Staff-T1
About
- Username
- Staff-T1
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,786
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Yes, your interpretation here is correct and what you are referring to is a third party recovery. However, the same logic would apply here in that these assets should still be available for use regardless of PACICC. I guess you could make the argume…
-
Where credit score is permitted, to the extent that difference in costs are fully reflected in differentials then yes, they are not more likely to be onerous. Yes, your argument would work if credit score is prohibited. Honestly, if it is a prohi…
-
You are right that there is a discrepancy there. My thought process when I try to reconcile both files is as follows: * You need to adjust the discounting of losses for the average accident date, but not the other expenses like maintenance and …
-
Its in the first page of the aforementioned link
-
The data is provided as of Dec 31 2023. I could see the interpretation being that since we are considering the LRC for discounting here, we should start at the BoY since that is when coverage would have started. Generally, if you state your assum…
-
Let's say you have a loss component of $100 where that loss is recognized immediately and flows into the ISE at time 0. Now say you have 4 quarters in a year and in each quarter you now make $25. Rather than recognizing a profit, the LC is unwoun…
-
That's a really good and correct explanation
-
Why would you amortize DAC? Once the contract is finished there would no longer be any DAC so the PAA estimate is 0. If you are referring to the GMM method, the DAC is effectively amortized through the CSM
-
The whole paper is about prior approval. I kind of think simplified filing is a form of file and use based on my interpretation. In the wiki, it is specifically referring to the minor guidelines for non-ppa.
-
Yup I have fixed the links
-
I see a govt.ins but no Govt.Floodsolutions so not sure what you are referring to here
-
Thanks for letting me know - I have made the edit
-
No. it says the motion judge agreed with the insurer in the source
-
you can follow this: https://battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/comment/3735#Comment_3735
-
A trust fund is a fund set up by companies with asbestos exposure to compensate for it. A trust fund usually doesn't verify if the affected person has already received compensation from a trial, so they could be double compensated
-
Settlement allows trial lawyers to churn through cases more quickly, which could lead to more money for them than going to court if they are able to handle more cases and is also administratively lighter
-
Yes, you can think of it that way I think its more important to understand why those factors are different for each though
-
Yes, its fixed now
-
The title says discounting for Loss Component which is part of the LRC
-
That's right - Insurance is basically the lubricant that allows risk to be taken. Without insurance, it will be difficult for businesses to run as they would be unable to shoulder a lot of the risk that comes with running a business which makes it i…
-
kind of like a one off request for money or tax from insurers
-
Valued policies are insurance contracts that cover things such as a rare painting where we set out an agreed value at x amount. I do not agree with the examiners report based on the study kit. Page 89 specifically states that " A valued policy is…
-
Don't use the rounded number for 0.63. It's rounded to 2 significant digits. Use (5,074,049/8,000,000-0.63)*8M. You are getting confused between the ceding commission which is 25% and the profit commission. I did not mention anything about the ce…
-
One is the PV factor for the LIC and the other is for the PV factor of the LRC
-
I don't see the discrepancy here. "must be clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and the plaintiff must have suffered that form of injury" Reasona…
-
I have thought about this and checked a couple of things: * Looking at the OSFI validation spreadsheet, you can see that for page 70.50, 59 = 50 + 52 + 54 so the formula for calculation of net expenses from reinsurance contracts held is correct…
-
Using iteration 1 as an example: Profit Commission = (0.66-0.63)*8M = 205920.8 (Don't use 0.63, but do direct loss/ subj prem to get more than 2 digits) 8M here is the reinsurance premium. For some reason, you multiply this number here again by 0…
-
The conclusion and final ruling of this case is there is not a duty to defend. A minority decision just means that the judges were not unanimous in their decision. The rationale for the judges' decision is provided in the study kit.
-
Yes you are right - It should be the insured that appeals to the ON court of appeal, and S&Y then appeals to the Canada Supreme court
-
Not necessarily. Just because the reinsurance premium is low, it could just be reflecting the fact that the expected loss is low. However, that does not mean that the loss given an event occurs is low. A simple example would be earthquake reinsuranc…