BOKRIM Thinking

Some risks, like sexual abuse and misconduct (SAM) risk, are too complex, dynamic, and severe to allow insurance information asymmetries to persist

It is normal practice in negotiating to seek to gain as much information advantage as possible.  Traditionally in insurance negotiations, applicants for insurance know more about their risks and how they are managing them.  Insurers have more and better information about the frequency and severity of insured events. 

However, as risks like sexual abuse and misconduct (SAM) risk become more complex, exploiting the arguable benefits of more or better information in small subsets of risk and risk management information comes at great cost.  Neither applicants nor insurers have the information each needs to make the well-enough informed SAM risk decisions that the increasing complexity, dynamism, and severity of SAM risk now demands.  

SAM risk managers need much better information than is currently available to manage SAM risk well.  The current lack of reliable information means SAM risk managers can only hope they are managing SAM risk well but they cannot know for sure. 

SAM insurers need far better information to offer the coverage, services, and sustainable pricing they and their customers both need.  The current lack of reliable information means insurance is more expensive, less extensive, and less profitable than it could be.   

Minimizing asymmetries of SAM risk information by having insureds and insurers collaborate to develop more and better SAM risk and risk management information in each other’s interests is a BOKRIM core principle.

Like this article?

Leave a comment