top of page

Leveraged best practices and good loss experience to return $80,000 year after year

A best-in-class processing equipment manufacturer had been seeing a decrease in their loss experience, yet they were not seeing a decrease in how much they were paying for insurance.


They were curious to learn if there was a way to incentivize their increased focus on safety and best practices. Their current program was "off the shelf" and was not designed to meet their specific needs.

An icon illustrating Cottingham & Butler's proprietary Risk Management Assessment (RMA).

After engaging with Cottingham & Butler's Risk Management Assessment (RMA), they quickly learned that there was not only a better way to buy insurance, but that there were significant coverage deficiencies in their program. The company recognized the value of a customized loss-sensitive program, as well as having a broker partner who would advocate on their behalf for claims.


Program Design

  • Delivered a loss-sensitive program option, Horizon, that would allow the company to receive up to 50% of their premium back for good loss years.

  • Identified 3 carriers that had never seen the account before, and had an interest in the business.


Coverage

  • Identified 20 coverage deficiencies in their existing program.

  • Significant deficiencies include:

    • Multiple sub-limits were inadequate compared to their operations.

    • The policy was designed for Architect and Engineering Professionals, NOT for Manufacturers. Multiple exclusions related to the core business operations of the company were present.

    • No flood/earthquake coverage in a high-risk area.


Contractual Risk Transfer

  • Highlighted areas of concern and how their current risk transfer methods were inadequate for their industry and line of work. Cottingham & Butler put together recommendations and corrected critical mistakes in policy language


Stability

  • After joining Horizon, the company experienced a large loss in its first year of implementation. Even after the loss, their spend was similar. By paying in guaranteed cost, they avoided the increases they would have seen in the standard market.

  • Since then, the company has received $80,000+ each year for their good loss experience.


Claims Advocacy

  • While the company had great loss experience, they had not previously received any claims reviews or advocacy services. After being made aware of the impacts of delayed reporting, their claims reporting processes were improved and consistent claim reviews were scheduled with the team.

Comments


bottom of page