When they say uninsured, I think they mean “not insured with us”… Meaning it’s insured with some other company. Bad terminology, for sure. And I miss Fireman’s Fund. They were so much easier to work with.
I’m thinking Ms. O’Brien refers to: “…people with multi‑million dollar homes; collections of jewelry, fine art, antiques, or other collectables; multiple newer and higher‑valued cars; [have]a need for higher limits of personal liability insurance …also…workers’ compensation for domestic workers and directors and officers protection if they serve on not-for-profit boards.”
Under-insurance is nothing new, unfortunately. It’s just that the property dollar-value-gap for rich folks is a much higher number and these 1 percenters are also possibly exposed to more and greater liability exposures than your average homeowner.
Good catch Debra! It is NOT possible, as this is an obvious and embarrassing reporting error.
IJ: 33B of UNINSURED HNW exposure… or 33B that is not insured by the select specialty carriers that should be insuring it?
State Farm, Allstate and USAA are listed among the “other carriers” listed for which the aggregate insured volume is 2B??? Has this been fact checked with them??? This gross distortion merits correction.
This merits a correction
There is not a monopoly in the high net worth segment. There are hundreds of carriers that write some part of that segment. I work for a very small carrier ($250M annual premium) and we have some $1 million+ Coverage A risks in our portfolio. There are a few carriers with large volumes but this segment is insured by many, many players.
Sure hope they do a better job with Chubb than they have with Fireman’s Fund. It has been a terrible mess.
How is it possible that there could be $33M uninsured risks in the High Net Worth market as this article states?
That’s $33B, with a B…
When they say uninsured, I think they mean “not insured with us”… Meaning it’s insured with some other company. Bad terminology, for sure. And I miss Fireman’s Fund. They were so much easier to work with.
I’m thinking Ms. O’Brien refers to: “…people with multi‑million dollar homes; collections of jewelry, fine art, antiques, or other collectables; multiple newer and higher‑valued cars; [have]a need for higher limits of personal liability insurance …also…workers’ compensation for domestic workers and directors and officers protection if they serve on not-for-profit boards.”
Under-insurance is nothing new, unfortunately. It’s just that the property dollar-value-gap for rich folks is a much higher number and these 1 percenters are also possibly exposed to more and greater liability exposures than your average homeowner.
Good catch Debra! It is NOT possible, as this is an obvious and embarrassing reporting error.
IJ: 33B of UNINSURED HNW exposure… or 33B that is not insured by the select specialty carriers that should be insuring it?
State Farm, Allstate and USAA are listed among the “other carriers” listed for which the aggregate insured volume is 2B??? Has this been fact checked with them??? This gross distortion merits correction.
This merits a correction
Isn’t that called a monopoly? I understand it’s good for Hank Greenberg’s company, but how is that good for consumers?
There is not a monopoly in the high net worth segment. There are hundreds of carriers that write some part of that segment. I work for a very small carrier ($250M annual premium) and we have some $1 million+ Coverage A risks in our portfolio. There are a few carriers with large volumes but this segment is insured by many, many players.