Claims Strategy

Fast Action Helps Complex Claims

Brokerage claims experts urge fast action to mitigate loss and substantiate claims.
By: | February 20, 2018 • 6 min read

Despite the popular television commercials featuring bizarre instances of property damage, risk management professionals say that the real troublesome complex claims arise out of multiple, overlapping events, not from odd single occurrences.


In one situation, for example, an already complex acquisition was thrown into a state of confusion when a major hurricane damaged some of the assets, and the underwriters who had quoted on the buyer’s placement backed out.

In other instances, there were succeeding claims from multiple hurricanes that swept the U.S. Gulf Coast and Caribbean. And then there were the homes left damaged but standing after the wildfires in southern California only to be swept away by mudslides.

“Just in the past few months we have had four major hurricanes, a volcano, an earthquake, wildfires, and just recently mudslides,” said Charles Martin, chief claims officer for Marsh. “At the height of that, I was spending two hours a day, every day, writing updates for senior management on claims volume and severity.”

Martin and his colleagues at other brokerages said there are best practices for handling complex claims — beyond the obvious points of keeping accurate records and open communication. But that “standard” procedure for complex claims is essentially an oxymoron.

“Every one takes different turns. It’s not like you can say that something similar will happen tomorrow.”

Benefits of Overlap Analysis and Communication

Brokers’ best efforts to ensure that their clients are thoroughly covered may even be counter-productive. “The most complex claims tend to be those with overlapping coverage,” said Jill Dalton, managing director of property claims, preparation, advocacy and valuation at Aon.

“When there are multiple policies that can respond — boiler, property, marine, cyber, political, local versus international, multiple carriers, even multiple silos within the brokerage and the owner — untangling all that is the most complex.”

Charles Martin, chief claims officer, Marsh

Gap analysis is a common practice for brokers, especially when bringing in a new client or revising a program. But Dalton’s caution suggests that the reciprocal, overlap analysis may also be wise. If overlaps are deemed to be desirable, then the differentiation among them should be clear.

It is important for brokers to manage communications with insureds before a loss, and Dalton added that it is best if multiple levels within the client can be involved.

“Too often we see where coverage is not clear to everyone at a client. The risk manager, the plant manager, the executives all may have different understandings. In particular we see complications around waiting periods, percentage deductibles, retentions and multiple locations.”

Ideally there would be a time for the broker to speak to multiple levels at the insured. “Some clients invite us to meet with all their division heads or plant manager,” said Dalton.

“That is a great opportunity to brief them on how the whole program works. But not every company culture is open to that. Or there are geographic or language barriers.” In those cases it falls to the risk managers to try to communicate the essentials of the program across their organization.

“Multiple losses create complex claims and stretch the internal resources of even the best organized owner. Gathering information and monitoring claims can be extremely draining.” — Jill Dalton, managing director of property claims, preparation, advocacy and valuation, Aon

Still, life is what happens when risk managers are making plans. “We have seen cases where owners have had losses from multiple hurricanes,” added Dalton.

“There was an earthquake in Mexico, and the wildfires across California. Multiple losses create complex claims and stretch the internal resources of even the best organized owner. Gathering information and monitoring claims can be extremely draining.”

Hurdling the Unexpected

There are cases where an insured with complex claims may choose to lift the day-to-day responsibilities of a risk manger, or even a small team, and let them focus solely on the claim.

Susan Garrard, a managing director with Beecher Carlson in Boston, believes that complex placements and claims are normal for the energy sector. Still, she has seen some remarkable situations.


In one case, a bankrupt company was eager to get assets off its books. A sale was in the final stages when last year’s hurricanes came through and caused damage. The claims were already filed with the seller’s carriers, but agreement had to be added that the buyer could adjust the claims after the sale was complete if necessary.

Then the carriers that had quoted on the assets informed Garrard that they had a moratorium on writing new risks in the zones affected by the hurricanes. All the underwriters from the lead to the trails backed out.

“We called them all and got the same response,” she said. “That was very surprising. Usually there is a carrier willing to write at some price, but to have carriers come back and just say ‘no, not at any price,’ was very surprising.”

Taking a moment to step back, redirect and focus, Garrard went to the carriers on the seller’s program and asked them if they wanted to stay on. “After all, the claims were already on their books,” she reasoned. “Staying on gave them a chance to make some of that back. Or they could just pay and walk away.”

Susan Garrard, managing director, Beecher Carlson

There was one carrier that did want to stay on. That was unexpected because the underwriter tended to handle only large placements, which the seller’s program had been. But the buyer’s program was only a portion of the seller’s assets.

In another situation, a builder completed a project and turned over the facility to the owner. Or thought it had, because the owner had not yet accepted delivery. That night there was a flood that damaged the facility.

The builder asserted that its responsibility ended when it signed off the project. The owner asserted that its responsibility did not begin until it accepted delivery. Policy language was not clear.

Preparing for Complexities

Most brokers are reluctant to speak in detail about complex claims, for obvious reasons of confidentiality, but examples are legion. Broadly, Martin said that in cases of multiple losses, the most important thing for the insured is try to identify actual damages and tie them if possible to a direct cause.

Second, said Martin, “gather as much documentation as possible to validate and substantiate non-physical loses. You can see damage, but you cannot see lost business in cases of business interruption. It also helps to pre-arrange with contractors and even forensic accountants so you do not have to dial around at the same time that everyone else in the area is also.


“Carriers are going to question everything anyway, and will get estimates from their own contractors. But it helps you, and helps the claim, if you are doing everything you can to get back on your feet. Build speed into the process.”

Martin also stressed that insureds have an obligation to mitigate loss. “That is required by the policy. The best way to prevent a claim from becoming complex is to do everything you can to mitigate loss and maximize recovery. That is our goal as brokers as well. To mitigate loss and maximize recovery.”

He also urged insureds to over-report. “Tell everyone who might be involved, excess carriers, everyone at every level of the tower. If they are not called upon, then fine. But you don’t want to have to loop people in later.” &

Gregory DL Morris is an independent business journalist based in New York with 25 years’ experience in industry, energy, finance and transportation. He can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Risk Focus: Cyber

Expanding Cyber BI

Cyber business interruption insurance is a thriving market, but growth carries the threat of a mega-loss. 
By: | March 5, 2018 • 7 min read

Lingering hopes that large-scale cyber attack might be a once-in-a-lifetime event were dashed last year. The four-day WannaCry ransomware strike in May across 150 countries targeted more than 300,000 computers running Microsoft Windows. A month later, NotPetya hit multinationals ranging from Danish shipping firm Maersk to pharmaceutical giant Merck.


Maersk’s chairman, Jim Hagemann Snabe, revealed at this year’s Davos summit that NotPetya shut down most of the group’s network. While it was replacing 45,000 PCs and 4,000 servers, freight transactions had to be completed manually. The combined cost of business interruption and rebuilding the system was up to $300 million.

Merck’s CFO Robert Davis told investors that its NotPetya bill included $135 million in lost sales plus $175 million in additional costs. Fellow victims FedEx and French construction group Saint Gobain reported similar financial hits from lost business and clean-up costs.

The fast-expanding world of cryptocurrencies is also increasingly targeted. Echoes of the 2014 hack that triggered the collapse of Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox emerged this January when Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck pledged to repay customers $500 million stolen by hackers in a cyber heist.

The size and scope of last summer’s attacks accelerated discussions on both sides of the Atlantic, between risk managers and brokers seeking more comprehensive cyber business interruption insurance products.

It also recently persuaded Pool Re, the UK’s terrorism reinsurance pool set up 25 years ago after bomb attacks in London’s financial quarter, to announce that from April its cover will extend to include material damage and direct BI resulting from acts of terrorism using a cyber trigger.

“The threat from a cyber attack is evident, and businesses have become increasingly concerned about the extensive repercussions these types of attacks could have on them,” said Pool Re’s chief, Julian Enoizi. “This was a clear gap in our coverage which left businesses potentially exposed.”

Shifting Focus

Development of cyber BI insurance to date reveals something of a transatlantic divide, said Hans Allnutt, head of cyber and data risk at international law firm DAC Beachcroft. The first U.S. mainstream cyber insurance products were a response to California’s data security and breach notification legislation in 2003.

Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter, Beazley

Of more recent vintage, Europe’s first cyber policies’ wordings initially reflected U.S. wordings, with the focus on data breaches. “So underwriters had to innovate and push hard on other areas of cyber cover, particularly BI and cyber crimes such as ransomware demands and distributed denial of service attacks,” said Allnut.

“Europe now has regulation coming up this May in the form of the General Data Protection Regulation across the EU, so the focus has essentially come full circle.”

Cyber insurance policies also provide a degree of cover for BI resulting from one of three main triggers, said Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter for specialist insurer Beazley. “First is the malicious-type trigger, where the system goes down or an outage results directly from a hack.

“Second is any incident involving negligence — the so-called ‘fat finger’ — where human or operational error causes a loss or there has been failure to upgrade or maintain the system. Third is any broader unplanned outage that hits either the company or anyone on which it relies, such as a service provider.”

The importance of cyber BI covering negligent acts in addition to phishing and social engineering attacks was underlined by last May’s IT meltdown suffered by airline BA.

This was triggered by a technician who switched off and then reconnected the power supply to BA’s data center, physically damaging servers and distribution panels.

Compensating delayed passengers cost the company around $80 million, although the bill fell short of the $461 million operational error loss suffered by Knight Capital in 2012, which pushed it close to bankruptcy and decimated its share price.

Mistaken Assumption

Awareness of potentially huge BI losses resulting from cyber attack was heightened by well-publicized hacks suffered by retailers such as Target and Home Depot in late 2013 and 2014, said Matt Kletzli, SVP and head of management liability at Victor O. Schinnerer & Company.


However, the incidents didn’t initially alarm smaller, less high-profile businesses, which assumed they wouldn’t be similarly targeted.

“But perpetrators employing bots and ransomware set out to expose any firms with weaknesses in their system,” he added.

“Suddenly, smaller firms found that even when they weren’t themselves targeted, many of those around them had fallen victim to attacks. Awareness started to lift, as the focus moved from large, headline-grabbing attacks to more everyday incidents.”

Publications such as the Director’s Handbook of Cyber-Risk Oversight, issued by the National Association of Corporate Directors and the Internet Security Alliance fixed the issue firmly on boardroom agendas.

“What’s possibly of greater concern is the sheer number of different businesses that can be affected by a single cyber attack and the cost of getting them up and running again quickly.” — Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter, Beazley

Reformed ex-hackers were recruited to offer board members their insights into the most vulnerable points across the company’s systems — in much the same way as forger-turned-security-expert Frank Abagnale Jr., subject of the Spielberg biopic “Catch Me If You Can.”

There also has been an increasing focus on systemic risk related to cyber attacks. Allnutt cites “Business Blackout,” a July 2015 study by Lloyd’s of London and the Cambridge University’s Centre for Risk Studies.

This detailed analysis of what could result from a major cyber attack on America’s power grid predicted a cost to the U.S. economy of hundreds of billions and claims to the insurance industry totalling upwards of $21.4 billion.

Lloyd’s described the scenario as both “technologically possible” and “improbable.” Three years on, however, it appears less fanciful.

In January, the head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, Ciaran Martin, said the UK had been fortunate in so far averting a ‘category one’ attack. A C1 would shut down the financial services sector on which the country relies heavily and other vital infrastructure. It was a case of “when, not if” such an assault would be launched, he warned.

AI: Friend or Foe?

Despite daunting potential financial losses, pioneers of cyber BI insurance such as Beazley, Zurich, AIG and Chubb now see new competitors in the market. Capacity is growing steadily, said Allnutt.

“Not only is cyber insurance a new product, it also offers a new source of premium revenue so there is considerable appetite for taking it on,” he added. “However, whilst most insurers are comfortable with the liability aspects of cyber risk; not all insurers are covering loss of income.”

Matt Kletzli, SVP and head of management liability, Victor O. Schinnerer & Company

Kletzli added that available products include several well-written, broad cyber coverages that take into account all types of potential cyber attack and don’t attempt to limit cover by applying a narrow definition of BI loss.

“It’s a rapidly-evolving coverage — and needs to be — in order to keep up with changing circumstances,” he said.

The good news, according to a Fitch report, is that the cyber loss ratio has been reduced to 45 percent as more companies buy cover and the market continues to expand, bringing down the size of the average loss.

“The bad news is that at cyber events, talk is regularly turning to ‘what will be the Hurricane Katrina-type event’ for the cyber market?” said Kletzli.

“What’s worse is that with hurricane losses, underwriters know which regions are most at risk, whereas cyber is a global risk and insurers potentially face huge aggregation.”


Nor is the advent of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) necessarily cause for optimism. As Allnutt noted, while AI can potentially be used to decode malware, by the same token sophisticated criminals can employ it to develop new malware and escalate the ‘computer versus computer’ battle.

“The trend towards greater automation of business means that we can expect more incidents involving loss of income,” said Sané. “What’s possibly of greater concern is the sheer number of different businesses that can be affected by a single cyber attack and the cost of getting them up and running again quickly.

“We’re likely to see a growing number of attacks where the aim is to cause disruption, rather than demand a ransom.

“The paradox of cyber BI is that the more sophisticated your organization and the more it embraces automation, the bigger the potential impact when an outage does occur. Those old-fashioned businesses still reliant on traditional processes generally aren’t affected as much and incur smaller losses.” &

Graham Buck is editor of He can be reached at