Home: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (251 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- |
|||
<div style="float:right; width:100%; max-width:320px; 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}} |
|||
* 🌱 [[Tiny habits (2019) – BJ Fogg]]. Start absurdly small and celebrate to rewire behaviour. |
|||
| 2 = {{:Definition:Commutation (reinsurance)}} |
|||
| 3 = {{:Definition:Finite reinsurance}} |
|||
* ⚛️ [[Atomic habits (2018) – James Clear]]. Compound small improvements with clear systems. |
|||
| 4 = {{:Definition:Fronting}} |
|||
| 5 = {{:Definition:Follow-the-fortunes}} |
|||
* 💥[[The power of habit (2012) – Charles Duhigg]]. Use cue–routine–reward to change outcomes. |
|||
| 6 = {{:Definition:Cut-through clause}} |
|||
| 7 = {{:Definition:Binding authority}} |
|||
{{div 2cols}} |
|||
| 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?
🔗 Efficient proximate cause is a legal doctrine used in insurance claims handling and coverage litigation to determine which peril in a chain of events is the predominant or most significant cause of a loss, particularly when multiple perils — some covered and some excluded — contribute to the damage. Rather than isolating the last event in the sequence or the first, this doctrine asks which cause set the chain of events in motion in a manner that was unbroken and sufficient to produce the resulting loss. It is one of the most frequently litigated doctrines in property and casualty insurance law.
⚙️ In practice, the doctrine comes into play when a claim involves concurrent or sequential causes of loss. Consider a scenario where a storm — a covered peril — weakens a retaining wall, which then leads to earth movement — an excluded peril — that damages a home. Under the efficient proximate cause analysis, if the storm is found to be the dominant cause that set the sequence in motion, the loss may be covered despite the involvement of an excluded peril. Some jurisdictions mandate application of this doctrine by statute or case law, while others permit insurers to use anti-concurrent causation language in their policies to override it. The distinction matters enormously in lines like homeowners and commercial property, where natural disasters often trigger overlapping perils such as wind, flood, and earth movement.
📌 For insurers and reinsurers, the efficient proximate cause doctrine introduces meaningful uncertainty into reserving and coverage decisions. A single catastrophic event can generate thousands of claims where the interplay of covered and excluded perils must be analyzed individually, driving up loss adjustment expenses and lengthening claim resolution timelines. Underwriters drafting policy language must stay current on how courts in their operating jurisdictions interpret causation, because a poorly worded exclusion can be rendered ineffective if the efficient proximate cause of loss is deemed covered. This doctrine underscores why precise policy drafting and jurisdictional legal expertise remain indispensable to effective risk management.
Related concepts: