IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/rmgtin/v28y2025i4p534-587.html

Do customers opt for insurance products with a simplified loss settlement logic?

Author

Listed:
  • Laurenz Hommel
  • Hato Schmeiser

Abstract

Property and Casualty (P&C) products with a simplified loss settlement logic (SLSL) can reduce insurers' combined ratios by up to five percentage points, as they lower underwriting and claims administration costs. However, these products introduce basis risk for policyholders. As shown in the theoretical section of our paper, policyholders who use an exponential utility function tend to combine traditional indemnity insurance with SLSL‐based insurance to mitigate this risk. In the empirical section, we investigate willingness to pay for SLSL‐based insurance using a behavioral experiment involving a low sum insured. The experiment revealed no significant difference in willingness to pay between indemnity insurance and SLSL‐based products. This could be for a number of reasons, including that participants do not fully understand basis risk and its implications, the convenience of insuring with an SLSL product outweighs basis risk, or they perceive products to be of similar value if basis risk is not severe. Insurers could test demand for SLSL insurance in a pilot scheme. However, they should proceed with caution to mitigate the risks of potential litigation and reputational damage.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurenz Hommel & Hato Schmeiser, 2025. "Do customers opt for insurance products with a simplified loss settlement logic?," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 28(4), pages 534-587, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:rmgtin:v:28:y:2025:i:4:p:534-587
    DOI: 10.1111/rmir.70026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.70026
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rmir.70026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:rmgtin:v:28:y:2025:i:4:p:534-587. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1098-1616 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.