Browse Research
Viewing 6676 to 6700 of 7695 results
1960
I think it is very true that in any discussion of either the theoretical or practical aspects of automobile merit rating you tend to get involved in the other aspects. Several people mentioned, after our discussion on the practical aspects, that some of the things that were discussed should have been in the other seminar.
Keywords: Auto Physical Damage, Auto Liability, Risk Classification, Merit Rating
1960
Mr. Williamson’s extensive discussion of my paper concerns not only the paper, but also the more general topic of the nature of the OASDI system. My reply is confined to those points that I consider most important from an actuarial standpoint.
1960
Before commenting directly upon Mr. Myers’ current paper, I shall set down certain background remarks on “Social Security” and the segment called OASI. I shall largely omit both the Disability segment, with its separate trust fund and tax-base, as well as Medical Care currently being discussed as the next addition to what is called the “Insurance Part” of Social Security.
1960
In order to fix our ideas an illustration of the theory for (a) a general elementary random process, (b) a compound Poisson process and (c) a Polya process shall be given here below following Ove Lundberg (On Random Processes and Their Application to Accident and Sickness Statistics, Inaug. Diss., Uppsala 1940).
1960
Mr. Hurley’s paper represents a valuable contribution to the literature on multiple peril rating. The paper is most interesting to read and study; it reveals much of the author’s thinking and philosophy concerning the general problems of insurance statistics and ratemaking and should provoke thought, study and discussion on a most timely subject.
1960
Mr. Klaassen’s paper develops an experience rating plan utilizing the multi-split principle for automobile liability, miscellaneous liability and automobile physical damage combined. This combination of coverages for rating is proposed in order to achieve a larger and more stable base upon which to predicate an individual risk’s experience modification. Mr.
1960
With the exception of Workmen’s Compensation, experience rating plans for casualty lines have not been materially altered for many years despite radical changes in the business to which they have been applied.
1960
Mr. Muetterties’ discussion of my paper is indeed welcome, for such exchange helps to sharpen the tools of the ratemaker and tailor the price paid by insureds more appropriately to the hazards which they present.
1960
Mr. Harwayne has given us a good brief summary of the Private Passenger Merit Rating history along with an excellent and precise statement summarizing the 'con' to merit rating and then the 'pro' to merit rating.
1960
The subject was introduced by presenting the details of two plans the Allstate Plan and the National Bureau Plan proposed for New York. Both plans guarantee that, except for certain specified reasons, the Liability coverages will not be canceled during the guarantee period. For Allstate, the guarantee period is five years for new business.
1960
Lew Roberts has tackled a difficult and important problem with great resourcefulness, making maximum use of a limited quantity of data. The results at which he has arrived provide an excellent general guide to the reliability of excess limits experience and the method evolved should go a long way toward providing the answer to a similar question with respect to General Liability experience.
1960
Like Gaul, burglary insurance is susceptible to division into three parts: the first, coverage for banks, the second, coverage for individuals, and the third, coverage for non-banking commercial enterprises. This paper will be confined to a discussion of the coverage, rate structure, and underwriting considerations involved in providing coverage for non-banking commercial enterprises, hereinafter referred to as commercial burglary.
1960
Mr. Steinhaus’ paper is a very timely one. The much discussed Forand bill and its Republican counter-measure the Javits bill threaten to become a serious election issue.
1960
Normally, actuarial tables for the purpose of calculating reserves and costs are the results of the joint work of special committees, groups of insurance companies, organizations such as rating bureaus and similar associations.
1960
Mr. Tarbell’s paper on Automobile Physical Damage Ratemaking has been long awaited. It is a logical adjunct to the other ratemaking papers that have recently appeared in the Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial Society. Once we had Mr. Marshall’s paper on Workmen’s Compensation ratemaking, Mr. Stern’s paper on Automobile Liability ratemaking and Mr.
1960
The previous paper by this writer started from the fact that the negative binomial distribution provides an analytical expression for risk distribution by number of accidents. The expressions used in that paper did not explicitly introduce the time factor - e.g. the 3-year experience of the California study was treated as a unit entity.
1960
I stand before you as an innocent victim of a mouse-trapping Society Vice President who asked me to conduct a seminar on developments in Automobile Merit Rating, saying that there would be a number of papers to carry the session and I would only have to referee the bout. The word "only" was the mouse-trap.
1960
The precise wording of the heading is deliberate. The Canadian system is not a "bonus" nor is it properly described as "no claim"; it is a sub-classification of insureds according to whether they have been accident-free during a term of years ending at the inception of the insurance period.
1960
The discussions have contributed some important points, most of which I heartily agree with but on some points I feel it would be helpful to offer some clarification.
1960
At the seminar in which the paper was discussed, this writer sided with what appeared to be the consensus (although not unanimous) : that the coefficient of variation is a good measure of the efficiency of a classification system. He did, however, mention certain reservations with which he believes the author of that excellent little paper to be in agreement.
1960
Mr. Bailey’s exposure distribution results from a merit rating plan which is slightly different from the National (Bureau plan in Pennsylvania in that his plan uses the experience period and point system which the National Bureau used in California; therefore, in some respects National Bureau data from California provides a better basis of comparison.
1960
Mr. Bailey is to be commended for the excellent work that he is doing, as revealed by this and other papers of his, in bringing mathematical analysis to bear on the problems of rating systems. These problems are extremely difficult, and the final analytical solutions are still to be made, but every contribution, such as Mr. Bailey’s, is another step along the way. In this paper Mr.
1960
In writing private passenger automobile liability insurance there has always been a need for underwriters to select the good business and turn down the poor because the rate classification systems have never been perfect. Within any one class and territory there have always been some risks better or worse than the others. Where the rating plans left off, the underwriters took over in recognizing other factors in risk selection.
1960
The authors are to be congratulated for their very valuable contribution to our knowledge of credibility. Presented, as it was, at a time when a large segment of the industry is embarking on merit rating programs for individual private passenger risks, it provides a basis for the actuarial evaluation of plans now available and perhaps many we have yet to see.
