1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a method and computerized system for creating, publishing, underwriting, selling and managing insurance products, the issuance criteria and premium, for which, is based upon the technology utilized in connection with the insurable interest.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Underwriting is the process of establishing insurability and premium levels that will economically and profitably transfer risk from a policyholder to an insurance company. In determining insurability and premium, insurance carriers take into account such factors as profit goals, competition, legal restrictions and the costs associated with losses (claims costs), loss adjustment expenses (claim settlements), operational expenses (commission and brokerage fees), general administrative expenses, and the cost of capital.
More particularly, an insurance carrier typically assesses a unit of exposure on the basis of a premium, known and predicted exposure, and loss and expense experience. In this manner carriers establish the basis of potential loss and the general direction of trends in insurance claim costs. In setting and subsequently adjusting which risks to underwrite and the premium a carrier catalogs by time and place, accidents as well as changes in claim costs, claim frequencies, loss exposures, expenses and premiums; the impact of catastrophes on the premium rates; the effect of salvage and subrogation, coinsurance, coverage limits, deductibles, coverage limitations or type of risks that may affect the frequency or severity of claims; changes in the underwriting process, claims handling, case reserves and marketing practices that affect the experience; impact of external influences on the future experience, including the judicial environment, regulatory and legislative changes, fund availability, and the modifications that reflect the impact of individual risk rating plans on the overall experience. However, notably absent from the factors customarily taken into account and one of the most profound influences in loss experience is the effect of technology. Therefore, an underwriting process that considers the continuing technology revolution would be anticipated to better assess loss ratios for insurable interests.
It is widely assumed that using various technologies may reduce the risks of loss associated with building structures, generally. Consequently, state, local and national construction codes affecting such things as structural requirements, electrical standards, plumbing and paint are constantly being advanced. For example, home building codes throughout the United States have placed a minimum standard on requirements for construction to assure a minimally safe habitation and structural integrity under typical local conditions for geologic and meteorological occurrences. Beyond the requirements imposed through legal regulation, property owners may also employ systems that further militate against one or another loss or hazard. For well over a generation, home security systems have been utilized to reduce losses from dwelling break-ins. Many fire alarm systems automatically call fire stations minimizing fire damage and reducing human loss through early detection and central alarm at the appropriate responder location. In addition to fire notification, flame-retardants are in wide use to reduce damage from fire. In some instances one technology replaces another as to improve a condition that is inherently dangerous, but the replacement technology retains the fundamental objective of reducing damage. For example, asbestos has been virtually banned as a building material in favor of flame retarding products as a means for reducing fire hazards. As new hazards are discovered, newer technology will be incorporated to achieve the benefits of a safer society.
From a baseline related to minimum code requirements, underwriters of property and casualty insurance factor into the risk/loss proposition items that relate to the structure to be insured (by way of example, the year of construction, type of construction, area, roof materials, egresses, the property's physical address, its proximity to fire apparatuses such as fire hydrants or fire stations, proximity to environmental hazards, such as superfund dumps, large bodies of water and its current market and replacement value). Underwriters also take into account items not directly related to the physical properties of the insurable interest, but that have been statistically shown to correlate with risk/loss (by way of example, the insured's credit rating, age of the property owners, and the insured's prior claim history).
Contemporary underwriting practice is typically reduced to a binary choice to issue or not to issue a policy of insurance based upon the aggregate of statistically relevant underwriting criteria, rather than producing insurance products tailored to combinations of risk reduction technology. As such, the benefits of a class of technology may not be adequately considered during the underwriting process. Significantly, the range of efficacies associated with specific technologies within a class of technologies are ignored as a salient fact.
A prime example might be an underwriting practice that does not factor in the functional details of available sensor technology such as by way of example, the type and corresponding unique features of the spectrum of smoke detectors, fire detectors, intrusion systems, radiation, chemical or biological hazard detectors (such as the detection of disease producing infectious agents, causing viral infections or the presence of allergens related to common allergies and forms of sinusitis). Other examples of sensing potential damaging situations are: water level or leakage detectors, vibration detectors, and meteorological conditions.
Also, the current insurance underwriting practice does not factor in details on various actively responsive technologies that are currently available such as by way of example, the type (i.e. specific functionality) of sprinkler system, the presence of a chemical release system to, for instance, release fungicides to kill mold spores or water pumping systems to remove damaging water or products that communicate medical emergencies. Nor does the current insurance underwriting practice discriminate between self-reports by the potential insured of extant technology and actual, continuous functionality (monitoring) of relevant technology designed to reduce damage/risks.
Products as familiar as the common home alarm system or security lighting, to the less common sensors attached to screens and windows, would be considered the kinds of products that are readily available by today's consumer. Overlooked however are the safety advantages of slip-less floor covering, outside walkways constructed from materials that insure against the accumulation of ice and snow and/or have high friction qualities due to the materials of constructions. However, in the future there will be a wide variety of products that detect and/or ameliorate all forms of hazards to property and health that will be available and utilized depending upon the value, as well as the incentives provided, such as through less expensive insurance premiums.
The insurance industry has long recognized the risk reduction concomitant to the incorporation of certain products in buildings. Certain products keep loss premium ratios down as well as providing a benefit to the property owners in terms of reduced property loss and improved health.
Thousands of separate and distinct materials and products are employed in the construction of homes and commercial buildings. Large numbers of such building products have a significant impact upon personal safety and the ability of the structure to withstand catastrophic events. Architects, builders and home owners have considerable opportunity to chose among diverse products that might for purposes of discussion be separated into categories such as building materials, sensor technologies and responder technologies. An exhaustive list of products from those categories, alone pertaining to loss prevention and mitigation could reasonably be expected to run into the millions of combination (e.g. more than 100 different materials times, 100 different sensor technologies times 100 different responder technologies). Various specific combinations may have corresponding efficacies with regard to the amelioration of loss. In each instance, the consumer would anticipate a corresponding premium to reflect the expected loss ratios attendant to using a particular product or combination of products (and might be influenced to make more economically sound judgments in incorporating materials/technologies that reduce damage/risk, if the benefit of such choices could be clearly articulated in costs savings from reduced premiums over the life of the material/technology in question).
However, the insurance industry generally does not factor into its actuarial computations or underwriting rules the reduction in risk with sufficient specificity to affect premiums or expand coverage that can be underwritten within acceptable loss premium ratios (either by increasing specificity as to exclusions, qualifying risk allocation based upon risk reduction technology or providing extended coverage under excess premium conditions). Nor does the industry publish or otherwise make available to the consumer sufficient information on the underwriting process to allow the consumer to adequately select militating technology that could result in significant costs savings, both to the consumer and the insurance underwriter. In as much as classical underwriting depends to a large degree on statistics surrounding conditions relevant to loss, the difficulty in utilizing technologic innovation in the actuarial computations has to do with the small sample sizes and/or lack of data on the ameliorating effect of a particular technology.
As apparent, the salient combination of technologies utilized in a building may be vast, and searching for specific combinations and relating them to loss ratio and premiums is a time consuming process utilizing current information processing systems. Nonetheless, such systems may feasibly be handled with such technologies as neural networks as discussed in such patents as U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,696,907 and 5,893,072.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds