Home: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (257 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- |
|||
<div style="float:right; width:100%; max-width:60em; box-sizing:border-box; margin:0 0 1em 3em; padding:.8em; border:1px solid #ddd; border-radius:8px; background:#f9f9f9;"> |
|||
<div class="fullscreen-logo"> |
|||
{{Quote of the day}} |
|||
[[File:Logo of Insurer Brain.svg|frameless|center|link=]] |
|||
</div> |
</div> |
||
--> |
|||
<!-- Force daily refresh: {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY2}} --> |
|||
'''Did you know?''' |
|||
__NOCACHE__ |
|||
== Skill-building book summaries == |
|||
{{#switch: {{#expr: {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 100}} |
|||
''Looking to grow your skills? Start with our latest book summaries:'' |
|||
| 0 = {{:Definition:Bordereaux}} |
|||
| 1 = {{:Definition:Burning cost}} |
|||
{{div 2cols}} |
|||
| 2 = {{:Definition:Commutation (reinsurance)}} |
|||
| 3 = {{:Definition:Finite reinsurance}} |
|||
* 🌱 [[Tiny habits (2019) – BJ Fogg]]. Start absurdly small and celebrate to rewire behaviour. |
|||
| 4 = {{:Definition:Fronting}} |
|||
| 5 = {{:Definition:Follow-the-fortunes}} |
|||
* ⚛️ [[Atomic habits (2018) – James Clear]]. Compound small improvements with clear systems. |
|||
| 6 = {{:Definition:Cut-through clause}} |
|||
| 7 = {{:Definition:Binding authority}} |
|||
* 💥[[The power of habit (2012) – Charles Duhigg]]. Use cue–routine–reward to change outcomes. |
|||
| 8 = {{:Definition:Clash cover}} |
|||
| 9 = {{:Definition:Attachment point}} |
|||
* 🥂 [[Never eat alone (2005) – Keith Ferrazzi and Tahl Raz]]. Build relationships with consistent, generous outreach. |
|||
| 10 = {{:Definition:Exhaustion point}} |
|||
| 11 = {{:Definition:Reinstatement premium}} |
|||
* ✅ [[Getting things done (2001) – David Allen]]. Capture and clarify to achieve stress-free productivity. |
|||
| 12 = {{:Definition:Sliding-scale commission}} |
|||
| 13 = {{:Definition:Profit commission}} |
|||
* 🤗 [[How to win friends and influence people (1936) – Dale Carnegie]]. Use timeless rules for rapport and persuasion. |
|||
| 14 = {{:Definition:Loss portfolio transfer}} |
|||
| 15 = {{:Definition:Adverse development cover (ADC)}} |
|||
* More: [[Essential skill-building books]] |
|||
| 16 = {{:Definition:Aggregate excess-of-loss reinsurance}} |
|||
| 17 = {{:Definition:Catastrophe excess-of-loss reinsurance}} |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
| 18 = {{:Definition:Per-risk excess of loss reinsurance}} |
|||
| 19 = {{:Definition:Risks-attaching basis}} |
|||
| 20 = {{:Definition:Losses-occurring basis}} |
|||
| 21 = {{:Definition:Claims-made trigger}} |
|||
| 22 = {{:Definition:Signing down}} |
|||
| 23 = {{:Definition:Sunset clause}} |
|||
| 24 = {{:Definition:Utmost good faith}} |
|||
| 25 = {{:Definition:Contra proferentem}} |
|||
| 26 = {{:Definition:Incurred but not reported (IBNR)}} |
|||
| 27 = {{:Definition:Bornhuetter-Ferguson method}} |
|||
| 28 = {{:Definition:Chain-ladder method}} |
|||
| 29 = {{:Definition:Stochastic reserving}} |
|||
| 30 = {{:Definition:Loss development triangle}} |
|||
| 31 = {{:Definition:Credibility factor}} |
|||
| 32 = {{:Definition:Allocated loss adjustment expense (ALAE)}} |
|||
| 33 = {{:Definition:Unallocated loss adjustment expense (ULAE)}} |
|||
| 34 = {{:Definition:Experience modification factor}} |
|||
| 35 = {{:Definition:Industry loss warranty (ILW)}} |
|||
| 36 = {{:Definition:Sidecar (reinsurance)}} |
|||
| 37 = {{:Definition:Collateralized reinsurance}} |
|||
| 38 = {{:Definition:Catastrophe bond (CAT bond)}} |
|||
| 39 = {{:Definition:Retrocession}} |
|||
| 40 = {{:Definition:Surplus share reinsurance}} |
|||
| 41 = {{:Definition:Surplus strain}} |
|||
| 42 = {{:Definition:Surplus relief}} |
|||
| 43 = {{:Definition:Funds withheld reinsurance}} |
|||
| 44 = {{:Definition:Modified coinsurance}} |
|||
| 45 = {{:Definition:Coinsurance penalty}} |
|||
| 46 = {{:Definition:Anti-concurrent causation clause}} |
|||
| 47 = {{:Definition:Continuous trigger}} |
|||
| 48 = {{:Definition:Efficient proximate cause}} |
|||
| 49 = {{:Definition:Horizontal exhaustion}} |
|||
| 50 = {{:Definition:Vertical exhaustion}} |
|||
| 51 = {{:Definition:Sue and labor clause}} |
|||
| 52 = {{:Definition:Honorable engagement clause}} |
|||
| 53 = {{:Definition:Hours clause}} |
|||
| 54 = {{:Definition:Batch clause}} |
|||
| 55 = {{:Definition:Aggregation clause}} |
|||
| 56 = {{:Definition:Omnibus clause}} |
|||
| 57 = {{:Definition:Running down clause}} |
|||
| 58 = {{:Definition:Warehouse-to-warehouse clause}} |
|||
| 59 = {{:Definition:General average}} |
|||
| 60 = {{:Definition:Particular average}} |
|||
| 61 = {{:Definition:Constructive total loss}} |
|||
| 62 = {{:Definition:York-Antwerp Rules}} |
|||
| 63 = {{:Definition:Protection and indemnity (P&I)}} |
|||
| 64 = {{:Definition:Demand surge}} |
|||
| 65 = {{:Definition:Social inflation}} |
|||
| 66 = {{:Definition:Nuclear verdict}} |
|||
| 67 = {{:Definition:Silent cyber}} |
|||
| 68 = {{:Definition:Affirmative cyber coverage}} |
|||
| 69 = {{:Definition:Parametric insurance}} |
|||
| 70 = {{:Definition:Embedded insurance}} |
|||
| 71 = {{:Definition:Takaful}} |
|||
| 72 = {{:Definition:Bancassurance}} |
|||
| 73 = {{:Definition:Microinsurance}} |
|||
| 74 = {{:Definition:Captive insurance company}} |
|||
| 75 = {{:Definition:Cell captive}} |
|||
| 76 = {{:Definition:Protected cell company (PCC)}} |
|||
| 77 = {{:Definition:Reciprocal insurance exchange}} |
|||
| 78 = {{:Definition:Risk retention group (RRG)}} |
|||
| 79 = {{:Definition:Lloyd's syndicate}} |
|||
| 80 = {{:Definition:Reinsurance to close (RITC)}} |
|||
| 81 = {{:Definition:Equitas}} |
|||
| 82 = {{:Definition:Funds at Lloyd's (FAL)}} |
|||
| 83 = {{:Definition:Syndicate-in-a-box (SIAB)}} |
|||
| 84 = {{:Definition:Part VII transfer}} |
|||
| 85 = {{:Definition:Solvent scheme of arrangement}} |
|||
| 86 = {{:Definition:Run-off (insurance)}} |
|||
| 87 = {{:Definition:Demutualization}} |
|||
| 88 = {{:Definition:Depopulation program}} |
|||
| 89 = {{:Definition:Probable maximum loss (PML)}} |
|||
| 90 = {{:Definition:Exceedance probability curve (EP curve)}} |
|||
| 91 = {{:Definition:Realistic disaster scenario (RDS)}} |
|||
| 92 = {{:Definition:Monte Carlo simulation}} |
|||
| 93 = {{:Definition:Copula}} |
|||
| 94 = {{:Definition:Bühlmann model}} |
|||
| 95 = {{:Definition:Cape Cod method}} |
|||
| 96 = {{:Definition:Extra-contractual obligation (ECO)}} |
|||
| 97 = {{:Definition:Loss in excess of policy limits (XPL)}} |
|||
| 98 = {{:Definition:Doctrine of reasonable expectations}} |
|||
| 99 = {{:Definition:Longevity swap}} |
|||
}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:46, 12 March 2026
Did you know?
⚖️ Anti-concurrent causation clause is a policy provision found in many property and casualty insurance contracts that bars coverage when a loss results from a combination of covered and excluded perils occurring simultaneously or in sequence. Under this clause, even if one cause of the loss would normally trigger coverage, the presence of an excluded cause — acting concurrently or in any sequence with the covered cause — allows the insurer to deny the entire claim. The clause is most frequently encountered in homeowners and commercial property policies, particularly in connection with flood and earth movement exclusions.
🔧 In practice, the clause typically appears in the exclusions section and is introduced by language such as "We do not cover loss regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss." Consider a hurricane that causes both wind damage (covered) and storm surge flooding (excluded): an anti-concurrent causation clause empowers the insurer to deny the claim in its entirety because the excluded peril contributed to the outcome, even though wind alone would have been covered. Adjusters must carefully apply causation analysis, and disputes frequently lead to litigation where courts examine whether the excluded and covered causes are truly inseparable or whether losses can be apportioned.
🏛️ These clauses remain among the most litigated provisions in insurance law, and their enforceability varies significantly by jurisdiction. Some states have upheld them as valid exercises of an insurer's right to define the scope of coverage, while others — notably following large catastrophe events like Hurricane Katrina — have narrowed their application or imposed requirements for the insurer to prove the excluded peril was the dominant cause. Policyholders, brokers, and risk managers should understand these clauses before a loss occurs, as they fundamentally shape what is and is not recoverable under a policy, particularly in regions prone to complex, multi-peril events.
Related concepts: