to vulnerable and misinformed clients). In any case, I wonder if anyone has any experiences of this kind of thing. I'm only speculating and toying with this idea.
    Remember, the industry is constantly changing. You can never actually be an "expert in insurance" no matter how much you know. The causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer or tumours or other effects has not been proven yet, although there is the possibility that it could be proven. It does not need to actually be proven either. Only that the general consensus (in whatever field of specialty) is that it has been proven.

    Insurers are not radiologists, nor are they medical researchers (although they may employ these professionals from time to time as expert witnesses, consultants, etc.). Insurers are specialists in risk financing. There have been plenty of things that the general consensus has changed on with medical research. Insurers are accepting risks based on the fact that a claim could arise in the future (depending on statutory conditions and contract provisions) where a policy could pay out based on an occurence that occurred decades prior.

    Yes, it is possible that the current general consensus in the scientific community is that there is no causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer or tumour. That only needs to change for a time for a liability claim to occur. Remember, also, that the insurer doesn't just indemnify in the case where the defendant is found guilty of negligence or found liable for their product (products liability); there is also the possibility that a claim is brought against the defendant who is innocent, but the insurer has agreed to foot the defence bill (which could run into the hundreds of thousands to millions). They, of course, would subrogate against the claimant for lawyer fees and defence costs if defendant is not found guilty, but no "out-of-pocket" expenses (depending on policy provisions) help the bottom line too. Time value of money and opportunity cost are factors.

    Especially when there are so many debates about an issue (cell phone radiation, calorie consumption (McDonald's Lawsuit), etc.) frivolous lawsuits are a risk, even if they only cause reputational damage to a company/person. They take time, money, and expertise to defend, and net income losses almost always result. There will be damages to collect whether innocent or not. Whether the case is provable or not.

    Just because an award may not be issued, doesn't mean that a loss has not occured. And if a loss has occurred (which will most likely be the case if you have to defend your company in court), an insured can usually be indemnified.
    Last edited by bsd058; November 4th 2011 at 04:14 PM. Reason: clarification

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. List of companies
    By Ken in forum Actuarial - Employment, Jobs, Careers, Interviewing, Articles
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: October 4th 2011, 11:58 AM
  2. Why go into life and annuities instead of casualty?
    By gizmo in forum Life & Annuities
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 4th 2006, 02:56 PM
  3. Making the switch from coffee to casualty...
    By Kathy B in forum Actuarial - Employment, Jobs, Careers, Interviewing, Articles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 21st 2006, 07:31 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 14th 2005, 01:42 PM

Bookmarks - Share

Bookmarks - Share

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts