The article is presumably right given the lack of market penetration for other disaster type insurance like flood or crop. Still, the article was a disappointment because it had no depth. It’s OK to state the obvious but insufficient without any backup at all. I know the author said that figures were unavailable from the MIA but he/she could have checked with an insurer to ask ‘How many take that endorsement?’ Nice try but too shallow. It really looked as if the writer simple ran out of time pre deadline. Hopefully the magazine hard copy will present a more in-depth article on this subject.
The article is presumably right given the lack of market penetration for other disaster type insurance like flood or crop. Still, the article was a disappointment because it had no depth. It’s OK to state the obvious but insufficient without any backup at all. I know the author said that figures were unavailable from the MIA but he/she could have checked with an insurer to ask ‘How many take that endorsement?’ Nice try but too shallow. It really looked as if the writer simple ran out of time pre deadline. Hopefully the magazine hard copy will present a more in-depth article on this subject.