Menu

Insurance Case Study

0 Comment

A further analysis in the case study reveals that Mr. Farid does not deny the answers he gave. He had stated he is the Manager and added that his work entailed inspection of construction sites and training of workers. With this information, the insurer still went ahead to insure him under non-manual work. A look at his medical health reveals a heart disorder which puts Mr. Farid at more risky state of leaving his employment. This analysis reflects on asymmetric information where full disclosure of the duties undertaken by Mr. Farid is not given. This led to adverse selection of Mr. Farid because the heart disorder deteriorated leading to employment forfeiture (Amy, 2007). The outdoor activities were the majority of tasks that Mr. Farid did. Prudent Insurance Inc. would not have given the income policy to Mr. Farid had the information about his activities been clearly outlined. Question 2 As an underwriter, I would not approve the claim from Mr. Farid. This is because the insurer should have assessed the kind of work Mr. Farid undertook on a daily basis of which he forfeited to do. A risk assessment would reveal his work jeopardizes his health condition further let alone the construction inspectorate job. There was very high risk of Mr. Farid losing his job based on his health. Mr. Farid had explained in his response that he also did construction inspections exposing him to activities like climbing ladders, lifting small items as a demonstration etc. The insurer ought to have done an observation of the daily activities to assess the work before issuing the policy. The heart disorder predisposes Mr. Farid to loss of his employment or forfeiture due to the kind of work he undertook. In light of this, the insurer should have assessed the daily duties to determine at what rate the disorder would have deteriorated. This is not measurable but an estimate would have been made. His age should have been put in consideration with the health status in mind (Thummuluri, 2010). Question 3 As an insurer, I would deny the claim. This is because the claim form clearly depicts the breach of the contract signed between the two parties. His work entailed office work and inspection of constructions and training. These kinds of duties would have delayed the health condition outburst. The claim clearly states lifting heavy items and further carrying these items. These are way off the inspection duties that entail a review of work done, work in progress, review of remaining work, budget analysis and further deduce necessary reports. His sentiments do not depict compliance with what his duties entails. Though he exaggerated the number of hours for each activity, this does not change my stand. He was not supposed to do these strenuous duties ab initio. Although his claim of loss of income is substantial, this is out of the context of disclosure of his work. Part II: Household items Insurance Question 1: Mr. Green’s earlier conviction would affect the underwriter decision by refuting or denying the policy. The acts of violence are not insured against in this kind of a policy. The policyholder stands at a risk of seizure of his goods or damage during the violent acts. A claim from the police department may necessitate auction of household goods if he cannot settle the damages inflicted in the violence. This insurance policy covers against loss of household items from fires, floods, or natural disasters. The violent acts predispose unforeseen loss to the Insurance Company. Full disclosure of