If self insurance is approached as a serious risk management technique, money is set aside using actuarial and insurance information and the law of large numbers so that the amount set aside (similar to an insurance premium) is enough to cover the future uncertain loss.

Self insurance is possible for any insurable risk, meaning a risk that is predictable and measurable enough in the aggregate to be able to estimate the amount that needs to be set aside to pay for future uncertain losses. For a risk to be insurable, it must represent a future, uncertain event over which the insured has no control. Other characteristics which assist in making a risk self-insurable include the ability to price or rate the risk. If the insurable event is one in a large number of similar risks, the aggregate risk can be estimated according to the law of large numbers and the probability of that event occurring in the future can be quantified. Normally, catastrophic risks are not self-insured as they are highly unpredictable and high in loss-value. Catastrophic risks are normally underwritten by the re-insurance or wholesale insurance market. Any risk where the potential loss is so large that no one could afford to pay the market premium required to provide cover would not be commercially insurable. An example is that earthquakes cannot be fully insured against because an earthquake can cause more damage than any insurer or the combined insurance market is willing to risk in total assets. However, captives and self-insurance programmes are often designed to provide for a part of a risk that would be catastrophic to the business concerned, or catastrophic risks that are often commercially uninsurable, such as tobacco litigation liability risks.

Full or exclusive self-insurance is rare, as a combination of self-insurance and commercial insurance usually provides the best cover for the self-insured. Usually the predictable losses of the risk are retained and self-insured, forming a first or “working” layer of cover, and a stop-loss or stop-gap policy is purchased from the commercial insurance market. The commercial insurance market then pays for losses above the specified self-insurance limit per loss, thereby stopping the cost of losses to the self-insured above the retained values. Effectively the losses paid for by the insured before the stop-loss policy pays becomes the deductible layer. Depending on the level at which risks are stopped, commercial insurance cover should become less and less expensive the further away the commercial insurer moves from the working layer of paying claims each year.

A popular and cost-effective form of self-insurance can be found in various types of employee benefits insurance offered by corporations with many thousands of employees. Employee benefits self-insurance programmes are often underwritten by captive insurance companies formed, owned and managed by corporations in both on-shore and off-shore captive domiciles. The reason for this is that hundreds of thousands of employees constitute a large enough risk pool for the corporation to be able to predict and price the risk of losses from benefits offered to employees. In this way, corporations are able to manage their financial exposure to the self-insurance programme without buying commercial insurance.

The idea of self insurance is that by retaining, calculating risks, and paying the resulting claims or losses from captive or on-balance sheet financial provisions, the overall process is cheaper than buying commercial insurance from a commercial insurance company. Cost savings to the self-insured entity are usually realised through the elimination of the carrying-costs that commercial insurers are obliged to pass on to their insurance consumers.

Another example of this is a self-funded health care plan under which a smaller employer helps finance the health care costs of its employees by contracting with a Third Party Administrator (TPA) to administer many aspects of the plan. The employer may also contract with a reinsurer to pay amounts in excess of a certain threshold, in order to share the risk for potential catastrophic claims experience.

Self insurance is less readily available for individuals because individuals rarely gain sufficient cost-savings on small premiums to justify specialised self-insurance captives, interventions and negotiations with insurers. However, many small businesses are now using self-insurance mechanisms such as cell captives and rent-a-captives with considerable success.

More colloquially, the term “self-insured” is used as a euphemism for uninsured.[1]

HOW TO BECOME SELF INSURED [1] How to determine if your company should become self-insured? Add up the premiums your company paid to insurance companies for the past 5 years. Subtract what the insurance companies paid out in losses for the past 5 years. If the insurance company collected more premiums dollars than they paid out, your company is a candidate for becoming self-insured.

For example, life insurance companies may require higher premiums or deny coverage altogether to people who work in hazardous occupations or engage in dangerous sports. Liability insurance providers do not provide coverage for liability arising from intentional torts committed by the insured. Even if a provider were so irrational as to want to provide such coverage, it is against the public policy of most countries to allow such insurance to exist, and thus it is usually illegal.

Complexity of insurance policy contracts
Insurance policies can be complex and some policyholders may not understand all the fees and coverages included in a policy. As a result, people may buy policies on unfavorable terms. In response to these issues, many countries have enacted detailed statutory and regulatory regimes governing every aspect of the insurance business, including minimum standards for policies and the ways in which they may be advertised and sold.

For example, most insurance policies in the English language today have been carefully drafted in plain English; the industry learned the hard way that many courts will not enforce policies against insureds when the judges themselves cannot understand what the policies are saying.

Many institutional insurance purchasers buy insurance through an insurance broker. While on the surface it appears the broker represents the buyer (not the insurance company), and typically counsels the buyer on appropriate coverage and policy limitations, it should be noted that in the vast majority of cases a broker’s compensation comes in the form of a commission as a percentage of the insurance premium, creating a conflict of interest in that the broker’s financial interest is tilted towards encouraging an insured to purchase more insurance than might be necessary at a higher price. A broker generally holds contracts with many insurers, thereby allowing the broker to “shop” the market for the best rates and coverage possible.

Insurance may also be purchased through an agent. Unlike a broker, who represents the policyholder, an agent represents the insurance company from whom the policyholder buys. An agent can represent more than one company.

An independent insurance consultant advises insureds on a fee-for-service retainer, similar to an attorney, and thus offers completely independent advice, free of the financial conflict of interest of brokers and/or agents. However, such a consultant must still work through brokers and/or agents in order to secure coverage for their clients.

[edit] Redlining
Redlining is the practice of denying insurance coverage in specific geographic areas, supposedly because of a high likelihood of loss, while the alleged motivation is unlawful discrimination. Racial profiling or redlining has a long history in the property insurance industry in the United States. From a review of industry underwriting and marketing materials, court documents, and research by government agencies, industry and community groups, and academics, it is clear that race has long affected and continues to affect the policies and practices of the insurance industry.

All states have provisions in their rate regulation laws or in their fair trade practice acts that prohibit unfair discrimination, often called redlining, in setting rates and making insurance available.[16]

In determining premiums and premium rate structures, insurers consider quantifiable factors, including location, credit scores, gender, occupation, marital status, and education level. However, the use of such factors is often considered to be unfair or unlawfully discriminatory, and the reaction against this practice has in some instances led to political disputes about the ways in which insurers determine premiums and regulatory intervention to limit the factors used.

An insurance underwriter’s job is to evaluate a given risk as to the likelihood that a loss will occur. Any factor that causes a greater likelihood of loss should theoretically be charged a higher rate. This basic principle of insurance must be followed if insurance companies are to remain solvent.[citation needed] Thus, “discrimination” against (i.e., negative differential treatment of) potential insureds in the risk evaluation and premium-setting process is a necessary by-product of the fundamentals of insurance underwriting. For instance, insurers charge older people significantly higher premiums than they charge younger people for term life insurance. Older people are thus treated differently than younger people (i.e., a distinction is made, discrimination occurs). The rationale for the differential treatment goes to the heart of the risk a life insurer takes: Old people are likely to die sooner than young people, so the risk of loss (the insured’s death) is greater in any given period of time and therefore the risk premium must be higher to cover the greater risk. However, treating insureds differently when there is no actuarially sound reason for doing so is unlawful discrimination.

What is often missing from the debate is that prohibiting the use of legitimate, actuarially sound factors means that an insufficient amount is being charged for a given risk, and there is thus a deficit in the system.[citation needed] The failure to address the deficit may mean insolvency and hardship for all of a company’s insureds.[citation needed] The options for addressing the deficit seem to be the following: Charge the deficit to the other policyholders or charge it to the government (i.e., externalize outside of the company to society at large).[citation needed]

[edit] Insurance patents
Further information: Insurance patent
New assurance products can now be protected from copying with a business method patent in the United States.

A recent example of a new insurance product that is patented is Usage Based auto insurance. Early versions were independently invented and patented by a major U.S. auto insurance company, Progressive Auto Insurance (U.S. Patent 5,797,134 ) and a Spanish independent inventor, Salvador Minguijon Perez (EP patent 0700009).

Many independent inventors are in favor of patenting new insurance products since it gives them protection from big companies when they bring their new insurance products to market. Independent inventors account for 70% of the new U.S. patent applications in this area.

Many insurance executives are opposed to patenting insurance products because it creates a new risk for them. The Hartford insurance company, for example, recently had to pay $80 million to an independent inventor, Bancorp Services, in order to settle a patent infringement and theft of trade secret lawsuit for a type of corporate owned life insurance product invented and patented by Bancorp.

There are currently about 150 new patent applications on insurance inventions filed per year in the United States. The rate at which patents have issued has steadily risen from 15 in 2002 to 44 in 2006.

Inventors can now have their insurance U.S. patent applications reviewed by the public in the Peer to Patent program.

[edit] The insurance industry and rent seeking
Certain insurance products and practices have been described as rent seeking by critics.[citation needed] That is, some insurance products or practices are useful primarily because of legal benefits, such as reducing taxes, as opposed to providing protection against risks of adverse events. Under United States tax law, for example, most owners of variable annuities and variable life insurance can invest their premium payments in the stock market and defer or eliminate paying any taxes on their investments until withdrawals are made. Sometimes this tax deferral is the only reason people use these products.[citation needed] Another example is the legal infrastructure which allows life insurance to be held in an irrevocable trust which is used to pay an estate tax while the proceeds themselves are immune from the estate tax.

Criticism of insurance companies

Some people believe that modern insurance companies are money-making businesses which have little interest in insurance.[citation needed] They argue that the purpose of insurance is to spread risk so the reluctance of insurance companies to take on high-risk cases (e.g. houses in areas subject to flooding, or young drivers) runs counter to the principle of insurance.

Other criticisms include:

Some people believe that modern insurance companies are money-making businesses which have little interest in insurance.[citation needed] They argue that the purpose of insurance is to spread risk so the reluctance of insurance companies to take on high-risk cases (e.g. houses in areas subject to flooding, or young drivers) runs counter to the principle of insurance.

Other criticisms include:

Insurance policies contain too many exclusion clauses. For example, some house insurance policies do not cover damage to garden walls.[citation needed]
Many insurance companies now use call centres and staff attempt to answer questions by reading from a script.[citation needed] It is difficult to speak to anybody with expert knowledge.[citation needed] While policyholders find their premium payments decrease when dealing with companies who sacrifice the use of trained insurance agents, they also risk greater financial loss due to inadequate coverage protection. Those companies who invest in educated insurance agents provide a valued service to the community. Policyholders who work with knowledgeable insurance agents are more likely to identify needs, evaluate options, purchase sufficient insurance protection, and minimize the risk of heavy financial loss for themselves and their family.

Advanced economies account for the bulk of global insurance. With premium income of $1,485bn, Europe was the most important region, followed by North America ($1,258bn) and Asia ($801bn). The top four countries accounted for nearly two-thirds of premiums in 2006. The U.S. and Japan alone accounted for 43% of world insurance, much higher than their 7% share of the global population. Emerging markets accounted for over 85% of the world’s population but generated only around 10% of premiums. The volume of UK insurance business totalled $418bn in 2006 or 11.2% of global premiums.

Annuities provide a stream of payments and are generally classified as insurance because they are issued by insurance companies and regulated as insurance and require the same kinds of actuarial and investment management expertise that life insurance requires. Annuities and pensions that pay a benefit for life are sometimes regarded as insurance against the possibility that a retiree will outlive his or her financial resources. In that sense, they are the complement of life insurance and, from an underwriting perspective, are the mirror image of life insurance.

Certain life insurance contracts accumulate cash values, which may be taken by the insured if the policy is surrendered or which may be borrowed against. Some policies, such as annuities and endowment policies, are financial instruments to accumulate or liquidate wealth when it is needed.

In many countries, such as the U.S. and the UK, the tax law provides that the interest on this cash value is not taxable under certain circumstances. This leads to widespread use of life insurance as a tax-efficient method of saving as well as protection in the event of early death.

In U.S., the tax on interest income on life insurance policies and annuities is generally deferred. However, in some cases the benefit derived from tax deferral may be offset by a low return. This depends upon the insuring company, the type of policy and other variables (mortality, market return, etc.). Moreover, other income tax saving vehicles (e.g., IRAs, 401(k) plans, Roth IRAs) may be better alternatives for value accumulation. A combination of low-cost term life insurance and a higher-return tax-efficient retirement account may achieve better investment return.

Crime insurance is a form of casualty insurance that covers the policyholder against losses arising from the criminal acts of third parties. For example, a company can obtain crime insurance to cover losses arising from theft or embezzlement.
Political risk insurance is a form of casualty insurance that can be taken out by businesses with operations in countries in which there is a risk that revolution or other political conditions will result in a loss.

Business insurance can be any kind of insurance that protects businesses against risks. Some principal subtypes of business insurance are (a) the various kinds of professional liability insurance, also called professional indemnity insurance, which are discussed below under that name; and (b) the business owner’s policy (BOP), which bundles into one policy many of the kinds of coverage that a business owner needs, in a way analogous to how homeowners insurance bundles the coverages that a homeowner needs.

Turning to insurance in the modern sense (i.e., insurance in a modern money economy, in which insurance is part of the financial sphere), early methods of transferring or distributing risk were practised by Chinese and Babylonian traders as long ago as the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, respectively.^[8] Chinese merchants travelling treacherous river rapids would redistribute their wares across many vessels to limit the loss due to any single vessel’s capsizing. The Babylonians developed a system which was recorded in the famous Code of Hammurabi, c. 1750 BC, and practised by early Mediterranean sailing merchants. If a merchant received a loan to fund his shipment, he would pay the lender an additional sum in exchange for the lender’s guarantee to cancel the loan should the shipment be stolen.

Achaemenian monarchs of Iran were the first to insure their people and made it official by registering the insuring process in governmental notary offices. The insurance tradition was performed each year in Norouz (beginning of the Iranian New Year); the heads of different ethnic groups as well as others willing to take part, presented gifts to the monarch. The most important gift was presented during a special ceremony. When a gift was worth more than 10,000 Derrik (Achaemenian gold coin) the issue was registered in a special office. This was advantageous to those who presented such special gifts. For others, the presents were fairly assessed by the confidants of the court. Then the assessment was registered in special offices.

The purpose of registering was that whenever the person who presented the gift registered by the court was in trouble, the monarch and the court would help him. Jahez, a historian and writer, writes in one of his books on ancient Iran: “[W]henever the owner of the present is in trouble or wants to construct a building, set up a feast, have his children married, etc. the one in charge of this in the court would check the registration. If the registered amount exceeded 10,000 Derrik, he or she would receive an amount of twice as much.”[1]

A thousand years later, the inhabitants of Rhodes invented the concept of the ‘general average’. Merchants whose goods were being shipped together would pay a proportionally divided premium which would be used to reimburse any merchant whose goods were jettisoned during storm or sinkage.

The Greeks and Romans introduced the origins of health and life insurance c. 600 AD when they organized guilds called “benevolent societies” which cared for the families and paid funeral expenses of members upon death. Guilds in the Middle Ages served a similar purpose. The Talmud deals with several aspects of insuring goods. Before insurance was established in the late 17th century, “friendly societies” existed in England, in which people donated amounts of money to a general sum that could be used for emergencies.

Separate insurance contracts (i.e., insurance policies not bundled with loans or other kinds of contracts) were invented in Genoa in the 14th century, as were insurance pools backed by pledges of landed estates. These new insurance contracts allowed insurance to be separated from investment, a separation of roles that first proved useful in marine insurance. Insurance became far more sophisticated in post-Renaissance Europe, and specialized varieties developed.

Toward the end of the seventeenth century, London’s growing importance as a centre for trade increased demand for marine insurance. In the late 1680s, Edward Lloyd opened a coffee house that became a popular haunt of ship owners, merchants, and ships’ captains, and thereby a reliable source of the latest shipping news. It became the meeting place for parties wishing to insure cargoes and ships, and those willing to underwrite such ventures. Today, Lloyd’s of London remains the leading market (note that it is not an insurance company) for marine and other specialist types of insurance, but it works rather differently than the more familiar kinds of insurance.

Insurance as we know it today can be traced to the Great Fire of London, which in 1666 devoured 13,200 houses. In the aftermath of this disaster, Nicholas Barbon opened an office to insure buildings. In 1680, he established England’s first fire insurance company, “The Fire Office,” to insure brick and frame homes.

The first insurance company in the United States underwrote fire insurance and was formed in Charles Town (modern-day Charleston), South Carolina, in 1732. Benjamin Franklin helped to popularize and make standard the practice of insurance, particularly against fire in the form of perpetual insurance. In 1752, he founded the Philadelphia Contributionship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire. Franklin’s company was the first to make contributions toward fire prevention. Not only did his company warn against certain fire hazards, it refused to insure certain buildings where the risk of fire was too great, such as all wooden houses. In the United States, regulation of the insurance industry is highly Balkanized, with primary responsibility assumed by individual state insurance departments. Whereas insurance markets have become centralized nationally and internationally, state insurance commissioners operate individually, though at times in concert through a national insurance commissioners’ organization. In recent years, some have called for a dual state and federal regulatory system (commonly referred to as the Optional federal charter (OFC)) for insurance similar to that which oversees state banks and national banks.

Insurance company claim departments employ a large number of claims adjusters supported by a staff of records management and data entry clerks. Incoming claims are classified based on severity and are assigned to adjusters whose settlement authority varies with their knowledge and experience. The adjuster undertakes a thorough investigation of each claim, usually in close cooperation with the insured, determines its reasonable monetary value, and authorizes payment. Adjusting liability insurance claims is particularly difficult because there is a third party involved (the plaintiff who is suing the insured) who is under no contractual obligation to cooperate with the insurer and in fact may regard the insurer as a deep pocket. The adjuster must obtain legal counsel for the insured (either inside “house” counsel or outside “panel” counsel), monitor litigation that may take years to complete, and appear in person or over the telephone with settlement authority at a mandatory settlement conference when requested by the judge.

In managing the claims handling function, insurers seek to balance the elements of customer satisfaction, administrative handling expenses, and claims overpayment leakages. As part of this balancing act, fraudulent insurance practices are a major business risk that must be managed and overcome. Disputes between insurers and insureds over the validity of claims or claims handling practices occasionally escalate into litigation; see insurance bad faith.