Archives

Influences of Organizational Form on Medical Malpractice Insurer Operations

Yu Lei & Joan T. Schmit

Volume 15

Issue 1

PUBLISHED

Fall 2008

Abstract

Medical malpractice insurance is a highly specialized and risky business, and over the past three decades the market has experienced three dramatic periods of rising prices and shrinking supply. In response to such volatility, many medical care providers have turned to physician-owned and physician-run entities as their insurers. Regulators and rating agencies, however, have expressed concern about the geographic and business-risk concentration of these entities, encouraging diversification across state lines and lines of business. This article hypothesizes that physician-directed insurers are inherently more conservative and better informed than non-physician-directed insurers, calling into question the value of diversification, which may erode their informational advantage. An analysis of insurer loss-reserving practices supports this hypothesis: physician-directed insurers are more likely to over-reserve and less likely to under-reserve than non-physician-directed insurers, and when they do under-reserve, their errors are smaller. The article also finds that rapidly growing insurers have exhibited risky reserving practices. These results, the authors argue, are important for regulators and rating agencies when assessing the riskiness of medical malpractice insurers.

Catastrophic Risks and First-Party Insurance

Michael Faure & Véronique Bruggeman

Volume 15

Issue 1

PUBLISHED

Fall 2008

Abstract

Although the insurance industry has expressed growing concern over the sharp rise in losses from natural disasters, only about one third of potential victims have purchased first-party catastrophe insurance. Despite the several advantages of first-party insurance, there is in practice little demand for or supply of such coverage. This article therefore asks, from a behavioral law and economics perspective, why first-party insurance is so underutilized and why it could serve as a viable alternative to government compensation. It further considers whether compulsory first-party disaster coverage might offer a solution. The article concludes by examining the circumstances under which expanding the availability of first-party catastrophe insurance should be encouraged as a way to give potential victims greater control over their compensatory resources while also strengthening incentives for loss prevention.

Differential Compensation and the “Race to the Bottom” in Consumer Insurance Markets

Daniel Schwarcz

Volume 15

Issue 2

PUBLISHED

Spring 2009

Abstract

This contribution to a symposium on insurance intermediaries analyzes insurers’ compensation of independent agents and brokers in consumer markets. It focuses on various forms of “differential compensation,” in which an intermediary’s payment varies depending on the insurer with which the consumer ultimately purchases coverage. The article argues that such differential compensation undermines competition among consumer insurers on non-price product attributes, thereby increasing the risk of a “race to the bottom” as insurers concentrate on offering the cheapest coverage that still complies with legal requirements. To address these concerns, the article proposes that insurers relying on independent agents to sell consumer lines of insurance should be prohibited from paying different rates of compensation to different agents for selling the same line of insurance.

The “Other” Intermediaries: The Increasingly Anachronistic Immunity of Managing General Agents and Independent Claims Adjusters

Jeffrey W. Stempel

Volume 15

Issue 2

PUBLISHED

Spring 2009

Abstract

This article addresses the “other” intermediaries involved in administering insurance policies—specifically the “downstream” intermediaries who handle insurance claims. It focuses on managing general agents, third-party administrators, and independent contractor claims adjusters, who perform the essential, day-to-day tasks of the insurance industry and are generally less well compensated than commercial insurance brokers. Because these intermediaries are immune from judicial claims by policyholders, they have fewer incentives to perform their duties competently. The article argues that improving the claims process requires holding these intermediaries accountable for misconduct, at least in tort and potentially even for “bad faith” in a manner similar to insurers. It reviews the benefits of imposing accountability and proposes a workable standard under which an intermediary may be held liable when a policyholder alleges negligence or more serious wrongdoing.