Corporate & Business · NPO & Social Impact · Financial Operations & Risk
A deposit structure is not a discount. It is a claims-sensitive mechanism.
A lower premium can be a genuine saving or an unpriced transfer of risk back onto the client. Separating the two meant testing cover, excesses, wording, claims experience, broker capability and deposit mechanics before any rate difference counted.
- 56.7%
- negotiated portable-equipment premium
- 21.8%
- quoted motor premium, unconditional
- 31.4%
- combined, no deposit threshold
- 41.8%
- combined — conditional on claims
Proof context: A multi-policy programme with material motor and portable-equipment exposure
The situation
Material motor and portable-equipment exposure, across several policies
The organisation ran a multi-policy insurance programme with significant motor and portable-equipment exposure. KuTh reconstructed the programme, compared premium and rate structures, reviewed the claims evidence, tested alternative fleet mechanisms, and examined whether lower pricing changed the underlying cover or moved risk back onto the client.
That last question is the one that makes insurance different from most procurement categories. A lower premium can be a genuine saving, or it can be a transfer of risk that nobody has priced.
Results
Quoted, negotiated and conditional — kept apart
Scroll table sideways →
| Area | Status | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Portable electronic equipment, rate | Negotiated | 57.4% lower, after the scope of movable-equipment cover was challenged and clarified. |
| Portable electronic equipment, annual premium | Negotiated / quoted | 56.7% lower on an annualised comparison. |
| Motor and fleet, conventional annual premium | Quoted | 21.8% lower on a like-for-like comparison, before any deposit mechanism is applied. |
| Motor and portable electronics combined, conventional | Modelled | 31.4% lower — the combined effect of the conventional motor quote and the negotiated electronics premium. |
| Incumbent fleet deposit scenario | Modelled / conditional | Up to 30.0% lower, but only where annual claims stay below the relevant threshold. |
| Combined deposit alternative | Modelled / conditional | 41.8% lower — the highest figure available, and entirely dependent on claims behaviour. |
The deposit structures were tested against two real claims years
A deposit-based fleet structure does not simply substitute one fixed annual price for another. It changes when the premium is payable and on what condition.
In the higher-claims year, vehicle claims exceeded the incumbent threshold, the remaining premium became payable, and the deposit mechanism produced no net annual saving at all. In the lower-claims year the unpaid balance remained a saving and the full benefit was realised.
That is why every deposit figure on this page carries the word conditional. The 41.8% is real arithmetic on a real structure, and it is not a price.
The portable-equipment challenge
A cheaper rate had to survive a cover question first
Portable electronic equipment produced the largest rate movement and also the sharpest disagreement. The incumbent broker argued that movable laptops and tablets attract materially higher market rates, and queried whether the alternative rate could genuinely provide all-risk-style mobility cover.
The prospective broker clarified that laptops were included as portable electronic equipment under Business All Risks and electronic-equipment treatment, and supplied schedule evidence supporting the proposed placement.
The saving was accepted only once that question was answered on the schedule rather than in correspondence — because a lower rate for narrower cover is not a saving, and the challenge was the right one to make.
What else the review found
Structural questions that carry no percentage
- Policy consolidation. Whether a multi-policy structure was still the right architecture for the programme.
- Possible duplicated liability cover. Paying twice for the same exposure is a cost with no corresponding protection.
- Asset-cover breadth. Whether the schedules actually reached the assets the organisation relies on.
- Broker administration and claims stewardship. How claims are managed materially affects both cost and recovery, and is rarely part of a premium comparison.
Why this matters commercially
Insurance optimisation is not finding a cheaper quote
The financial outcome has to be tested against cover, excesses, policy wording, claims experience, broker capability and the mechanics of any deposit structure. Each of those can turn an apparent saving into an uncosted exposure.
Holding that line is what allowed this programme to identify material savings without presenting conditional scenarios as guaranteed results. The organisation can act on the 21.8% knowing what it is; it can consider the 41.8% knowing what it depends on.
Supporting documents