September 2014 Bermuda:Re/insurance+ILS 31


Three aviation losses this year have hit aviation underwriters hard. Many claims have been paid and shared already, yet question marks remain as to how these events will affect rates and behaviour in this niche market.


I


n order to comprehend the true insurance repercussions of such tragic, extraordinary events as the losses of Malaysian Airlines flights MH370 and MH17, one first needs to understand their context in terms of how the resulting insured losses are


being settled. As Ian Wrigglesworth, global practice leader of Guy Carpenter’s


aviation and aerospace business explained: “The complexity with the losses is really which particular coverage is picked up, in which markets and which sectors.”


The first loss—the disappearance of MH370—is being shared


between hull war underwriters and hull risk underwriters in a 50:50 advance settlement. This is the current situation, according to Wrigglesworth, who said that “the claim has been paid and shared, but the merits of each of them paying an equal share or otherwise will be discussed at a later time”.


The liability loss, on the other hand, remains a subject of uncertainty until the policy leader posts an official reserve figure, as is usually the case. In this instance, Allianz will use gathered data on the passenger mix and loss expectations to calculate this figure, eventually releasing it into the market. This access to data means that Allianz is therefore the most accurate judge when it comes to this kind of information.


One might think there would be extensive implications when


it comes to designating the cause of the MH370 loss, considering the plane ‘disappeared’ under mysterious circumstances. The loss designation will impact the hull portion of the loss only however, and as it stands the all risks market and hull war market will split the $108 million hull loss down the middle.


This all hangs in the balance however, as Doug Morrison, Arch Re’s managing director of treaty casualty and aviation explained: “If the cause is determined to be a deliberate act by the pilot, the hull war market will then be liable for the full hull loss amount.”


The shooting down of MH17 over a combat zone presents a more complex situation. As described by Wrigglesworth, a three-way payout split means that the war market would pay for the physical damage to the hull, the passengers would be covered by the all risks market under Malaysian Airlines’ normal passenger liability policy, and a separate panel of insurers would be presented with a further claim if there was any third party involvement from air traffic control or others.


Additionally, according to an AM Best briefing on the insurance implications of MH17, The Montreal Convention provides a payout of approximately $175,000 to each family, and permits them to sue the airline and the airplane’s manufacturer for additional damages. However, the airline’s liability exposure per passenger will be capped unless it is deemed to have been negligent.


Looking ahead, Wrigglesworth believes that pricing will be the only major factor facing Malaysian Airlines when it comes to obtaining future coverage. He says that regardless of the high profile losses suffered by the airline, brokers will assist Malaysia Airlines if they actively search the market. “They’ll be able to fill out the slip depending on the price that is charged—so it is dependent on price rather than struggling to obtain coverage in the first place,” he said.


Lloyd’s is still the preeminent quoting market for aviation hull war business, so Wrigglesworth said that he would expect it to be very involved with the original placement and its rating, as well as providing existing and future capacity. AM Best’s report states that as an industry leader in the global aviation sector, the Lloyd’s market will undoubtedly be affected by recent passenger liability claims, as will a number of global reinsurers. Due to Lloyd’s players’ level of exposure and the general nature of the losses, a complex and lengthy settlement period is anticipated.


According to recent reports, MH17 is valued at approximately $97


million, so there is more certainty in terms of the overall cost of physical damage. AM Best’s MH17 briefing confirmed that Lloyd’s Syndicate 609 and its co-insurers, managed by Atrium Underwriters, are responsible for settling the hull war policy for Malaysia Airlines MH17 and instigating the collection of funds.


AM Best’s briefing states however that given the diversified nature of business underwritten by those involved in providing coverage, “AM Best does not expect to take any rating actions in response to this single large loss.”


Yet, some ambiguity remains as to whether the agreement is to be settled on the basis that the early key facts are correct; that the hull war insurers, not the all risks policy, are held liable; and that the plane was indeed shot down. This uncertainty means reaching finality regarding payout will prove difficult.


What does this all mean?


These aviation disasters provide some indication of the challenges facing those entering specialty markets, as many are looking to do as


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60