Underwriting Guides are put in place to assist users to discharge their day-to-day underwriting functions that they were authorised to handle. It amazes you as to how users actually view their underwriting guide – from following it as a regime to even finding gaps to overcome the barriers in meeting ones’ objectives.
There may even be cases where users recklessly committed an outright breach….. Nothing happens, things are just swept under the carpet. But one fine day something blew up, the discovery of this misaligned practices may not be pleasant to many – witch-hunting begins if losses were beyond the treaty coverage.
All Underwriting guides are conceived, conjured and conceptualised… whatever you call it, with some objectives and goals in mind. Users must understand these objectives and work along those established lines as being dictated by the guides and refer to higher ups where necessary.
But market competitive forces are never a welcoming sight, usually putting extreme pressure on the front-line personnel (including intermediaries) toward meeting their revenue-budget objectives. Over a period of time, with peer’s silent or some shadowy encouragement, things may turn the front-line guys towards adopting some brinkmanship characteristics – finding some loopholes here and there with the end results being some maligned underwriting results.
Isn’t this some display by past insurers like Talasco, Peoples’ and Mercantile Insurance? 👿