Global Market Reviews

A group representing the insurance regulators has been meeting over the last few days. There have been a number of issues on their agenda, but the most interesting has been whether to adopt a policy for every state to require its local insurance companies to offer pay-as-you-drive policies. These policies have a simple purpose. If motorists drive less, there’s a reduction in the level of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a good thing because it will cut down on the overall damage to the environment. No matter what you believe about climate change, this will improve the health of the many who suffer from skin allergies and asthma caused by the pollution. The insurance companies therefore reduce the premiums for those who drive less. Not only is this environmentally responsible, it’s also good business sense. Lowering premiums attracts more business, but if these drivers reduce the number of miles they drive a year, their risk profile is lower. They should be involved in fewer accidents. This becomes a way of reducing premiums but maintaining profitability.

The regulators advocating this mandatory approach were using a number of other programs as their model. In the appliance industry, there are rating standards called Energy Star. As an example of using this program to promote environmentally sound practice, Maryland is offering an appliance rebate scheme if local people buy energy-efficient refrigerators, water heaters and washing machines. In the building industry, there’s a national building code called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). A certificate issued by the US Green Building Council confirms the design meets the nationally accepted benchmarks for sustainability. Because of the savings in running costs, rents are usually lower and business benefits. Applying the same principles to vehicle insurance assumes drivers will act rationally when offered lower prices and drive less. The Brookings Institution estimates the introduction of this pricing model across the country would reduce the use of private vehicles for travel by about 8%. This would save every household about $300 a year and reduce emotions by about 2%. But the regulators decided not to force the adoption of this format of policy. Read the rest of this entry »

The US is justly proud of its reputation as the home of modern capitalism and has promoted the idea of free markets to skeptical countries around the world. The fact that a bubble in the property market fuelled this recession does not change the philosophical power of the US economic model. When it works properly, the free market pushes businesses to compete. This improves the quality of service and keeps down the price. The consumer benefits. All federal government need do is intervene when there is clear evidence of a company abusing its dominant position to damage the consumers’ interests. Unfortunately, under the last administration, antitrust enforcement was scaled back. Worse, there were deeply entrenched monopolies and cartels that could not be investigated or regulated. The leading example of this immunity is enjoyed by the insurance industry. Some sixty-five years ago, it was exempted from federal antitrust laws by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This is a sad example of corruption in government. Vested interests bought enough votes to get the Act passed. Lobbyists’ money has kept the immunity in place ever since.

Why is this immunity as bad thing? Competition improves choice. Given a reasonable number of companies competing in the same market, each must offer features to distinguish their product from the others. Once consumers see one product is better, they will transfer their business. The competitors must therefore match or improve on those features to win back market share. If there’s no effective competition, an artificially small number of products will be offered. The companies will agree not to compete on quality and price which rigs the market and divides it up between the suppliers. In the insurance market, patients have been paying artificially high prices. Doctors have also been paying inflated prices for their medical malpractice insurance. At a time when the costs of healthcare and drugs have been rising faster than inflation, this is penalizing the US consumer and the taxpayer who often ends up subsidising payment of these inflated prices. There is no justification for retaining this immunity. Read the rest of this entry »

The modern society has very strong litigious mechanisms and dynamics. And small businesses risk facing professional liability that will more likely end their existence than in case of big enterprises. However, the majority of small business owners do not think much about developing a reliable insurance portfolio for their enterprises, which would provide protection and risk assessment to the right extent. And that’s certainly not the best strategy for those who want their businesses to grow and develop well.

Building up an insurance portfolio

Don’t expect to find a universal solution for small businesses, as there’s no such thing as one-size-fits-all insurance portfolio for small enterprises. You will have to personally adjust and tailor your insurance policy in order to make sure your insurance needs are met to the right extent, combining numerous insurance products into a single portfolio. A typical insurance policy for small businesses is likely to include the following elements:

• Property insurance (covering damage to your buildings or property);
• General liability (covering damage to other party’s property);
• Errors and omissions (covering liability due to business practice faults);
• Workers’ compensation insurance (covering legal actions between you and your employees).

The purpose of errors and omissions insurance

Errors and omissions (E&O) is a special type of insurance coverage that is used for protecting your coverage against legal actions due to production mistakes. This is the same thing that is called malpractice in medical industry. Such errors represent a very high grade risk in any business circles. The following are some types of E&O a small business might experience (and get sued for, respectively): Read the rest of this entry »