The high severity and alleged low frequency of ‘shamed celeb’ events seem to make this insurance product line too volatile as a stand-alone product or company. The ‘not viable’ assessment is based on the low premium that would result from the low frequency of ‘shaming’. But, is it really a low frequency peril? Look at the handful of the examples and continue to list more examples from past years and decades. So, it doesn’t seem to be a rare event.
Limiting the risk by limiting the coverage doesn’t make it viable as those seeking protection want much higher limits than those listed in the article. Reinsurers and umbrella writers; are you listening? Or are you wary of celebs’ accepted behavior standards?
The high severity and alleged low frequency of ‘shamed celeb’ events seem to make this insurance product line too volatile as a stand-alone product or company. The ‘not viable’ assessment is based on the low premium that would result from the low frequency of ‘shaming’. But, is it really a low frequency peril? Look at the handful of the examples and continue to list more examples from past years and decades. So, it doesn’t seem to be a rare event.
Limiting the risk by limiting the coverage doesn’t make it viable as those seeking protection want much higher limits than those listed in the article. Reinsurers and umbrella writers; are you listening? Or are you wary of celebs’ accepted behavior standards?