Was this set up by Frankel? Anyone who would set up a pooling plan and not have it properly funded or charge the needed premiums to keep it going or not set up proper underwriting standards has breached their fiduciary duty and should be held liable. I helped set up 2 programs in the 1980’s that are still going strong and the investment income pays most of the bills. The members are still reaping the benefits, but the members also have the right to veto any business who did not have the proper programs and culture in place. The members have to control their destiny, not some “advisor” or worse yet, an association.
Now that we know the puch line.. 51M needed … we need the rest of the story.
Did the members pay cheap rates during the soft market years? Were AIK’s closure rates off target? Was AIK’s cost per closed claim above average? What was KY Insurance Commissioner doing to prevent this type of hole.
Bottom, either the members paid too little for their workers’ comp program or they paid the correct rates and AIK did a poor job managing their cases.
The article says “if re-insurance would have been in place”. . .
Why would a State have allowed the formation of a SIF without
re-insurance in place? Did the fund have no aggregate retention beyond which reinsurance attached? In other words the group only had a per occurrence retention on their reinsurance program?
and you wonder why the feds maybe coming in when the state dept of ins is lacking in its responsibility for insurer fiscal solvency through its inforcement mandate.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Was this set up by Frankel? Anyone who would set up a pooling plan and not have it properly funded or charge the needed premiums to keep it going or not set up proper underwriting standards has breached their fiduciary duty and should be held liable. I helped set up 2 programs in the 1980’s that are still going strong and the investment income pays most of the bills. The members are still reaping the benefits, but the members also have the right to veto any business who did not have the proper programs and culture in place. The members have to control their destiny, not some “advisor” or worse yet, an association.
Now that we know the puch line.. 51M needed … we need the rest of the story.
Did the members pay cheap rates during the soft market years? Were AIK’s closure rates off target? Was AIK’s cost per closed claim above average? What was KY Insurance Commissioner doing to prevent this type of hole.
Bottom, either the members paid too little for their workers’ comp program or they paid the correct rates and AIK did a poor job managing their cases.
The article says “if re-insurance would have been in place”. . .
Why would a State have allowed the formation of a SIF without
re-insurance in place? Did the fund have no aggregate retention beyond which reinsurance attached? In other words the group only had a per occurrence retention on their reinsurance program?
and you wonder why the feds maybe coming in when the state dept of ins is lacking in its responsibility for insurer fiscal solvency through its inforcement mandate.