قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / 4 thoughts about three

4 thoughts about three



I have been commenting a lot on THREE, the new trilateral trade policy of Berkshire Hathaway. It's time for some of my thoughts.

It has only been submitted in a limited number of states.

So far, three have been filed in four states. This makes total sense because it can be difficult, time consuming and expensive to file state files. It is also meaningful where they have submitted so far. TRE has only been filed in Connecticut, Illinois, Nebraska and Texas. Again, this makes sense because these states tend to be a little simpler than other states from a statutory standpoint.

It is worth noting that in at least one state, they could insert their prices, rules and forms on a file and usage base. This is a simplified form of regulation that is very friendly to the insurance company. It is simply the insured who may use the interest, the rules and the forms as soon as they send them to the state. The state then has a limited time to answer the filing. They could reject the application, cancel it. They could request clarification and document it. They could reject parts of it and demanded that the company change it.

A limited number of states also allow the company to ramp up its office guarantees, processing and issuing those policies. It takes time to build the internal support system for an insurance program. Again, a wise move.

Archive the policy in a limited number of states and not tell which states they are, is a good marketing process. If an insured is interested in the policy, they must search for postal code, find out that they cannot get the policy and then send an email for marketing contacts within the company.

There won't be three pages in most states (but it will still be short, kind of).

So far, 3 out of 4 states have demanded that the company submit a state-specific supplement. These additions provide certain coverage statements, broadened coverage and consumer announcements so far. In fact, in two of the states, the supplement supplements the uninsured / under-insured driver's coverage to the policy and the supplements call the extended coverage. . force used to defend people or property. This extends the coverage available under the policy.

That's right. In its attempt to shorten and simplify its policies, the expected or intended damages were shortened so that no expected or intended damage is covered. This is narrower coverage than a standardized ISO general responsibility policy and it has only been rectified in a single country so far.

Can we really call it a three-sided policy when embracing work compensation as a cover, but tipping policy language? Here is what it says about the employees' compensation in the policy.

Work Compensation Insurance: Each state has labor compensation laws that provide benefits to injured employees. We cover your business and will immediately pay the amount required by the state employee's compensation fee. We pay all parts of the compensation that can be granted or agreed upon in connection with these damages.

In short language "We didn't want to add real language languages ​​to workers' compensation. Go read the state laws." So, does that really simplify things? Now, the insured does not need an insurance agent to help them with their employees' compensation. They need a work compensation lawyer. Is it easier?

It does not tell who is covered.

Let me quote a few lines.

This policy only covers your business for losses caused by events during the policy period.

After listing Additional Insureds or employees in your business document on its behalf, they are also covered.

The business is insured. We get it, but what about employees? Does the sentence from the liability record mean that "listed extra insured" or "employees" are covered? Or does it include "listed extra insured" or "listed employees" covered? I guess they mean employees should be covered, but I'm not sure.

If they meant that they would cover employees, then that's fine. If they had no court that had to settle a dispute, it would likely find it ambiguous and go against the company.

It's a positive step.

I do not oppose making the insurance policy easier to read. It would be good if the customers understood what they bought. I'm not a big fan of how we've changed politics over the past 30-40 years. Most insurance policies have been written by people committees for a long time and without a single compilation plan behind them.

If a person decided they wanted a house for a person? She builds the house she needs and she is happy. That is, until she discovers that she needs more space. She buys a shed to store her musical equipment. Then she decides that she doesn't want to go out to get the guitar and the humidity is bad for the drums, so she builds a hall to the shed.

Then she adopts three cats, two dogs and invites her brother and his family to move in. She builds a second floor with an outside staircase to get to it. Finally, she decides that she doesn't want to go out to get upstairs, especially since her brother and family moved out.

It's kind of how the insurance policies sometimes feel. There is a language that everyone accepts, but no one really knows why it is there. There are words that are not used anywhere in the cultural dictionary, but they appear in the insurance policy. We all have mobile phones, but how many of us have pewterware? Right.

We do not know how profitable this product is until they sell a few thousand politicians and solve some difficult claims. Until. I plan to be skeptically optimistic that a simpler solution to insurance languages ​​can exist.


Source link