FW: Greene, Government Insurers
dperry@UNIGARD.COM
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:46:45 -0800
Christine, I think this might be a matter of semantics. It is my=20
recollection that Greene talks about "state funds insuring state owned=20
property" as working reasonably well. Note that this is different from stat=
e=20
run property insurance programs.
----------
From: christine.fleming@milliman.com
To: studygroup8@lists.casact.org; Dan Perry
Subject: Greene, Government Insurers
Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 2:13PM
Greene says in one place that state property insurance is not needed,
that private can and does cover these losses. Then, at the end, he
lists state property insurance in the "is needed and works well"
category. Am I reading this right? Any ideas on this apparent
contradiction?