Horizontal Triggers (exposure and triple trigger): insured gets to
recover damages from many polices simultaneously.
Vertical Trigger (manifestation and fountain): insured gets to recover
damages from only one policy. As a result, Vertical Triggers will
result in claims penetrating into higher excess layers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gwendolyn L. Anderson [mailto:Gwendolyn_L._Anderson@ffic.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 4:12 AM
To: studygroup7
Subject: Re: US Pollution Liabilities
Could someone please clarify the meaning of horizontal and vertical
triggers?
I always thought a trigger was "Claims-Made" or "Occurrence." Or are
there
different types of triggers - coverage triggers and ( _____ ?)
triggers? I
understand Bouska's concepts, but some definitions would help me to
understand
the written statements below. Does the attachment point always refer to
one
type of trigger (either horizontal or vertical); or could Bouska be
switching
between aggregate and per occurrence limits? Another take is that she
is
looking from the perspective of the primary insurer in one instance and
the
reinsurer in the other, as Siewert does in his article: he speaks of
"limits"
as the deductible limit, referring to the excess layer, and later the
"limits"
are the cap, so we are dealing with ground up losses in the primary
layer. He
fails to specify his perspective. But, keep in mind these people
weren't
English majors. Much better to understand the concept, not the written
word.
jimshoenfelt@amdyne.net ("Jim Shoenfelt") on 09/10/98 05:26:24 PM
To: studygroup7@lists.casact.org ("Exam7") @ INTERNET
cc: (bcc: Gwendolyn L. Anderson)
Subject: US Pollution Liabilities
Can someone explain these seemingly contradictory statements from
Bouska/MicIntye.
p.98 "High attachment points above ground provide more protection
against
pollution claims than asbestos"
P.92 "We could generally expect the impact of asbestos to increase
relative to
that of pollution as teh attachment point abouve the ground increases."