Claims Adjusting, Actuarial Services Business Guide
Get Solutions, Not Just Problems
We documented 31 challenges in Claims Adjusting, Actuarial Services. Now get the actionable solutions — vendor recommendations, process fixes, and cost-saving strategies that actually work.
Skip the wait — get instant access
- All 31 documented pains
- Business solutions for each pain
- Where to find first clients
- Pricing & launch costs
All 31 Documented Cases
Unzureichende Exposurmodellierung führt zu Fehlkalkulation von Katastrophenschäden
€2-5bn annual European catastrophe loss estimation error; typical German firm: €50-200M reserve miscalculation per catastrophe event; 40-80 hours/month manual model validation and claims reconciliation per actuarial teamGerman insurers and reinsurers rely on catastrophe models to quantify low-frequency, high-severity losses. However, the search results reveal systemic gaps in exposure modeling accuracy: (1) AXA spent significant resources developing its own European flood model because existing external models were insufficient for pan-European risk quantification. (2) EIOPA data shows a 'significant insurance protection gap' in the EU, with only 25% of natural catastrophe losses insured. (3) Munich Re's NatCatSERVICE database exists precisely because standardized loss analysis is fragmented. The 2020 southern Germany flooding event (€5bn total losses, €2.2bn insured) demonstrates the gap between modeled and actual losses. Claims adjusters manually reconcile model outputs against claims data, introducing delays and errors.
Manuelle Datenintegration und modellübergreifende Validierung verursachen Overhead-Kosten
200-400 hours/year manual model validation and data mapping per actuarial team (€15-25K labor cost); €5-15K annual licensing and API integration costs for multiple model platforms; 10-20% schedule delay in catastrophe response due to model reconciliation bottlenecksThe search results highlight fragmentation in catastrophe modeling infrastructure: (1) AXA's challenge statement explicitly notes that developing a single European flood model required 'more hydrological expertise from different parts of the flooding world' because existing fragmented models were insufficient. (2) Verisk, Aon, and Munich Re maintain separate global model suites, requiring firms to license and validate multiple systems. (3) Aon's Oasis Loss Modeling Framework integration is mentioned as a capability—implying that importing results from 'two or more analyses' is a manual, non-native process. (4) The need for 'high-resolution' city-level models (3m resolution for Cologne, London, Paris) suggests that firms must manually aggregate or downscale vendor models for local German claims assessment.
Manuelle Schadenbewertung und Claims-Verarbeitung während Katastrophenereignisse verursacht Kapazitätsengpässe
€10-30M annual opportunity cost per German insurer (lost claims capacity × days of delay); 15-25 working days lost per major catastrophe event per claims department; 30-50% reduction in claims processing throughput during multi-event yearsThe search results reveal that catastrophe modeling produces financial estimates ('Each simulated event produced by a model is translated into an effect on the modeled exposures, usually in the form of damage. Calculated damage is then interpreted as financial estimates') but requires skilled manual interpretation. The 2020 southern Germany flooding (€5bn total losses) demonstrates the scale: thousands of residential claims required manual damage assessment while claims adjusters simultaneously validated whether the catastrophe model accurately predicted the loss distribution. During such events, claims teams face: (1) Queue backlogs (claims awaiting triage and assignment), (2) Dual-entry problem (manual claims entry + model scenario validation), (3) Expert bottleneck (senior adjusters required for complex claim-to-model mapping), (4) Rework when initial estimates diverge significantly from actual settlement values.
Unvollständige Dokumentation von Katastrophenschaden-Modellierungsprozessen führt zu Betriebsprüfungs-Risiken
€5-50K per Betriebsprüfung (audit fine for inadequate documentation); 50-100 hours/year remedial compliance work per actuarial team (€7-15K labor cost); potential 10-20% disallowance of claimed reserves if audit finds insufficient model documentationThe search results indicate that catastrophe models operate as complex proprietary systems requiring transparency and back-testing. Milliman notes that catastrophe models 'incorporate scientific understanding about risk drivers' and produce outputs ('financial estimates, integrating insurance policy terms such as insured limits and deductibles'). However, vendor models typically provide limited transparency into parameter assumptions. AXA's solution emphasizes that 'the transparency of the model will enhance AXA's reports to regulators' and that 'we can understand and explain each and every part of the model'—implying that standard vendor models lack this transparency. German tax auditors (Betriebsprüfung) and BaFin regulators increasingly demand: (1) Full documentation of model assumptions, (2) Sensitivity analysis showing impact of parameter changes on reserves, (3) Back-testing results comparing modeled losses to actual claims, (4) Audit trails showing which model version was used in which reserve decision. Non-compliance with GoBD §14 UStG (digital documentation) and Solvency II Article 19 (governance) can result in fines.